by Judith Curry
A letter from Grant Petty provides a fitting finale to our engagement with the skydragons.
If you somehow missed the previous Skydragon threads, check them out, they have generated thousands of comments:
http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/04/slaying-a-greenhouse-dragon-part-ii/
http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/04/slaying-a-greenhouse-dragon-part-iii-discussion/
http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/10/greenhouse-dragon-technical-discussion-thread/
http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/13/slaying-the-greenhouse-dragon-part-iv/
I continue to be cc’ed on some of the (voluminous) Skydragon correspondence, most of which I ignore, but I started seeing messages to and from Grant Petty. FYI, Grant Petty is a Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Wisconsin and author of the text A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation. I have known Grant for decades, he does research in radiative transfer and remote sensing and is a superb educator and writer.
So I started paying attention to this thread of emails (which seem to have numbered in the hundreds). I’ve counted 41 messages from Grant Petty since Oct 10, and there could have been several hundreds of emails from the various dragonslayers. If you’ve followed the Skydragon threads, you can imagine the obtuseness, false accusations, deliberate misrepresentations, sophistry etc. that dominated these emails. But Grant was doing a serious job in engaging with them, motivated by standing up for scientific principles.
The letter that I am highlighting here was stimulated by this statement from Joe Postma:
> In a large way, we are driven to do the research we do because of the
> myriad and countless other fraudulent claims, presumptions, and
> sophistries related to climate science. It has become apparent to us
> that the errors extend to the deepest level of the science.
Grant’s letter is reproduced here with his permission.
Grant Petty’s letter
To all Slayers:
As one who has no direct professional stake in the science of climate
change but who regularly observes my colleagues working hard and sharing
ideas to understand real data and to add pieces to the jigsaw puzzle, I am
quite confident that you vastly overestimate the role of fraudulent claims
and fundamental errors in the science. The nature of real modern science
is that fraudulent claims don’t go undetected long, because too many
people are working on pieces of the same giant jigsaw puzzle, and when
pieces don’t fit, they look around for the reason. And no one has any
incentive to let others get away with bad science – on the contrary,
science is very competitive when it comes to getting funding. Do you
realize that only a fraction of submitted proposals get funded, and that
academic scientists’ promotion and tenure depend on their getting funded?
Everyone’s goal is to show that they can find and patch shortcomings in
the science and to answer the unanswered questions so as to improve their
own standing. Do you really thing it’s some old-boys’ club, everyone
covering each other’s rear? And do you really think climate scientists
get rich promoting global warming? Any moderately successful doctor or
lawyer makes way more money than most climate scientists, at least in this
country.
The models aren’t perfect; no one says that they are. But they’re a
damned sight more grounded in real science and physics than the naive but
cocky “proofs” published in blogs by the self-taught, and the blanket
unfounded assertions (“there is no two-way exchange of radiation because
we say there isn’t”) that somehow passes for science in this group.
In each of your cases, I predict that one of two things is going to happen
down the road: (1) the gaps and contradictions in your own collective
understanding of physical and climate science will become so evident that
you can no longer ignore them, and you just might even feel a little shame
at your roles in aggressively promoting misinformation and distrust of
experts among those who aren’t equipped to tell science from
pseuodoscience; or (2) you will close your eyes to that evidence forever
and continue to be the conspiracy theorists who believe that you’re
modern-day Galileos fighting the evil scientific establishment, and
everything you see and hear will be forced to fit into that paranoid
world-view no matter how divorced from reality it is. And in your
missionary zeal, you’ll drag real scientists into court and try to prove
that they’re frauds and liars, costing them and their families time,
money, and personal distress. And in the end, you’ll succeed in proving
that only in your own eyes, because most or all of them are actually just
trying to do good science.
Some of you have shown yourselves to be hyper-critical, even gleeful, in
finding apparent fault with the intelligence and/or knowledge of others,
including (or especially) those who actually spend their whole lives doing
climate research. I hope to God that some of you, at least, learn how to
be a little self-critical as well.
Good luck.
Grant
JC comment. Grant was unaware of the previous skydragon threads at Climate Etc. The skydragons continue to expect me to debate them, their preferred forum is a radio debate. While I will never shut the door on skeptical challenges to the science and encourage contributions from those from different areas of expertise, this group beggars belief. I will continue to (barely) follow Claes Johnson’s work to see if he is able to come with anything interesting or publishable. IMO, this group has damaged the credibility of skepticism about climate change and provides a convenient target when people want to refer to “deniers” and crackpots. So thank you Grant Petty for your engagement and independent assessment of this group.
“The nature of real modern science
is that fraudulent claims don’t go undetected long, because too many
people are working on pieces of the same giant jigsaw puzzle, and when
pieces don’t fit, they look around for the reason. ”
Sure. Tell that to all the dead children who didn’t get vaccinated because of the bogus paper published in the Lancet about autism and the MMR vaccine.
13 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy
More importantly tell this to the millions facing starvation because their food has been taken away to be used as feedstock for biofuel production in support of this global warming folly.
As always, it is a multidimensional problem. We just so happen to have fossil fuel depletion (the Peak Oil problem) conveniently coinciding with AGW to create even more a mess of the situation than we can easily deal with. The global majority of biofuels are produced to deal with oil scarcity than due to AGW concerns.
We have a US Administration that is trying its best to push up the cost of energy; costing us not only money; but jobs, national prestige; and causing more poverty, anguish, starvation, and pain. What we need is an Administration and Congress that will let the oil and coal companies do their jobs and bring us cheap energy. The government could also fast-track small nuclear reactors, start a moon-shot type program for thorium-based energy, and facilitate the building of conventional nuclear power plants. Crying ‘peak oil’ just doesn’t get it anymore.
jim2
While I have little problem with private companies taking moon-shot approaches to practical alternate energy programs such as the one you suggest (there certainly are many mature and large enough to invest in the risk and reap the rewards), you appear to be one-sidedly conflating misery’s causes and misery’s cures.
I have no comment on the present or past US Administrations, the various lunacies of the various nominees and commentators in America have so muddied that ground as to make wading through it untenable.
We, however, most certainly do not need government to ‘let the oil and coal companies do their jobs and bring us cheap energy’ by continuing to subsidize and give special priviledges to these private enterprises, which appears to be your subtext.
This is not true cheap energy, but rather one of the most expensive ways when all impacts are accounted for to get energy to a nation possible.
By creating an artificial barrier to entry to the energy market though the extremely high subsidies and infrastructure policies, governments put a drag on innovation, raise the price of competing energy (thereby lessening competition on coal and oil and driving up their prices), and introduce all the usual issues of churn and opportunity cost of a national revenue process to the energy sector.
Shame on them, and shame on you for endorsing this pretend-ideological government interference in the private sector disguised as the ‘let them do their jobs’ creed of real economic principles. It is corporate communism of the worst sort.
Stop taking tax from the income and retail spending of Americans and plowing it into coal mines and BP and Exxon and ADM’s pockets.
An efficient economy benefits from the democracy of the marketplace, which can only be produced where government does not distort decisions by manipulating prices of goods.
Further, every scarce resource it is possible to administrate effectively has a price placed on its private exploitation. This is the fundamental mechanism of Capitalism. It applies to bandwidth for cell phones and to land for farming and housing, licenses for hunting and fishing, utilities and mines.. everything. Except the carbon cycle.
That loophole must be closed. It is the imperative of the market to fix a price for scarce resources, so their allocation will be efficient.
The government is failing its duty to maintain an orderly and fair free market.
Gee Bart R. You are putting words in my mouth. Speak for yourself!!! I never said the government should give subsidies to oil and coal companies. I really don’t see how that would be the government getting out of the way and I question your understanding of English. I’m for the government not subsidizing any energy source other than nuclear. Nuclear needs some extra oversight due to the nature of the energy source and nuclear waste. Oil and coal companies can fend for themselves, but in their case the government needs to get out of the way and let them drill and dig where the resources are, and that includes fracking for shale oil and nat gas.
Jim and Bart,
The merits of capitalism vs socialism is a diversion – not the issue.
The question is whether or not AGW proponents have been addressing reality, as exposed by experimental data and observations, or hiding from reality.
I am delighted that Professor Grant Petty is here and listed experimental data and observations below for him to address.
Bart you need to educate yourself to distinguish between accounting “tricks” available to all industries and specifically energy companies. Once you do that the so called subsidies melt away.
DEEBEE
Bart you need to educate yourself to distinguish between accounting “tricks” available to all industries and specifically energy companies. Once you do that the so called subsidies melt away.
Indeed, the subject of “accounting tricks” has been covered quite extensively in my education and experience, and not just those of corporations but also of governments.
Any industry can lobby governments and fund candidates to obtain favors, can use its wealth and influence to make arguments it is too big to fail or will bring jobs and miscellaneous benefits to a regional voter base or see its agenda promoted through subterfuge and obfuscation.
How does that make us anything but dupes to credit them with virtue?
Examine the ratios of any other industry in comparison with the fossil fuel industry and its dependents for grants, gifts, remission of fees, expensing of taxes, bailouts, government guarantees, removal of protections from other resources and other interest groups, and the “accounting tricks” stand out like an infected middle digit offered in contempt to anyone who could have availed themselves of the same tricks but for the grace of self-respect and some shred of moral decency.
Sure, other industries also have questionable and contrary practices. The weed of corporate capitalism takes eager root when greed and sloth infest the boardroom. However, the fossil industries have it down to a fine art, so habitually addicted are they to handout and relief, the winking eye of weak enforcement policy and friends in low places and high.
Mathematics does not care one way or the other for self-respect or morality; the numbers at the cold bottom of the equation end up the same. Simply put, these “accounting tricks” distort the economy, and the stack of distortions coated in the grime of coal mines and tarred with the grease of oil wells and oilsands is a monument to serial stupidity of governments.
We want our economy to run efficiently, we cut out the canker of greedy, short-sighted accounting tricks.
In short order, once this accounting sludge is drained from the system, it will turn toward the natural health and vigor of a free market.
That this just happens to mean runaway emission of CO2 in America, subsidized as an accident of this too cozy trickery, will fall from its spectacular levels of conspicuous consumption and waste to a less insane level makes it a climate issue. That so many co-opted accountants and pseudoeconomists still support theories of fiscal policy that excuse such prestidigitations of finance makes it a parallel to the skydragon cult.
So far it seems that none of the pieces fit the jigsaw very well. Most of the claims from 10 to 15 years ago have proved bogus – a short list
the IPCC completely botched its forecasts for East African rainfall in claiming the Horn of Africa should expect more precipitation.
Snowfall would be a thing of the past ?
Millions of climate refugees because of rising sea levels?
as an outsider looking in to me it seems to me that a portion of the climate scientists are honest. However they seem to be out shouted by the less ethical.
Of the less ethical some genuinely think they are saving the world from itself, some believe going against the main stream will doom them professionally, and some blindly push false or unproven beliefs because their egos will not permit them to recognize they were wrong years ago, a very small percentage continue with the CAGW farce because of greed and for some for it is a combination of the above.
“And do you really think climate scientists get rich promoting global warming?”
No, but they get paid. Global warming is a ‘paying premise’ – see the inordinate number of research proposals beginning “To investigate the effect of global warming on….”
Yes, their motivation is as obvious in the first sentence as that in other even lower paid “professions”.
“see the inordinate number of research proposals beginning “To investigate the effect of global warming on….””
Please define “inordinate”, and provide some examples of such proposals.
Bruce: the autism paper was received with great scepticism by medical researchers and was quickly rebutted in the literature. The tragedy was that ignorant and prejudiced journalists hyped it to an outrageous extent and took it upon themselves to persuade parents not to vaccinate their children. The scientific process worked fairly well; the process by which science is communicated to the public failed disastrously.
13 years for the Lancet to retract is not “quickly rebutted”.
Note too that it was The Lancet, which advertises itself as “the world’s leading general medical journal.”
Do you think that nothing happened during that 13 years? Numerous major studies were published, none of which supported the original claims. The flawed study was indeed quickly rebutted, long before it was finally retracted.
In 2004, 10 of the 13 co-authors signed a formal retraction.
SIX years later, the Lancet retracted the paper.
http://briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-retraction.htm
Quickly? I don’t think so.
Bruce, you need to look up the words “rebutted” and “retracted.” The fact that a journal won’t “retract” a published paper in NO way means the paper wasn’t “rebutted” — or even shown to have been fraudulent, as was the case with Andrew Wakefield’s fraudulent vaccine study.
Science is not held hostage by any single science journal editor. There are many examples of editors refusing to retract one of their discredited papers. Lancet’s editor, Richard Horton, to his lasting shame, took too many years to retract his colleague’s fraudulent study. But that in no way means the scientific community did not examine, rebut, and reject its claims long before the retraction.
RW is absolutely right (and you are wrong). The science community trashed Wakefield’s paper in Lancet. The great harm was done by the “ignorant and prejudiced [and I’d add immoral] journalists,” who misinformed the public by pretending that Wakefield’s findings were credible when they clearly were not.
Fortunately, there was one courageous, well-informed, and persistent journalist — Brian Deer — who pursued the truth until Wakefield’s fraud was finally proven. But Brian Deer is an exceptional journalist. Most of his colleagues have little commitment to finding the truth. They hide behind the cowardly dishonest and unethical practice of “balanced reporting.” The duty of honest journalists is to weigh the evidence for readers — not “balance” it. When evidence is overwhelmingly against the truth of a claim, attempts by reporters to “balance” the evidence is no different than lying.
Predictable that all the anecdotal observations will start to come out of the woodwork. The problem with an anecdotal view is that those of us that understand how science works know that the occasional fluke will happen and we learn how to deal with it. The rest think anecdotes actually prove something, and news organizations specialize in this point of view.
WHT
Do you not think there may be a lesson to learn from the anecdotes and exceptions?
Perhaps that scientists ought be more media savvy, more publicly active on policy, and quicker and more vocal to rebutt sloppy journalism, repetition of error and fraud, and devotedly activist against anti-scientific attitudes?
Sounds good to me. I can only observe that the media likes to report on coincidences, freaks, and miracles, because that is what the public wants to hear about.
“”Fundamentally flawed”: that’s how a January 2001 report described ten research papers based on body parts taken from hundreds of dead children without their parents’ consent. Yet more than a decade on, Nature has learned, only one of those papers has been removed from the scientific record.
The lack of action, even in what seems to be a clear-cut case, highlights the reluctance of institutions and journals to retract papers when the authors stand by the results.”
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110816/full/476263a.html
“T]here were just 22 retraction notices that appeared in journals 10 years ago, but 139 were published in 2006 and by last year, the number reached 339. Through July of this year, there were a total 210 retractions, according to Thomson Reuters Web of Science, which maintains an index of 11,600 peer-reviewed journals.
Meanwhile, retractions related to fraud rose more than sevenfold between 2004 and 2009, exceeding a twofold rise traced to mistakes, according to an analysis published in the Journal of Medical Ethics. After studying 742 papers that were withdrawn from 2000 to 2010, the analysis found that 73.5 percent were retracted simply for error, but 26.6 percent were retracted for fraud. Ominously, 31.8 percent of retracted papers were not noted as retracted”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/12/the-newest-hockey-stick/
Again, Bruce, you confuse “retraction” with “rebutting” or even “discredited.” Bad science, bogus science, and even fraudulent science is being disputed, rebutted, and even discredited every day all over the world. “Retracting” a paper, however, is much harder to do — and often not necessary for the self-correcting process of science to work.
After all, the discredited paper has resulted in the publication of many commentaries and other papers being published in more recent journals that point out the errors or falsehoods of the discredited paper for readers to see.
It is wrong to claim that the scientific record can’t be corrected without retraction.
“26.6 percent were retracted for fraud”
And those are the ones that got caught.
Quit apologizing for fraudsters masquerading as scientists.
Bruce, I did no such thing. You should be ashamed for mischaracterizing my statement like this.
“It is wrong to claim that the scientific record can’t be corrected without retraction.”
How many bogus/incorrect/fabricated papers are referenced by other papers.
Retraction is ESSENTIAL. Scientists and Journals need to be shamed if Journals are so lacking in ethics they won’t retract fraudulent papers for 13 years.
Peer review is a joke. Don’t make it worse.
I should nevertheless say that I believe every journal should have a policy — that is rigorously followed — for withdrawing papers that have been shown to be based on fraudulent research or that have been written by authors who had major conflicts of interest that they failed to disclose and which raise serious doubts about the integrity of the paper.
The Nature News article Bruce quotes is an excellent article on the problem of journal editors who are betraying the public’s trust by hiding behind their policy of only retracting published papers upon request of their authors.
But to claim that failure to retract a scientific paper is the same as failure to rebut or discredit it is just nonsense.
Venture capitalists regularly put their money behind groundbreaking studies from the top science journals. Their experience is that half to 2/3 prove to be incapable of replication. These are the studies which the academic researchers KNOW will be audited and replicated.
Common sense tells us that studies which scientists never expect to be audited or replicated will have an even higher percentage of serious error.
How can anybody damage the credibility of skepticism? I for one am not interested in abandoning one consensus for another. So skydragons or Watts or McIntyre or anybody else, they don’t speak for me just as Schmidt doesn’t.
And either there’s a whiff of naivety in Grant Petty or climate science is truly made of angels. In magnetoencephalography in my times there were plenty of internecine wars among scientists, “preferred” papers, shaky claims accepted as truth by all, useless works carefully repeating the “consensus” etc etc. Hey it’s BECAUSE people are hungry for grants that promising but outlandish claims never get support, and the truly brilliant researchers travel in mobile homes to save on hotel costs.
The skydragons might be a bunch of sad losers but Academy is definitely not focused on weeding out false claims. Some scientists are, only some.
Forget MMR, think of the millions blamed for developing stomach ulcers because of their stressful lifestyles when it was bacteria instead
As I have said, I am not a member of any group subject to group thinking,
in particular not the slayers group. But I have engaged in a discussion with Prof Petty which is recorded on my blog under Downwelling Longwave Radiation DLR:
http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/search/label/DLR
I expect Judy to read and give a comment.
At the risk of re-opening your debate here, you claim that even though we can detect Cosmic Microwave Background photons, these somehow have no heating effect when they are detected?
A microwave radiation detector magnifies input artificially possibly into a heating effect on the detector. That does not say that the Earth gets
heated by the original microwave radiation without magnification. I have discussed this fact in connection with the heating effect of a microwave oven which also involves magnification as compared to blackbody heating.
The point is that any absorbed photon, whether in a detector or not (and there are CMB photons outside detectors too) has some heating.
Jim D | October 15, 2011 at 11:53 am | Reply
“The point is that any absorbed photon, whether in a detector or not (and there are CMB photons outside detectors too) has some heating.”
Absolutely 100% wrong!
Heating is not the result of radiation but of thermalisation of electromagnetic radiation (photons).
This is the source of your confusion. Absorption and emission of electromagnetic radiation does not necessarily lead to heating.
Whether or not heating occurs following absorption and emission of photons, depends entirely on whether thermalisation occurs. Hence the laws of thermodynamics. If these laws are violated, no heating occurs.
The concepts of the so called “Greenhouse Effect” hypothesis are in violation of all three laws of thermodynamics, hence the reason it still remains and always will remain an unproven hypothesis.
Simply ignoring reality is not how you substantiate an hypothesis. It is however a great way to destroy your own credibility.
That’s your story, and you are sticking to it. You are fighting the wrong battle. The real problem with the CAGW bullcrap is the positive feedback assumption.
The real problem with the CAGW bullcrap is that its advocates insist that they can build engineering-grade models from one-time, non-linear, non-replicable, poorly documented historical temperature records, and some how “induct” what the global temperature anomaly will be 100 years from now.
Jim D, can you construct a device that harnesses the claimed “heat” of say 350W/m^2 or 400W/m^2 to do work the same way sunlight can be harnessed to do work?
It would be a strange material that could generate electricity from thermal IR photons that only have 5% the energy of light photons. None exist as far as I know. That doesn’t mean those photons don’t exist.
Yet the claim is that backradiation of 400W/m^2 is measurable.
400W/m^2 24 hours a day is more energy that Phoenix gets from the sun in July.
If you don’t believe photons are measurable that is the problem you are having.
Here is one day in the photon bank account:
http://www.srrb.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/surf_check?site=desr&mos=Most+Recent&day=&year=2011&p3=nip&p5=dpir&p6=upir&p10=rn&ptype=gif
It would be easy. You just need cold stuff to heat. The colder the stuff
the more efficient such heating could occur.
Water requires:
“Calorie is defined as an amount of heat required to change temperature of one gram of liquid water by one degree Celsius.
1 cal = 4.184 J ”
1 joules equals one watt second.
So if you had a meter square and 1 cm deep you have 100 times 100 grams of water if heated by 1 C it equals 10,000 times 4.184 watts.
With black backing and glass covering put in the Sunlight.
At noon one has 1000 watts per square meter, so it should take 41,840
divided by 1000 41 seconds to increase by 1 degree if it was 100% efficient at capturing all the sun’s energy. Solar water heater are around 40 to 60%.
So start with water just above freezing, put in sun for 20 or 30 minutes and measure temperature difference of water.
Repeat same thing at nite.
Then repeat using water starting at same temperature as air temperature of the day and the nite.
Bruce,
Do you believe that the consensus climate scientists made up radiative transfer for their own nefarious purposes? Are you not aware that others -physicists, engineers, et al-have known about how radiative transfer works, for a long time?
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html
What makes you think that photons emitted by the atmosphere are any different than the photons that are emitted by the earth’s surface? Don’t the photons that are emitted by the earth’s surface contribute thermal energy to the gases in the atmosphere? Yet when the gases in the atmosphere emit photons in all directions, those photons that strike the earth have absolutely no effect?
Bruce, like dollars, photons are fungible. Lets say the earth is sending $480 a day to the atmosphere, and the atmosphere is sending $280 dollars back to the earth. The earth is losing money, but not as fast as it would be losing it, if the atmosphere was not sending some dollars back.
Jim D,
Google “infrared solar cells”.
There are companies that make or claim to plan to make cells that can produce electricity from infrared.
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/intelligent-energy/scientists-harvest-solar-power-in-the-dark/4150
http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4081226/Solar-cell-startup-taps-infrared-light
http://www.jxcrystals.com/ThermoPV.htm
Don, interesting. Since materials are constantly bathed in these photons, it would be constantly electrified. Hard to imagine such a thing.
Don Monfort
There seems to be a danger on counting the radiation twice.
Take the simple case of the dry adiabatic lapse rate in a gravitational field.
For Earth = – g/Cp.
The bulk thermodynamics is represented by the heat capacity of air at constant pressure.
This will include the radiative effects as well as the other methods of heat transfer.
Any prospect of using backradiation for work always seems to be couched in language such as “exciting new prospect”.
When a practical device utilizing the energy from a colder object using a hotter sink becomes available then Mann’s hockey stick might even be true.
I won’t hold my breath on that one any time soon.
Bryan,
Do you think that the photons emitted by the earth carry thermal energy, but the photons emitted by the gases in the atmosphere do not?
Don Monfort
The hotter earth and the colder atmosphere both exchange photons.
The warmer surface radiates more intensively at every wavelength and in addition emits higher frequency radiation that the colder atmosphere cannot match.
The net radiative balance is what we call “heat” and it is always travels spontaneously from higher to a lower temperature as Clausius said.
Bryan, everyone would agree with this statement except the Dragonslayers who would object to your use of the word “exchange” that implies some photons do go from the colder sky to warmer earth.
Don, they plan to harvest the thermal energy from the ground.
“One day, Novack says, these nanoantenna collectors might charge portable battery packs, coat the roofs of homes and, perhaps, even be integrated into polyester fabric. Double-sided panels could absorb a broad spectrum of energy from the sun during the day, while the other side might be designed to take in the narrow frequency of energy produced from the earth’s radiated heat.”
Jim D
Postma certainly believes in photon exchange read any of his papers.
Bryan,
Does back radiation from the atmosphere prevent the earth from cooling as much as it would in the absence of that backradiation, or doesn’t it? If your answer is yes, please explain it to Bruce.
Bryan, then Postma should argue that case with Claes and the others in that group. Seems has left their ranks on this point. It would be good to see Postma and Claes debate this out, and that way Postma will see the frustration of doing just that, having been on the obstinate side sometimes himself.
Don: “Does back radiation from the atmosphere prevent the earth from cooling as much as it would in the absence of that backradiation, or doesn’t it?”
During the Little Ice Age something allowed the earth to cool more than usual (but not as much as between interglacials). Was there less backradiation?
I agree. The atmosphere acts as an insulator. Your money analogy is good to me.
I usually point out that the drop in temperature caused by the radiation leaving is only partially compensated for by the “back radiation” caused.
Insulation rather than heating. There are at least three of us now.
Thanks.
Don,
Your use of the money flow to illustrate this is excellent.
Perhaps the fallacies of those who think deficit spending can be done indefinitely are similar to those that think we can insulate our way to a crisis.
Its just an accounting trick Don. What warms the earth is the sun. When the sun isn’t in the sky or is too low most of the day, the earth cools.
The real question is whether the CO2 column is carried over each year and affects next years budget.
The LIA says no.
Don’t be a dope Bruce. Explain why the photons emitted by the atmosphere do not carry thermal energy.
Don’t be deliberately thick Don.
Don Monfort | October 15, 2011 at 1:06 pm | Reply
“Don’t the photons that are emitted by the earth’s surface contribute thermal energy to the gases in the atmosphere?”
Not if the atmosphere is warmer than the ground from which those photons originate,
NO.
The 2nd law of Thermodynamics forbids it.
By the same token photons emitted by cooler gases above a warmer land mass cannot cause heating through thermalisation either. Again the 2nd law of thermodynamics forbids it.
Don,
Relying on grand conspiracies is just a distraction.
If you cannot answer the question, just say so.
Here is a question for you:
When the Earth and atmosphere re-radiate the energy that ultimately comes from the sun, is that a reduction in or an increase of the energy in the Earth/sea/atmosphere system?
Don,
Please disregard the comment. After re-reading your posts, we are largely in agreement.
sorry. Lacis and Perry’s over use of conspiracy as a distraction is annoying.
I agree with Dr. Curry’s conclusion, but I believe Dr. Petty is not making a statement that actually supports her conclusion effectively.
I’m sorry, but the combination of naivete and arrogance in Dr. Petty’s letter is astounding. Science is NOT simply a dispassionate search for truth, rather scientific theory is shaped by the world view and political aims of the scientists themselves. It took a half century for Piltdown Man to finally be recognized as a hoax, but it had so many defenders because there were elements of both self-aggrandizement and national pride in the discovery. Many climate scientists have hitched their stars to the climate science version of Piltdown Man.
Agree. He should read Kuhn.
He should read the Climategate emails.
He should read the Beano
I still make use of the summation by Oor Ernie’s dad in each week’s Knockout: “Daft, I call it.”
(A North of England accent is essential.)
That too. Actually Climategate emails are a confirmation of Kuhn’s idea of prevailing paradigms and of paradigm paralysis: the inability or refusal to see beyond the current models of thinking. Thinking outside of the box, in this case CO2 (the knob), is not allowed.
per wikipedia, “Piltdown Man”
“As early as 1913, David Waterston of King’s College London published in Nature his conclusion that the sample consisted of an ape mandible and human skull.[3] Likewise, French paleontologist Marcellin Boule concluded the same thing in 1915. A third opinion from American zoologist Gerrit Smith Miller concluded Piltdown’s jaw came from a fossil ape. In 1923, Franz Weidenreich examined the remains and correctly reported that they consisted of a modern human cranium and an orangutan jaw with filed-down teeth. Weidenreich, being an anatomist, had easily exposed the hoax for what it was.”
It took 41 years after the hoax began for Time Magazine to publish the findings of forgery which had been kicking around the scientific community for.. 40 years.
Sure, before the 1950’s the scientific community was much slower on the uptake all-in-all. However, now, Dr. Petty’s position is much more representative than is the opposite view.
While there were on both sides of Piltdown the nationalism and glory-hounding — archeology of the time apparently attracted these faults more than most fields — and this obscured the science, how is it an example that proves for anyone which side is doing the obscuring now?
Who have hitched their stars to the Piltdown of climate? Claes? Petty? Curry? Postma? Mann? Hansen? Lindzen? I’m not sure it’s a scientific or even worthwhile question to be asking.
Good comment.
The la Nina conditions currently developing in the Pacific will bring another cold year in 2012 similar to 2008 marking a full decade to the cooling trend that started in 2002. In 2002 global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels were 26,301.5million metric tonnes and in 2010 this has risen to 33,158.4million metric tonnes and current levels of fossil fuel consumption indicate this will be even higher when the total for 2011 is added up.
Ten years of global cooling with rapiodly increaing levels of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels does not exactly constitute scientific validation for anthropogenic global warming, and with that atmospheric CO2 concentration rising for the past decade at a near linear rate of about 2ppmv/year this does not constitute any sort of scientific validation for the greenhouse gas theory which claims that increased CO2 concentration will cause discernable global warming.
The debate about climate change has nothing to do with either global warming or CO2 but how the scientific community allowed a physically baseless hypothesis to be accepted as valid science and how this conjecture supported premise was allowed to, influence government action.
Something is terribly wron when the President of the US believes that global warming is a serious threat because his scientific advisors have failed to tell him that there has been no global warming since at least 2002.
The entire climate change issue has resulted from computer model projections of catastr4ophic global warming by year 2100 but computer models do not have any inherent temporal factors and are therefore incapable of making any long term or even short term predictions. In his 1988 Paper Hansen incorporated aerosol factors to have his model output match the cooling from the 1982 El Chichon Volcanic Eruption but he could not predict the cooling from the 1991 Mt Pinatubo Volcano because he had no way of including compensating factors for a future event.
The model also failed to predict the 1998 el Nino temperature spike, the 2008 la Nina temperature low and the 2010 el Nino temperature spike, but most importantly the projection has failed to identify the current nine year cooling trend since 2002 that is concurrent with CO2 emissions far in excess of Hansen’s most dire predictions.
At some point the scientific community must band together to save the integrity of honest scientific practice from this horrible ideological and political attack on the very foundation of proper scientific practice. The Slayers are trying to do this by exposing the violations of the first and second laws of thermodynamics which create energy out of nothing and use this energy to heat the globe to catastropic levels. It is with good sense that people refuse to debate the Slayers because their physical arguments are perfectly sound and there is nothing to debate.
What should be done is to take the arguments of the Slayers and the arguments of all knowledgeable scientists and debate those misrepresenting science to the public to expose them for perpetrating this scientific fraud.
I think you’ll be surprised at global temps in 2012, and for that matter 2013 as well
I am never surprised by global temperatures because they are what they are and we have no way of predicting them with any certainty because we do not have all the factors. I am however surprised by idiotic comments such as this considering that virtually all forcasters are predicting a cold la Nina induced winter !
http://www.accuweather.com/blogs/news/story/36990/combination-of-factors-could-m.asp
What is your premise based on?
Nothing but wishful thinking. Like Hansen and his annual prediction of a super el nino.
you said it would be cold “similar to 2008”
So if it isn’t that cold you should be surprised right?
Prepare to be suprised
oh I am quite sure that the GISS temps will set new record highs, that was a sure bet before Jan 1st
wow look at this it’s 0.3C/decade warming
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1990/plot/uah/from:2006/trend
Et tu, lolwot?
Using the same invalid technique and argument as people who don’t get irony will only reinforce their use of invalid techniques and arguments.
Otherwise, how else would we end up with Girma?
yes i should have emphasized the sarcasm a bit more
The 1995 – 2015 trend will be negative. The 1995 – 2025 even more so. This is just for fun!
See what I mean?
Norm,
The decadal global mean temperature has been increasing by about 0.2°C per decade since 1980.
See trend at http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20110112/
And, there is good reason to expect the same level of increase for the coming decade. Actually, we can expect more, since there is an increase in solar forcing as the solar radiation increases during the upswing part of the 11-year sunspot cycle, which we are now entering.
Your points about climate models failing to predict El Nino and La Nina events are well grounded – that is part of the natural (unforced) variability of the climate system that current climate models are not able to predict.
But your comment about the effect on climate by the Pinatubo volcanic eruption needs some clarification. It is quite true that in 1988 Hansen (or anybody else for that matter) was unable to predict the coming of the Pinatubo eruption.
But when the Pinatubo eruption did occur in June of 1991, it soon became clear that this was a very large volcanic eruption with climate impact capabilities. In the few months following the eruption quantitative information began to emerge as to the optical depth of the volcanic aerosol accumulating in the stratosphere.
Of the different climate models around at the time, the GISS GCM was flexible enough to conduct a real-time climate experiment with the Pinatubo eruption. Given the Pinatubo aerosol optical depth information, we were able to predict that this would cause a 0.5°C decrease in global temperature (and a couple degree warming of the lower stratosphere) with recovery to business as normal in about three years time (Hansen et al., 1992).
See http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20110112/
All this was corroborated by subsequent observations of global and stratospheric temperature – an excellent test and verification of global climate modeling capabilities.
Dr. Lacis,
Perhaps you could elaborate on the 0.6 degree C temperature increase since 1980 you claim?
That seems to conflict iwth Dr. Jones’ comment about no statistically significantwarming since 1998, among many others, including people in climategate e-mails looking for missing heating.
Additionally, there seems to be missing hot spots in the troposphere.
Your clarification on these topics would be greatly appreciated.
What do you expect, hunter? Lacis has an answer for everything, that one we know. Rationalizations are very human, you can find tons of Nostradamus followers to whom you can ask every kind of question, they will have answers too.
There’s something interesting we should be asking Lacis though (tough chance we’ll hear much of an answer on this one): What kind of observation would make you change your mind about the need to cut CO2 emissions as soon as possible?
But, but…. the hypothesis of AGW is so all powerful and wonderful that NO observation could ever disprove it. That’s it’s strength! It explains everything! Hot and cold. Wet and dry. Frequent, small hurricanes. Infrequent, large hurricanes — you name it, AGW can explain it. Isn’t it wonderful!
All this was corroborated by subsequent observations of global and stratospheric temperature – an excellent test and verification of global climate modeling capabilities
Indeed that the Giss models had fundemental problems in phase space was identified as problematic with the AO and the dynamic effects is well documented in the literature eg Stenchikov 2006
(doi:10.1029/2005JD006286, 2006)
That there is no uniqueness theorem for Volcanic peturbation is also a legitimate argument as chance be as chance does.The relaxation geometry ( the pullback measure and its component mechanisms are poorly undersood ) eg Stratospheric WV ,negative biological feedbacks such as SO2 into wetlands or Fe fertilization in the southern ocean eg S. Duggen et al.The role of airborne volcanic ash 2010
By November 1991 the Pinutabo stratosphere aerosol plume had reached the southern latitudes ,a recent estimate of the mass deposition flux there being 9×10^-13 g cm^-2s^-1 at that time. If 1% of this flux was iron sustained for 3 months over the area of the southern ocean this would amount to roughly 4×10^10g iron. Given a typical carbon/iron molar ratio of 10^5 for phytoplankton in iron limited regions,this would enable additional new production of about 7×10^13 mol carbon .Such an increase would then give rise to the observed pulse of the order of 10^14 mol of oxygen into the atmosphere (Keeling 1996)
http://www.biogeosciences.net/7/827/2010/
That the experiments are solely experiements on the program generating them and not on the idealized NS fluid is well known Gallavotti 1994,and that the inability to handle singularities such as volcanics with observations as such,suggest either the Physics assumptions or the observations are incorrect eg the Krakatoa problem.
I am not tyalking about a decadal average but the linear best fit trend of the past nine years since 2002.
If you check the HadCRUT3 data fr4om the 2001IPCC TAR (the data was manually changed for the 2007 report to eliminate the observed cooling from 1942 to 1975 shown on the previous version and still shown on both GISS and NCDC) you will see a linear best fit cooling to 1910, warming to 1942, cooling to 1975, warming to 1998 (which I extended to 2002) and cooling since. There is no question that the Earth has been warmindg since the start of the 20th century but this is part of the natural recovery fromthe Little Ice Age. The warming and cooling cycles are superimposed on this overall warming trend with a full cycle of 65 years.
If you look at http://www.climate4you.com under “global temperature” and click on the sub reference cyclic air temperature changes you will see a graph of HadCRUT3 filtered with a moving 50 year average. If these warming and cooling cycles did not exist this graph would show nothing but a steady increase and not the perfectly defined 65 yearm period cyclic configuration that it has.
By the way the decadal average was used in the IPCC 2007 report because it was well known in 2007 that the Earth was already cooling so the only way to state that it was warming was to use the decadal average which produces a tiny bit of year to year warming.
My point on Pinatubo is that the models are not programmed for factors which cause tyemperature changes such as volcanoes and the PDO so they can’t predict these any better than they can predict global temperature because they are not programmed to do so.
The projected 2100 global temperature increase in the models is based on the assumption that the atmospheric CO2 concentration will increase at a greater and greater rate due ti increased CO2 emissions. This simply isn’t happening and the CO2 concentration is increasing at a more or less linear rate of just 2ppmv/year and at this rate by year 2100 the concentration of CO2 will be less than half of what the IPCC predicted for their models so there temperature predictions need to be cut in half!
More to the point since CO2 concentration has been increasing at a steady rate and the linear best fit for global temperature is not showing any global warming propper scientific practice would dictate that the climate models are not valid and their predictions should be ignored.
Essentially the continued support for the AGW conjecture is like going out in the pouring rain believing it is clear and sunny because that is what the forecast said!
“This simply isn’t happening and the CO2 concentration is increasing at a more or less linear rate of just 2ppmv/year”
No, it’s accelerating.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/compress:12
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/compress:12/derivative
lolwot
You are right.
Since the 1970s the longer term compounded annual growth rate of atmospheric CO2 level increase was around 0.43% per year, and around 0.48% per year over the past 10 years.
The growth appears to be exponential, as you say.
This is the CAGR that would be reflected in IPCC “scenario and storyline” B1, with CO2 increasing to around 580 ppmv by 2100 and postulated GMT around 1.2C higher than it would have been had CO2 concentrations been frozen at year 2000 levels.
Max
PS An exponential CO2 growth rate multiplied by a logarithmic CO2/temperature correlation should give us roughly linear increase in temperature, all other things being equal. But, as we have witnessed from the past decade’s lack of warming, “all things are not likely to be equal”.
Dr Lacis,
Could you please explain / justify why GISTEMP data set is the only one showing:
(1) such a significant warming trend over the past 14 years whereas all other data sets show limited warming or even cooling
(2) year 2007 warmer than 1998
plots here
Observed evolutions since 1998
HADCRUT3 : 0,41°C => 0,417°C i.e +0,007°C or +0,005°C/decade
GISTEMP : 0,436°C => 0,591°C i.e +0,155°C or +0,113°C/decade
UAH : 0,11°C => 0,202°C i.e +0,092°C or +0,067°C/decade
RSS 0,277°C => 0,238°C i.e -0,039°C or -0,028°C/decade
Starting from 2002 i.e removing super El Nino (1998) and following La Nina events, the pause in the warming, or even the slight cooling is more obvious, even according to GISS data :
HADCRUT3 : 0,465°C => 0,390°C i.e -0,075°C/decade
GISTEMP : 0,547°C => 0,555°C i.e +0,008°C/decade
UAH : 0,161°C => 0,204°C i.e +0,043°C/decade
RSS 0,288°C => 0,237°C i.e -0,051°C/decade
plots since 2002
Could you please also provide us with the reference of the verification & validation report of the GISS-E model you are referring to?
As far as I know, and as already discussed on JC’s blog, none of the climate models, including GISS ones, has ever been formally validated, which is a clear violation of NASA standards, as well as of all engineering standards.
“such a significant warming trend over the past 14 years whereas all other data sets show limited warming or even cooling”
They are measuring different regions. UAH and RSS measure the lower troposphere. HadCRUT and GISTEMP measure different areas of the Earth, neither are truely “global” in extent. On the overlap between them they agree.
“year 2007 warmer than 1998”
Same reason as above.
“Starting from 2002 i.e removing super El Nino (1998) and following La Nina events, the pause in the warming, or even the slight cooling is more obvious, even according to GISS data”
Removing the 1998 super el nino only solves one ENSO bias. The one left is that 2002-2007 is almost solid El Ninos and the period after that contains two strong La Ninas. So starting a trend from 2002 biases the trend cold, similar, but to a lesser extent, to starting a trend from 1998.
2002 was also solar cycle maximum and the cycle after that went into a very long and deep minimum. So the period 2002- is biased cold by that too.
All in all it’s remarkable how little cooling there is since 2002 if you think about it. But what would we expect given the world has been warming at around 0.15-0.2C/decade for decades.
“As far as I know, and as already discussed on JC’s blog, none of the climate models, including GISS ones, has ever been formally validated, which is a clear violation of NASA standards, as well as of all engineering standards.”
I don’t believe there is any such requirement. Someone’s been misapplying the rule book on that one I think.
lolwot,
Yet the slope has been steadily decreasing !
Slope in °C/decade when calculated since :
(1970) 0,158 => (1975) 0,165 => (1980) 0,153 => (1985) 0,165 => (1990) 0,148 => (1995) 0,091 => (1996) 0,080 => (1997) 0,022 => (1998) 0,005 => (1999) 0,054 => (2000) 0,023 => (2001) -0,047 => (2002) -0,077 => (2003) -0,078 => (2004) -0,066 => (2005) -0,060
And YES there are standards at NASA (as in all other fields of science and engineering) for validating models. And you are not supposed to use a model that is not validated.
funny how you stopped with 2005.
Why not give the trend since 2006 or even 2007?
I’m not convinced that this is an accurate statement.
Here is a study of your Pinatubo prediction that shows your models failed even after receiving the Pinatubo aerosol optical depth information.
Even though you were invited to do so numerous times, you failed to engage the person critiqueing your study, which leaves me no choice but to believe the critique.
Yet you continue to claim your models have some predictive powers?
” And no one has any incentive to let others get away with bad science – on the contrary, science is very competitive when it comes to getting funding.”
I read this comment from Grant Petty’s letter right after I posted a comment on the week in review thread noting that Mann had reported funding for various projects totaling at least $5,982,700 as of December, 2009. That’s about $600,000 in funding per year since the publishing of the hockey stick.
I would suggest that the self funded deconstruction of that CAGW icon by McIntyre and McKitrick did far more for science, and society, for far less.
‘IMO, this group has damaged the credibility of skepticism about climate change and provides a convenient target when people want to refer to “deniers” and crackpots. ‘
I agree with this completely. And reading between the lines it seems that Grant Perry is a good example by seemingly conflating the sky dragon people with skeptics in general, which of course is a serious mistake. I found his defense of establishment climate scientists…if i’m reading him correctly, naive.
As a lukewarmer, I have no problem with the basic premise of the greenhouse effect. That being said, I find the above email problematic on multiple grounds.
“The nature of real modern science is that fraudulent claims don’t go undetected long…”
What a silly thing to say. First, substitute incorrect for fraudulent, and we can talk. The writer seems to imagine we live in a Panglossian world of scientific knowledge, in which all current knowledge is correct. Tell me again about the cause of ulcers.
“Everyone’s goal is to show that they can find and patch shortcomings in
the science and to answer the unanswered questions so as to improve their
own standing…”
No – everyone’s goal is to get funding, get published and get tenure. If the best method to do so is to jump on the latest bandwagon, that that’s what happens. Patching shortcomings is irrelevant to the career-advancing process. Many scientists divide up their work into the smallest publishable units in order to squeeze the most papers possible out of it.
“Do you really thing it’s some old-boys’ club, everyone
covering each other’s rear? ”
Please see the Climategate emails, where they boast of it.
“And do you really think climate scientists get rich promoting global warming?
Semi-strawman. Compared to taxi drivers and mailmen? Yes, getting rich. Getting rich in the sense of taking advantage in order to further ones’ career. And given the strain to attach global warming to papers that have only the slightest tangential connection to climate, SOME scientists obviously are tying their careers to the global warming bandwagon.
“The models aren’t perfect; no one says that they are. But they’re a
damned sight more grounded in real science and physics than the naive but cocky “proofs” published in blogs…”
This is a classic example scientific self-justifiying. . Follow the logic: the models are better than the ravings of some nutters on blogs, therefore they are good enough to overturn the modern industrial word at a cost of trillions of dollars. The problem isn’t that the models are not perfect. The problem is that the models are utterly without verification for their purpose. On our timescale they are unfalsifiable, and therefore they are not scientific at all. The logic underlying the GCMs in the global warming debate is that they are the best we have, so we should trust them. The problem with the GCMs is that we have no reason to believe that they are sufficiently verified to be trusted. “The best we’ve got” is not synonymous with “good enough to be trusted to upturn the entire modern industrial civilization.”
There was an excellent point to be made here. Unfortunately, this person not only failed to make it, he actually embarrassed those he claims to be speaking for.
MarkB: I’m a lukewarmer too and I have similar reservations to Prof. Petty’s letter.
I would add that becoming a scientist or tenured professor today won’t make one rich by CEO or investment banker standards, but those are well-paid, prestigious positions with great benefits that are highly, highly competitive — much more on the order of becoming a Hollywood actor than becoming an engineer.
Like Hollywood, science and academia require excellent networking and luck as well as talent and knowledge. Climate scientists, like Prof. Petty, dismiss that there might be substantial pressures to conform but this strikes me as disingenuous.
There is a way to check climate models. Examine the mathematical basis by which climate models suggest they can predict the future.
Climate Models ALL assert that long term climate is more predictable than weather. This is the basic underlying premise of all climate models.
What is the mathematical mechanism by which they suggest this is true?
If they rely on the law of large numbers, then where is the evidence the law of large numbers applies to climate? The law of large numbers relies on a constant mean and constant deviation. Does the earth’s climate history support this statistically?
If not, what is the underlying mathematical basis for suggesting that climate is more predictable than weather?
If so, then what is the average temperature and deviation of the earth over the past 100 million? Is present temperature within these bounds, and what is the probability that current deviation is typical?
It is an energy argument. If you let less energy out, the surface gets warmer. Very simple to comprehend and quite self evident.
Nonsense. It is fundamental that energy in = energy out.
So if you reduce radiated energy out, it has to get warmer to restore it again. Please say you understand this part.
Jim D,
If you reduce the energy out, does it mean that you also reduced the radiating temperature?
Edim, yes, that’s what happens when you add CO2 (Lindzen and even Postma have explained all this before). It radiates from a higher/colder average level.
Jim D,
notice you say they EXPLAIN that it is radiating from a higher colder level. Why would we not have more radiation from the same levels as they are warmer? What is blocking those same levels?? There is some magic that happens to claim that we no longer get the radiation from the original levels when we also get more CO2 at higher levels providing more cooler radiation.
As the atmosphere warms it also expands. i think NASA has provided us with hard data on this as it tends to add to drag on the satellites. If the atmosphere expands we have no magic blocking of the warmer layers radiating. This is a Climate Science myth they see in the models along with the non-existant hot spot and cooling stratosphere.
Rather more elequantly put than I could manage on a smartphone..
MarkB,
Dr. Perry’s letter is simply misleading in in its approach.
it is the reliance on strawman and red herring tactics by so many involved in supporting the AGW community that raises questions about the soundness of their science and even more personal issues.
The slayers are not a group with a single agreed outlook on the details of the relevant science.
Joseph Postma uses orthodox physics to arrive at his conclusions.
Claes Johnston wishes to return to the causality of Maxwell and ditch the photon.
However they share a belief that climate science as presently formulated is based on false science.
This view is shared by a growing number of scientists particularly those with a background in physics
Some suspect that the science is so far from any basis in reality as to constitute fraud.
From Judith:
From Anthony Watts:
Who is providing a “convenient target when people want to refer to “deniers” as on the one hand, criticizing the climate scientists for not acknowledging uncertainty, and then on the other hand denigrating climate scientists for recognizing uncertainty?
Why don’t you criticize this kind of poor and hypocritical analysis when it comes from pivotal players in the “skeptical” community, Judith? you apparently consider the “slayers” to be outliers in the skeptical community. Do you think that Anthony is also an outlier?
You post comments at Anthony’s site (calling the attention of his readers to your blog), you welcome his comments at your site. Do you blame tribalism in the “climate science establishment” for Anthony’s denigrating recognition of uncertainty as “weasel words”?
Joshua:
If you think that sticking words like “might”, “could”, and “may” into an article that is graphically presenting yet another disaster scenario some how satisfies the requirement to recognize and address uncertainty…. it’s not that words fail me, they’re just inappropriate for this venue. They are serving exactly the purpose they were intended to, as you’ve magnificently demonstrated.
Robert –
I don’t think that they are sufficient. I think that Judith’s basic point is a good one. All attempts should be made to specify uncertainty to whatever degree possible.
On the other hand, derision of qualifications of certainty plays no helpful role in the debate, and is downright hypocritical when it comes from the same people who claim that that the “climate establishment” fails to acknowledge uncertainty.
All attempts should be made to specify uncertainty to whatever degree possible
So, why didn’t they, Joshua? It’s because those words are a rhetorical device that allow political apologists like yourself to proclaim that uncertainty is being addressed when in point of fact it is not. There is nbo hypocracy in pointing that out. Articles like the one you referenced are as much political propaganda as they are science.
I’m not exactly sure, Robert. It’s a good question. I could speculate about the answer (e.g., that the difficulty of specifying the uncertainty should not mean that speculation about potential harms from climate change is not warranted) and assume I need more information to be certain about my conclusions, or I could formulate a conspiratorial explanation in lieu of having their input.
I tend to stay away from the later choice. But knock yourself out.
Joshua | October 15, 2011 at 4:02 pm |
“…or I could formulate a conspiratorial explanation in lieu of having their input…. I tend to stay away from the later choice. But knock yourself out.”
Well, I was wondering if you would ever say it. Nice segue, but I said nothing about “conspiracies”. Another rhetorical device to ridicule and marginalize… after all, only kooks and nutters believe in conspiracies right? I prefer to think in terms of “social movements” – alliances of special interest groups that unite behind a common cause that also coincidentally promotes their special concerns. It’s amazing how the “solutions” , predating CAGW, that have been proposed by the Club of Rome, Green Peace, The Sierra Club, PETA, Open Society, and a host of others are also the solutions for global warming. They are all remarkably open and up-front about their agendas, but if you are referring to secretive and clandestine communications to suborn and subvert…. well, the climategate e-mails provide a fair amount of that. I’d dearly love to have the documentation behind Wolfgang Wagner’s resignation from Remote Sensing.
Joshua, you know nothing about conspiracy and would probably have accepted the explanation for the Reichstag fire at face value.
GIGO as usual Joshua, I cannot speculate about whether the GI of GIGO applies to you. But there is no need for weasel words describing your analysis. It is surely the GO
And here’s another question I’m curious about. A while back, if I remember correctly, you said something on the order of “no one in the room,.” or no skeptics that you know of, think that the climate isn’t warming. How do you think that squares with a recent polls that shows that some 55% of Tea Partiers think that the climate isn’t warming?
Now, it seems that a fair amount of “denizens” might identify as Tea Partiers. Do you think that they are categorically differentiated from other Tea Partiers in that they are more informed about climate change, and thus they disagree with the majority of Tea Partiers with respect to global warming? But keep in mind, that the same poll also shows that Tea Partiers in general consider themselves to be well-informed about climate change (and that they don’t need more information to understand the issue). Also, please keep in mind that David H. has posted that it is documented that Tea Partiers are more informed about climate issues (he even went so far as to refer to the same poll that shows that the majority of Tea Partiers think that the globe isn’t warming).
Joshua
What year-or decade-do you believe this warming started?
Please bear in mind also that some parts of the globe have been cooling for the 30 years required to call it a trend.
Tonyb
tony,
Maybe I misunderstand something here. My understanding is that:
(1) Judith thinks that a trend of global warming is unambiguous, and that only a tiny fractions of “skeptics” doubt that assertion – they only question the degree of the warming and the degree to which warming is attributable to anthropogenic variables.
(2) Judith thinks that only a tiny fraction of “skeptics” doubt whether increased CO2 warms the climate – they only question the magnitude of the forcing.
And it isn’t only Judith: I have read many times from other “skeptics,” that “skeptics” as a group, don’t doubt that CO2 emissions warm the climate, or that the climate is warming. I’ve been told that most “skeptics” only question how much the climate has been warming and the degree to which warming has been anthropgenically influenced.
Now let’s look at how your question relates to item 1 and 2 I listed above:
(1) You believe that in the least, there is some ambiguity as to whether there is a trend of warming. In fact, your question suggests that you think contrary to warming, the globe is cooling.
(2) You question whether CO2 emissions do warm the climate – as undoubtedly CO2 emissions have increased, and so it isn’t a matter of degree of AGW that you’re questioning by asserting a cooling trend, but the very notion that increased CO2 warms the climate.
I doubt that Judith would consider you to be an outlier, so allow me to speculate that one possible way to reconcile your opinion with Judith’s description of “skeptics” as a group might be that you believe that CO2 emissions do warm the climate, but that the forcing from increased CO2 is negated by a stronger forcing (towards cooling) from natural phenomena? Would that be accurate? If so, I would be curious to find out whether Judith considers such a perspective to be an outlier, or whether she thinks such a perspective is characteristic of a significant segment of the “skeptical” community.
That would take care of point #2.
But what about point #1? Even if you don’t question the basic physics of CO2 emissions as a forcing (but think that it is less manifest in current trends than other, negative, forcings), you still would seem to be an outlier in terms of how Judith has described the “skeptical” community (that they don’t doubt that the climate is warming) – and indeed, as how many other “sketpics” have described the “skeptical” community to me.
Joshua
Good grief-just answer the question without your amateur analysis. I don’t want one of your £5 circular arguments. Here it is again;
“What year-or decade-do you believe this warming started?”
Please bear in mind also that some parts of the globe have been cooling for the 30 years required to call it a trend.”
thanks very much in advance for a simple short answer to a simple short question
Tony, TOny, TOny. What makes you want to mess with the G of GIGO
“the 30 years required to call it a trend”
Is that in fact correct? Isn’t climate described as weather averaged over 30 years? If so, 30 years is not sufficient to establish a climate trend. All you have after 30 years is a single point in climate space. No trend at all.
After 30 more years you have a second point, so the minimum to establish a trend in climate is 60 years. You can’t use 31-59 years to establish a statistical trend in climate because the samples are not independent.
So, after 60 years you have two points on the graph for climate. While this will show you a trend (a single line with a point at each end) it can hardly be called statistically significant.
Climate science has 150 years worth of data and try and use this to predict climate. What they have is 5 points on a curve that is at 100 million point long, and they are proposing to predict the next 5 point from this?
Fred
30 years is a trend-see here
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=MdAAGCpSXrUC&pg=PA141&lpg=PA141&dq=definition+of+a+climate+trend&source=bl&ots=Q843NHKTcr&sig=VzNBZVHpQ69g4OsxNQA9sD9Iwys&hl=en&ei=kdmZTvKWGMSnhAeU3YyYBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CB8Q6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=definition%20of%20a%20climate%20trend&f=false
Excellent point Ferd. The data time scale of climate is definitely not the same as for the weather. Now I am wondering how such averaging of localised weather conditions can realistically be applied to that of global climate? Any ideas anyone? To my mind weather situations around the globe (especially at the poles and at the equator) would seem to largely cancel each other out if global averaging is attempted.
Is climate actually warming?
Over the past 80 years climate may well be warming, but what if we go back 8000 years? Isn’t the climate actually cooling?
Doesn’t mathematics tell us that If the trend changes with the sample size, then it is not a trend at all?
So – it appears that ferd is also an outlier?
At what point, mathematically, does a % of outlier perspective become large enough that it is no longer an outlier, but actually descriptive of an entire set?
I suppose I should also question at what point a % of outlier perspective ceases to be an outlier, but is properly considered to be descriptive of a notable (important? significant?) segment of the entire set?
100,95,99,94,98,93,97,92,96,91,95,90,94
The series above is similar to climate for the past 8000 years. By concentrating on the last point in the series, climate science concludes that the climate is warming.
If you take a short enough sample you can find any trend you want in numbers to prove any point you want. Compare your earnings on a sunday to your earnings on a monday. From this you can forecast that by friday you will own the earth. Climate science 101.
Ferd,
My take on climate change, if I may say at “human relevant” time scales, is that most important and dominant trend is around 8000 years. It’s COOLING. It’s cooling since the holocene inerglacial peak.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
It’s very likely that we won’t go higher than that peak for a very long time, 100,000 years maybe. So if anything, we are cooling. And I don’t mean 5, 10 nor 12 years, but 10 thousands years.
Fred 3.09
I entirely agree with you, but its not us that make the rules about what constitutes a climate trend.
Edim, did you notice that 2004 is marked on that graph and is already warmer than the peak you say won’t be passed for thousands of years. Gives you pause, doesn’t it?
ferd –
I understand your point.
And my point is that while you say that there is no mathematically validated trend of warming, Judith has stated that she knows of almost no skeptics who hold such an opinion.
Judith, meet ferd. ferd, meet Judith.
Jim D,
Yes I noticed and I expected that question, to tell you the truth. Let’s accept that graph and that 2004 is warmer than the interglacial peak. I am not even close to be convinced, I think all the (pre)hystorical optimums are warmer than 2004. But like I say I accept the graph for the sake of argument. Now, what is the linear trend for 8 – 0 k BP, according to the graph?
Edim, that trend is consistent with the Milankovitch cycle that should favor more Arctic ice, but that just isn’t happening at the moment. Something else seems to be opposing it in the last century or so.
Jim D,
So you agree that the linear trend for 8 – 0 ka is COOLING. Good.
There’s always something either oposing or amplifying orbital variations/oscillations. At the moment we are in a very weak solar cycle and predictions are that another weak one is coming. That means a deeper solar minimum. We will be cooling for decades, if the predictions are on point.
Edim, you are not accounting for the relative strengths of these effects. Looking at paleoclimate, CO2 trumps orbital effects.
Jim D,
Looking at paleoclimate I see orbital effects (or vatever is causing those variations at the timescale) trumping CO2. CO2 sits in the back.
Edim, if you are seeing that, you are not looking with your reading glasses on.
Exactly at the point it does and not one outlier before that.
We are all human and fallible. I would regard the idea of a wide conspiracy amoung climate scientists to hide or manipulate data as preposterous. Since, we are capable of making mistakes, misunderstandings and being conservative in our thinking, it is possible that mistakes have been made and, I am sure, that these will not persist in the “acid-bath” of the test of a hypothesis.
I would comment that a poisonous thread has been introduced into climatology because of the immense political importance of the conclusions of some of its community. I would add that the behaviour of some members of the community caused those scientists who work in other fields to raise their eyebrows, although this behaviour occurs in all fields of scientific endeavour. This naturally has no bearing on whether their conclusions are correct and from my perspective the jury is still out. I broadly agree with Professor Petty’s comments and I would hope that reason will eventually prevail.
Nevertheless, increased taxation, the imminent risk of energy blackouts due to mandated renewable energy, the rapidly escalating cost of energy and the cost of biofuels in terms of starvation and ecological damage stem from the predictions of climate scientists. Some of the more vociferous advocates would like to see a transformation of society into a form that many, perhaps the majority of population, would be relectant to accept. They therefore have a duty to perform their work diligently to high professional standards and to abstain from statements that drive political actions that may impoverish us all. Due to the immense importance of their work, climate scientists must expect to be criticised from a scientific standpoint by people outside their field.
As in all fields, there is good work and bad work. Those who do bad work may find that they are criticised by other scientists who have a greater knowledge of one particular field that underpins their work. This is a normal part of the scientific process and should not be regarded as hostile to the discipline as a whole rather, in my view, it should be embraced.
Therefore, I think that the critics of climate scientists, should be met with logic, and curteous explanations that stem from a greater understanding of the subject as a whole. Those who react to reasoned criticism with unreasoned hostility and the denial of uncertainty do their boader community no service.
Richard,
The conspiracy argument- depolyed by believers or skeptics is a waste fo time and distraction. Its use by AGW opinion leaders like Lacis or Perry to either attack skeptics, in the case of Lacis, or to distract from the reasonable argument taht large numbers of people can be wrong, are both demonstrations of a lack of seriousness on their part.
Richard,
Sure thing –
“I think that the critics of climate scientists, should be met with logic, and courteous explanations that stem from a greater understanding of the subject as a whole. Those who react to reasoned criticism with unreasoned hostility and the denial of uncertainty do their broader community no service.”
But then we begin our courteous public discourse on the nature of the global climate change problem that we face with the likes of Senator James Inhofe, and Congressmen Dana Rohrabacher, Joe Barton, and James Sensenbrenner, among others who have proclaimed that “global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated”. This is a very auspicious beginning for a friendly discussion indeed.
The same sentiment has been echoed by a string of conservative think tanks such as the Cato Institute, the Heartland Institute, the George C. Marshall Institute, among others. Be sure not to forget Fox News and its manufacturing of the Grand Climategate Conspiracy.
I hope you don’t come to conclude that it is the climate scientists who are setting the tone of the public debate about the global climate change problem.
Andy, your statement assumes that all people who disagree with establishment climate science (e.g. such as represented by the IPCC) have the same reasons (motivation and substance) for disagreement as Inhofe and the Heartland Institute. The failure to recognize people with real concerns and questions (and often with valid points) on a variety of different aspects of climate science and policy and dismiss them as “deniers” and automatically lump them with Inhofe and Heartland is the source of the problem that we currently have. Continued efforts to improve communication of climate science won’t work until this is understood. And the continued lumping of all skeptics into the Heartland/Inhofe category and dismissing all disagreement and skepticism as fossil fuel funded tripe results in a huge backlash against the climate establishment.
So – there is a singular source of the problem?
The politicized aims of Inhofe and the Heartland Institute are not problematic? It isn’t problematic when McKitrick calls Wagner a “grovelling, terrified coward?” Ubiquitous broad-scale assertions of “fraud,” and a “hoax” to achieve socialistic aims with nary a concern about the deaths of millions (as you have no doubt read many times in these very pages) are not a source of problems?
There is only one problem, and only one source for that problem?
Are you “certain” about that, Judith? Do you have some quantification of your “certainty?”
This is rather ironic, Judith – as some of your rather uniform characterizations of beliefs within the “skeptical” community w.r.t. the physics of CO2 emissions and whether or not the climate is warming are not consistent with evidence provided at your very own website.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-122562
So, Judith –
This is not a problem?
I have to say that I was shocked that you would dismiss McKitrick calling Wagner a “grovelling, terrified coward” as merely “intemperate” comments on a blog – and I would suppose that you would likewise dismiss this comment above from one of your “denizens,” but here’s how I see an illogic in your perspective.
When someone like Andy invests enough effort to become an expert in the field of climate science, and because of how he interprets the science (or because he doesn’t answer the questions of one of your “denizens), is then called a “coward,” or a “fraud” who is perpetrating a “hoax” for the purpose of a socialist agenda to destroy capitalism without regard for the death of millions, I think it is unlikely that he would ever agree with your assessment that “the” problem is that he and other climate scientists over-generalize about how many “skeptics” are deniers. How would you expect him to respond to a “skeptic,” or those who associate with a skeptic, who characterizes Wagner as a “grovelling coward?” How do you expect climate scientists to respond to you when you dismiss McKitrick’s comment as merely an “intemperate” blog comment?
I mean, really, what planet were you born on?
I think more likely you’d have better success if you called out your “denizens” for their “intemperate” statements, or statements like McKitrick’s, and acknowledged the ‘problems” created by the political orientation of people like Inhofe and organizations like the Heartland l Institute, and after having done so, suggest to Andy that despite the validity of some aspect of his concerns, your think that his judgement of the motivations of all “skeptics” is overly broad.
Certainly, such an approach might not be successful, but you might consider giving it a shot.
.
Joshua
You may have missed my response to your earlier extended non reply to my simple question. When do you think the warming started?
tonyb
lol!
I didn’t miss it, tony.
I fail to see what my opinion about when the warming started has to do with whether or not Judith has incorrectly generalized about the views of “skeptics.”
If you could explain the direct relevance, then maybe I would consider answering your question. (which, as I see it, was a “non-reply” to my comment about Judith’s incorrect generalization).
Dr. Curry,
in response to your posted article, and Dr. Lacis up reply, we still see the science is evolving. (I am linking to a WUWT post, because I am lousy at finding the original paper.) These papers have some merit along the lines of Dr. Pielke’s research towards more then CO2 causes
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/14/new-science-field-paleoblameatology/
the apparent anthro warming of the last century – http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/13/plant-trees-not-carbon-laws/
So yes, some researchers do get famous and maybe rich, but I concur with your guest, that most just keep trying to do science. And Dr. Lacis, thanx for weighing in on your thread and this one, as you have a lot to offer to Dr. Curry’s denizens.
Joshua
Instead of a long convoluted reply to a question i didn’t even ask why didnt you just give a two word answer- x years? Surely that is much easier?
My question was in response to your comment:
“And here’s another question I’m curious about. A while back, if I remember correctly, you said something on the order of “no one in the room,.” or no skeptics that you know of, think that the climate isn’t warming. How do you think that squares with a recent polls that shows that some 55% of Tea Partiers think that the climate isn’t warming?”
You obviously believe the tea partiers think the climate isn’t warming which by inference means you do (as do I) We may differ as to when it started. So the simple question again-which is directly related to your response;
WHEN do you think the climate started warming? To be helpful I will help you by writing most of the reply-you just need to fill i the missing part.
“Thanks for your interesting question Tony. I think the climate started to warm around…”
All you need to do is fill in the year or decade. See how helpful I am? :)
tonyb..
Tony –
I still fail to see the relevance of my opinion about the warming trend.
I still can’t understand from your posts what you think the relevance is – but because I wouldn’t want you to think that I’m an obstinate person, I’ll answer your question anyway.
I’ll go along with what Judith posted in the “What we agree on” thread:
Dr. Eric Wolff:
Judith:
Judy,
The public debate on global climate change is what is, and what it has become, and I don’t think that there is much that either you or I can do to change it. You can of course set the tone for this blog by deleting all those comments that contain the magic objectionable words that are perceived to be the problem. But that will have little effect on the climate debate at large. Besides, imposing censorship is probably not workable, or desirable.
I am personally not troubled by the attacks on climate science, however heated or vehement. The science is strong enough to withstand all that is being thrown at it. What we know and understand about climate science will only be reinforced and grow stronger in the process.
Real concerns about what we know, what we don’t know, and what we are doing about what we know and don’t know, whether expressed in a nasty strident tone, or stated more sweetly, are equally legitimate. Hopefully, all of these concerns will then be answered in an uncharged monotone.
I have been trying to answer the science questions that have long been of interest, as clearly as I can. To be sure, I have included a few ‘terms of endearment’ to provide some perspective as to where we are in the ongoing climate debate.
I don’t expect the tone of the ‘climate rhetoric’ to abate anytime soon. I rather imagine that the crescendo will tend to increase as more and more people become aware of the global warming problem, but don’t know enough of the science involved to reach what would be a ‘physics-based conclusion’. The public discord will likely die down in a couple of decades as global warming continues to intensify and its effects become more apparent.
With respect to the climate problem, I am most impressed by the growing list of precise measurements that we will have available to bring to bear. We now have precise measurements of the greenhouse gas increases and satellite based altimetry and gravity measurements that amazingly can keep tabs on the sea level rise and on the polar ice sheet melting. Hopefully, these will soon be followed by GPS radio occultation measurements that will provide temperature profile measurements to better than 0.1°C above at the tropopause and above. And with concurrent measurements of water vapor, it would also be possible to get tropospheric temperatures with similar accuracy. There are also hopes of flying a precision polarimeter that will be able to measure aerosol properties an order of magnitude better than has been possible thus far. We can also hope for a similar order of magnitude jump in the precision of radiative flux measurements that would be able to verify the state of the global energy balance of the Earth.
All in all, I don’t see any practical way to control on impact the tone of the ongoing climate debate. It is only when the ongoing intensification of the climate system response becomes too apparent to dismiss that the strident rhetoric will begin to abate. But given human nature, the strident rhetoric may well be replaced by something worse – recrimination.
Dr. Lacis: It’s not just your strident tone. When you go on about fossil fuel and Fox News conspiracies, and lump all your opposition into the same basket, then refuse to reconsider even when asked politely, you come across as a sloppy, close-minded thinker. I am sorry to be so blunt.
I am not a climate scientist so I can’t assess the technical details. I buy the basics of global warming, but I do wonder how many places you and your colleagues may be nudging your conclusions towards your biases. In areas where I can assess your reasoning that seems to be the MO combined with a willingness to accept ends-justify-the-means shortcuts as in Climategate.
Speaking for myself, I can’t trust scientists who behave as climate scientists have. In the absence of such trust, it looks like we will have to wait and see how the climate shakes out over the next decade or so. Whatever happens, I’m sure there will be plenty of recriminations to go around, if that’s any comfort.
It is what it is, and what it am, and what it will be. Did I get that right? Ah, the threat of recrimination. And you are not troubled by the attacks on climate science. Can anybody else sum it up any better?
Dr. Lacis,
Rationalizing the continued use of “denier” is like an old racist rationalizing the use of “ni**er” for the African Americans he does not like.
I rather imagine that the crescendo will tend to increase as more and more people become aware of the global warming problem, but don’t know enough of the science involved to reach what would be a ‘physics-based conclusion’.
I prefer an “evidence-based conclusion.” Evidence-based and physics-based are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but much of the “physics” is applied math — mathematical expressions partly fitting some data trends or simplified accounts of the events that happen, but they all have inherent inaccuracies. I have hammered on this theme for a while, and I do so again below, but the equilibrium assumptions are particularly suspect for a system that is so clearly never in equilibrium. There are “laws” or at least expectations that are based on spatio-temporal averages over long time spans and large regions, whereas everything that happens does its happening in a particular place, at a particular time, at a particular humidity etc, and the conditions are almost never close to the averages anywhere.
Willis Eschenbach has written an especially good evidence-based blog report that should for everyone call into question spatio-temporal averaging: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/11/wrong-again/
That does not imply that the models are necessarily wrong, but they are for sure dubious until they have been shown to be sufficiently accurate for any purpose. The physics-based forecasts are so far too inaccurate to be of any use for projecting (or planning for) 40 – 80 years from now. If the climate continues to diverge from model forecasts, of if the models require new compartments added (e.g. deep ocean) every 10 years or so, then the credibility of the models will continue to decline.
Judy, good grief, you post
“The failure to recognize people with real concerns and questions (and often with valid points) on a variety of different aspects of climate science and policy and dismiss them as “deniers” and automatically lump them with Inhofe and Heartland is the source of the problem that we currently have.”
Do you have any real concerns or valid points?
Other than the IPCC has miscommunicated the level of uncertainty in their reports (they have not) or a series of unsubstantiated assertions of impropriety or fraud?
You know bob, Judith is really right about this. Climate science has a problem and denying it is not helpful. The reason you are losing the argument is a direct result of climategate and all the other scandals as well as the inability to answer real scientific questions. This nonsense from Hansen that scientists are being outspent by the evil fossil fuels industry with their public relations firms is simply preposterous. I see nothing on TV or radio from these alleged conspirators and a lot from the global warming establishment, which has very lavish PR efforts, such as that mounted by a very rich man named Al Gore.
Just one point that is often missed of a scientific nature. In fact, the reason the models show a range of senstiivity of 1.5K to 5K is that if the feedbacks are positive (as the models all assume) then the CO2 sensitivity is very sensitive to the exact strength of those feedbacks. In other words, this is essentially an argument for almost irreducible uncertainty. It’s not insurmountable, but its a problem with the models. When someone like Andy says that the feedback is known to about 10%, its not credible.
Another point, if feedbacks are indeed positive, why has there not been a runaway greenhouse in the past? You know, methane releases in response to higher temperatures, melting ice, increased release from the warming oceans? There must be negative feedbacks also that operate in the system.
Judith, You are exactly right on this. Andy, what you are doing is stereotyping. It’s a common political ploy and it only further polarizes any debate.
Be sure not to forget Fox News and its manufacturing of the Grand Climategate Conspiracy.
Surely you are not denying the importance of the damaging information in the “Climategate” emails.
Climategate emails don’t count. They were “stolen”. We are not entitled to know what the climate scientists do with our money, behind closed doors.
Unless they revealed a crime. If they revealed a crime, then the “thief” may be entitled to a reward. Phil Jones was already judged guilty, but not prosecuted because the statute of limitations had expired. Whether “we” are entitled to know what climate scientists have done with “our” money has not yet been adjudicated; a VA judge has ruled that UVA must turn over some documents to be viewed in camera. I expect that much will be made public. Everywhere I worked, in industry and academia, I signed an agreement to abide by terms of use, which included not writing anything that would bring dishonor to the institution should it become public.
In short, I think you are wrong. More importantly, the issue will be decided in court.
MattStat: Perhaps I’m reading Don Monfort incorrectly, but I believe I detect a tongue-like bulge in one of his facial cheeks. However, you are spot-on with:
Sorry Matt. I guess I should have stated that I was being sarcastic. I will try not to confuse you in future.
Oh. I missed the irony.
But then we begin our courteous public discourse on the nature of the global climate change problem that we face with the likes of Senator James Inhofe, and Congressmen Dana Rohrabacher, Joe Barton, and James Sensenbrenner,
In my reading, this is usually preceded by the claim that this is a continuation of “the Republican War on Science” and the claim that they are all bought by “big oil”. Even in the journal Science, actually addressing the claimed shortcoming of data and models comes later, if at all. Or by an introduction to “agnotology”, and the assertion that skepticism is a form of cognitive defect. The word “hoax” would be unfortunate, except that interested parties are demanding the transfer of monies to themselves, their companies, their countries, the “victims of capitalism” and so forth.
Yes, I agree that the debate has become highly politicised.
Nevertheless, I do believe that other disciplines can ask questions about the fundamentals of climate science (as in any other field) that require critical analysis.
There is a wide range of opinions, many of which may lack substance, but I do believe that an open dialogue between scientists should be as open and as non-confrontational as we can achieve.
Andy –
FWIW:
I will agree with Judith in the sense that I think it is a “problem” to use the term “denier” too broadly, or to make overly broad assumptions about the motivations or reasoning of people who are “skeptical” of AGW.
On one level, I think that it is a poor strategy for gaining wider public acceptance for your interpretation of the science. I would imagine that there are some people who approach the debate from an non-ideologically driven angle, and so characterizing anyone who is uncertain about the science as a “denier” is likely to be detrimental. Further, strengthening the sense of victimization of those who are ideologically inclined to reject AGW (as opposed to scientifically-inclined), i.e., “deniers,” is only likely to increase the determination of their “denialism,” They may be unreachable in any event – but I see no possible gain from increasing their sense of justification.
But at that level, my criticisms are strategic in nature, and in that sense they are less important and mostly speculative.
At a level that I feel is more important, an a personal statement of my reaction to the participants of different people involved in the climate change debate, I think that your broad categorization must, necessarily, be based on overly-broad judgement about the motivations of people that you don’t know at a personal level. You might make assumptions about the motivation of some by virtue of their overtly extremist political orientation – but even with them you have no real evidence of their motivations in the climate change debate. For others, you don’t even have that information to go on. At least in theory, and I would argue assuredly in reality, not everyone who isn’t convinced by what climate scientists say about AGW is a “denier.” When I see climate scientists make unfounded conclusions in that way, as someone who is not in a position to judge the technical merits of different positions in the debate, my confidence in what those climate scientists say about the science is undermined.
Andy,
If you would like to start a friendly discussion, let me suggest this.
1. Climategate doesn’t change one bit of the science we know?
can we agree on that?
2. We can have a friendly discussion about the abuse of institutional
power without calling each other names?
can we agree on that?
3. It’s important for climate science to be self policing and point
out areas where we can improve methods, practices, and
interactions with the public.
can we agree on that?
If we can agree on those three things, then we might be able to have a discussion on climategate. Because climategate is not about the science. Its not about global warming or big oil or socialism or right or left.
It is quite simply about the behavior of a few limited individuals in a few limited cases. One side has overreacted and made it into a case of fraud, which it is not. And the other side has used those overblown claims to avoid doing some self policing.
So, you want to have a friendly discussion? That would be great.
There will be these topics.
1. Best practices in graphical presentations
2. Complying with FOIA law
3. Following IPCC proceedures
The word fraud is not allowed, the word lie is not allowed, no questioning of motives. Just a discussion of the facts and your advice on the best course of action for each of these issues.
steven mosher,
The behavior of a few inconsequential individuals, in a few limited cases? LOL! Climategate was a look into the inner workings of the ‘team’, and they revealed why you will not have your honest discussion on the three topics that you listed.
Dont you find it instructive that they wont discuss even a circumspect look at the issues? I do.
In fact, I think it is more damning that they refuse to discuss even the mildest characterization. I suggest you try my approach.
steven mosher,
I first considered the possibility that you were merely trying to entice the poor sap into engaging. But that seemed a little too obvious. Would a famous climate scientist fall for that? They haven’t up to now. Anyway, your point has been made, and made again. They ain’t talking.
Not so fast. I think I know what you’re trying to say; that it doesn’t change the physics. But “the science” is a lot broader than that, and the monkey business with hiding the decline does come under the heading of “the science”.
Now if you’re saying that climategate didn’t reveal anything that you and Steve McIntyre and a lot of other people who were paying attention didn’t already know, I’ll buy that.
I am saying that mails dont change physics. They cant.
Everything we discovered in the mails we knew before.
what we found was undeniable proof.
For once Mosher I have to agree. Of course climategate didn’t change the physics.
You never had the physics correct in the first place. Even the average man on the street always knew it was a fraud.
Anyone who has bothered to apply logical reasoning to the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis will come to the same conclusion, that it is a nonsense.
Anyone with half the sense they were born with is capable of understanding that the reason that the claims of the AGW pushers fail again and again is because they are based on nonsense.
I heard a painter and decorator saying today,
“even when it’s cold it’s global warming”.
Jesus, the man on the street can see the writing on the wall but the deniers of reality in their taxpayer funded ivory towers refuse to accept it.
That means you Curry and you Mosher, and every other self appointed wizard (dreamer) who thinks they can switch the pea under the thimble simply by mixing the terms thermalisation and radiation or even thermal radiation and electromagnetic radiation.
Wake up!
It’s over, the man on the street does not buy it. You cannot shove these people around with that “you don’t understand radiative transfer” crap. Your talking to people who depend on understanding such things for their daily survival.
Heating engineers, plumbers, construction workers, electricians. People who can grasp reality perfectly well and know that you cannot create energy out of nothing. People who can understand that you cannot heat a warm room with cold air. Practical people who may not have PhD’s but are way sharper than your tiny minds can give them credit for.
The man on street never did fall for your AGW and your so called “greenhouse effect” nonsense.
The only fools who were ever taken in by this pseudo-science were the idiots who were pushing it. It’s called believing your own bullshit, or getting high on your own supply and it comes from spending way too much time having one way conversations with yourselves.
Get over yourselves. The longer you drag this on, the worse it will be for you.
The so called “greenhouse effect” violates all three laws of thermodynamics. Everything we experience in the natural world on a daily basis is governed by these laws. These laws are not derived from an unproven hypothesis, they are based on reality. They are truths.
Just like the fact that gravity causes the apple to fall from the tree, these basic laws are not subject to endless debate resulting from circular arguments and every logical fallacy ever recorded. The three laws of thermodynamics are indisputable truths.
The so called “greenhouse effect”, which violates of all three laws of thermodynamics, is an unproven hypothesis.
Man on the street.
Steven Mosher
“mails don’t change physics” – 100% correct
Can “mails” reveal instances where the “physics” were biased, flawed or bent, and thus result in a subsequent “revision” (or “change”) in those “physics”?
Very well imaginable.
Has it happened in this case?
???????????
(Tell me. You wrote the book, Steve).
Max
opinions get heated…real scientists ask for data and experimental results and look at them dispassionately…however, in any generation, there are few scientists…- Bohr recognised Feynman as one in the 1940s , but who now counts as a real dispassionae scientist?
Dr. Lacis,
Was it courteous when Hansen’s 1988 testimony was performed in a stage managed hearing room?
Was it good manners to call for war crimes trials against skeptics or to call for stripping professionals of their licenses if they do not agree with AGW?
“… we face with the likes of Senator James Inhofe, and Congressmen Dana Rohrabacher, Joe Barton, and James Sensenbrenner, among others who have proclaimed that “global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated”. ”
Sorry but I do recall the AGW side gladly hitching its wagon to Al Gore, a politician with no training in or understanding of any branch of the sciences, long before Inhofe, Rohrbacher, etc. got involved. This is a classic case of lying with dogs and getting bitten by fleas. Remember who first let the dogs in.
And who was too cheap to get them flea treatment.
One of the problems that I think scientists such as Dr Lacis should address is that some of the earlier predictions of climatology have been shown to be only partially correct.
While, new measurement techniques, some of which appear to me to be miraculous, will undoubtedly improve models, one does have to remember that the models may still not be accurate (as opposed to correct).
Given the massive transformation of society that climate science tells us essential, we have to ask how believable the predictions of models are and is it possible that the increase in temperature will be tolerable, even beneficial, argriculture will in fact flourish, sea level rises will be relatively modest and so on.
There is a great deal riding on these models but I do wonder whether their physical basis is entirely sound and their predictions are so robust that society has to be transformed as radically as some people might think. The argument is not helped by some high profile climatologists making idiotic comments such as New York will be underwater, the Arctic is in a death spiral, Global warming will cause mass migration and so on, which have failed to happen. This hyperbole does not strengthen the case that global warming is a real threat in the mind of sceptical (as opposed to gullable) observers.
(PS: I am a luke-warmer. I certainly believe in the effects of CO2, I am less certain about large positive feedbacks leading to tipping points)
Your postscript is illuminating and describes exactly my studied conclusions.
Unless one is willing to say that current or future CO2 level increases will cause the earth to never have another ice age, then we are obviously biding our time until that happens. Are there climate scientists or modelers making this kind of prediction that I haven’t found?
It is instructive that I have been unable to find any public information concerning how the current models have been used to examine when the next ice age will start. It’s obvious that only warming has been dealt with. Consequently, we have no predictions of the coming of the next event. This means the next ice age could start in 100 or 1000 or 10,000 years and climate science will have not dealt with how their current projected warming will affect the timing or severity. Policy decisions must take this into account yet not one famous climate scientist has dealt with the issue that I can find.
Basically public policy is being driven by religious dogma that only talks about heaven and never thinks to deal with hell. I have concluded that if the models are unable to deal with the next age while at the same time dealing with current climate, then they are worthless for making policy decisions. Climate scientists should add disclaimers to their work that it must not be used to make policy decisions. I know this will knock the IPCC out of business, but so be it.
All in all it seems this is the second time in a few days that Judith has allowed herself to be taken for a ride.
When certain people speak, our host’s critical thinking shuts down. I suppose it happens to us all. With friends like these, etc etc
Judith, please tell me you don’t believe Petty’s child’s fairy tale about how wonderful science is. He says:
That is colossally stupid, Judith. Surely you must realize that every single scientist doing shabby science and pushing a climate agenda has a huge incentive to let others get away with bad science. Look at the climate scientists’ response to people asking Mann for his data … did they stand up for good science?
Nope. They bent over and spread their cheeks for bad science.
Or look at the response of the climate science community to the horrendous science exposed in the UEA emails.
Now look at how, following Petty’s claim, after Climategate the climate scientists jumped up by the dozen to not “let others get away with bad science” … NOT.
Didn’t happen. Not a bit, not a taste, not a scrap of Petty’s bullshit about how all the scientists band together to quench bad science. Instead, Judith, you and the others refused to name a single name or to decry a single action. And now you want to claim that it’s all right, because Petty says science is self-correcting? Is that your final answer?
It is particularly aggravating because I had actually hoped that the revelations in the emails would provoke the exact kind of reaction that Petty claims really happens. Instead, we got nothing. No blow-back. No honest, ethical scientists standing up to knock down bad scientists. Nothing, Judith, not a bit … and now you bring up Petty’s fantasy about how science works?
For Petty to now claim that such things actually happen in climate science means that he is either
a) absolutely clueless, or
b) lying like a dog.
Your choice.
And Judith, for you to post such obviously pollyanna rubbish means that you are either
a) not really thinking about what you are posting, or
b) don’t really believe what you are promoting, or
c) lying like a dog, or
d) as clueless as Petty.
I’m going with “a, not really thinking”.
THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU POST, Judith. You are not doing your reputation any favors by agreeing with this kind of puerile feel-good nonsense. Petty’s claim that everything is just fine in climate science because the good guys will stop the bad guys is excrement, and you know that for a fact because you and the rest of the “good guys” are doing sweet Fannie Adams to stop them.
w.
And Judith, for you to post such obviously pollyanna rubbish means that you are either
Another alternative is that Judith has provided the author with an opportunity to have his opinion read and critiqued by a group with mostly enlightened views but diverse training and expertise.
What you posted here was awful, but she let you post it without any claim that she endorsed or opposed it. Or, to put it another way, I liked my wording about their insufferable arrogance better than your wording. Judith didn’t endorse or oppose me either. Your post is written in the style of AGWers: anybody who doesn’t agree with me is either lying like a dog or clueless.
Here endorsement was this: So thank you Grant Petty for your engagement and independent assessment of this group.
It referred to a particular facet of many posts, directed at another group of skeptics who have bad arguments.
Willis,
Being rude to our hostess is not going to help anyone do anything.
Petty’s claims, are like many of Lacis’, childish and misleading. That does not make either of them and especially our hostess, liars.
Wrong is wrong, and that is more than enough to explain the issues facing AGW.
“Instead, Judith, you and the others refused to name a single name or to decry a single action.”
Ironically the two skeptic posters who replied to this complaint of yours have refused to decry Judith’s actions as you have.
Willis
Thanks Willis. I agree with you 100%.
The response was the greatest science whitewash of all times.
To be fair, there were scientists here and there who did stand up, and even resign professional societies over this conduct, and related issues. The real problem was that it wasn’t enough. The band tribe maintained control of the institutions, and the protesting scientists were shunned. But there were many who did stand up.
And Willis, I would say that absurd article in the last thread about what Steve Jobs would have been able to do for energy and climate is evidence that the answer is indeed “a) not really thinking about what you are posting”.
Methinks thou protests to much.
It’s still warming, the ice is still melting, the oceans are still warming and your analysis of said ocean warming is fraudulent.
And you know it.
Well, at least you got one out of three right.
The ice is melting (in the Arctic, at least).
Wow! So, it’s a massive conspiracy?
Gee. I’ve never seen that theory before.
lol!
Think outside of climate science for a minute… How many criminals turn in other criminals? Is it a massive conspiracy? No, it is self preservation. If I don’t rat them out, they wont rat me out.
How is it that you miss some of the most obvious explanations? Oh, but I forget your need to take people out of context and read into their statements something other than what they clearly meant.
And do you really think climate scientists get rich promoting global warming?
James Hansen for one has gotten rich. Grant recipients earn above average salaries and grant success contributes to a positive decision on tenure (cf the tenure thread.)
The nature of real modern science is that fraudulent claims don’t go undetected long, because too many people are working on pieces of the same giant jigsaw puzzle, and when pieces don’t fit, they look around for the reason.
Cases of fraud have gone undetected for long periods of time. Examples, including descriptions of how much time and effort have to be redirected toward finding and proving the fraud, are published regularly in the journal Science. Others above have cited the thimerisol case. Whether the first “hockey stick” was actual “fraud” is hard to tell, but it was intentionally deceitful (which is why IPCC eventually removed it from their web page.) UVA and PennState, unlike George Mason U., are hindering an investigation into possible crime (including deletion of emails covered by FOIA) even as we discuss this.
The models aren’t perfect; no one says that they are.
The claim is often made that they are accurate enough to redirect enormous sums of money toward making energy even more expensive than it is, and to prohibit some forms of energy harvesting altogether.
But they’re a damned sight more grounded in real science and physics than the naive but cocky “proofs” published in blogs by the self-taught, and the blanket unfounded assertions (“there is no two-way exchange of radiation because we say there isn’t”) that somehow passes for science in this group.
That’s for sure.
Some of you have shown yourselves to be hyper-critical, even gleeful, in finding apparent fault with the intelligence and/or knowledge of others, including (or especially) those who actually spend their whole lives doing climate research. I hope to God that some of you, at least, learn how to be a little self-critical as well.
Let me gleefully point out that “they started it!” Calling skeptics “deniers”, calling for skeptics to be tried for crimes against humanity, etc. Expressing the desire to punch out an intellectual opponent and being happy when one died. Had they been humble from the start (had they gratefully welcomed Steve McIntyre’s efforts at identifying and correcting mistakes, and other efforts of the sort), had they not been so insufferably arrogant, they’d never have been pilloried for small errors.
The Climategate emails clearly demonstrated that leading climate scientists were intentionally collaborating to paint a biased picture of climate, through manipulation of the system.
Had these emails not been released, how would this have been detected? Except for the release of these emails a global agreement on CO2 would have very likely been signed in Copenhagen. Who knows what might have happened if Obama hadn’t had to rush away to beat the snowstorm approaching Washington and the US east coast. Even then, Cap and Trade passed the House and only failed in the Senate by the barest of margins.
Except for an as yet identified individual who probably should be regarded as one of the greatest saviors in human history, the energy supplies for much of the world would now be controlled by the UN acting though the likes of Strong, Gore, and Goldman Sachs.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/9629
Even now the US is saddled with an EPA endangerment finding that the EPA defends as “not having a significant impact on the economy”. Take a look at the US economy and judge for yourself the cost.
We already knew evrything of interest we found in the mails. the mails merely provided the proof and some interesting personal color
steven mosher
As your book points out quite clearly…
Max
Good link Fred.
Its right in line with the Petty post.
Grant Petty and Andy Lacis paint a picture of dedicated climate scientists working tirelessly to follow where the science leads.
Any criticism of their strange habit of hiding and even falsifying the data is unfair.
Why do Goldman Sachs and George Soros have very definite views on the effects of an increase in CO2?
The answer of course is another scam to make money.
In 2008 all the rating agencies gave AAA grade status to CDO’s.
All the financial experts agreed that the new economic paradigm had abolished the boom and bust cycle.
Vast numbers of PhD level employees from physics and maths (rocket scientists) dreamt up ever more esoteric bonds which were automatically granted AAA status.
Cautious pension fund managers why doubted “the consensus” were sacked as their returns failed to keep up with the herd.
Goldman Sachs sold CDO’s to the gullible fund managers and granted mortgages to anyone who could sign their name.
Meanwhile Goldman Sachs ran a much bigger hedge fund for the smarter investors to short this GS self created bubble.
Its reasonable to ask why the Goldman Sachs executives are not in jail after such obvious fraud?
I see the questioning of the climate science elite in the same light as the questioning of the financial elite.
If you value your pension fund and savings oppose the greenhouse gas scam and join the demonstrations against the Wall Street and similar elites.
At present demonstrations and occupations are happening all around the world.
A very healthy and sceptical process is happening.
As long as you have Trenberth calling for a “new” null hypothesis regarding AGW, and the works of Mann and his glaring errors of the “hockey stick” that can’t be brushed aside without a serious look as to his intent, there will be a reactionary push against it. “To every action there is an equal an opposite reaction”. Grant Petty may have pure intentions, but he’s got to understand the “orthodoxy” has it’s shenanigans too.
I am prepared to confidently predict that the next conference on Kyoto being held in Durban next month will not come to any agreement to extend Kyoto, or agree on any new treaty to curb CO2 emissions. We are going to consume that last barrel of oil, the last ton of coal, the last cubic foot of natural gas, etc. We are simply going to go on burning fossil fuels until we run out of them. CO2 levels in the atmosphere are going to go on rising at an ever increasing rate.
Am I worried? Not in the least. The more CO2 we put into the atmopshere, up to say 1500 ppmv the better. There will be a negligible effect on global temperatures, and we will be able to grow more food.
So, as I scientist, I am prepared to wait for the results of this “experiment”. We will see what happens to global temperatures in the future. And when the data is in, after another 20 years or so (I wont be around), I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that it will be impossible to detect any CO2 signal in the temperature data. One can have as many theories and hypotheses as one likes, but in the end the only thing that counts is the observed data. “To the solid ground of Nature, trusts the mind that builds for aye” William Wordsworth.
you mean as a reckless fool, not a scientist. A real scientist wouldn’t make such an embarrassing statement.
lolwot
As an outsider in this conversation, it seems to me that Jim Cripwell has made a very sensible statement of his views, as a scientist who is rationally skeptical of the premise that added atmospheric CO2 will lead to climate disaster.
You, on the other hand, have just resorted to an “ad hom” attack on Jim.
Max
No Manic, lolwot didn’t “just resort” to an “ad hom” attack on Jim. He clearly criticized Jim’s “embarrassing statement.”
The fact that Jim is not embarrassed by such an incredibly stupid statement is what makes him look like a fool in people’s eyes.
I have yet to see a model of the diurnal cycle, and the effect that [CO2] has on the rates of heating and cooling.
A hypothesis is designed to be tested, at least in science. Now, as photon recycling is the mechanism proposed for CAGW, one would expect a larger difference in the change of minimum temperature in the winter solstice compared to the summer solstice; as the nights are longer. So a CO2 driven change in nightly cooling would be much greater either side of the winter solstice than the summer solstice.
Where is the data? Indeed, where have you actually looked of any data to test your models? Whave the rates of heating and cooling at the South pole changes over the last four decades? (No). Have you looked at the data? No.
Why is the Ar/N2 ratio changing, when both these gasses are essentially inert?
If you have so much faith in your models, why not define what failure would means?
Why not state that we run each model, beginning for a year somewhere between 1940-1970 (chosen by someone like me), then run it 100 times, then the 95% confidence level of the output is CONVENTIONALLY calculated, and if the recorded temperature profile falls outside the 95% confidence level of the actual temperature, the model is scrapped and its writers are sacked?
You have ‘faith’ in your models. Most scientists have little ‘faith’ in theirs. We normally use them to tell us what isn’t happening, not what is going to happen. Models are a very good way to show you that you system isn’t properly described, almost no one, ever thinks they provide predictive power.
.
DocMartyn | October 15, 2011 at 4:32 pm | Reply
I have yet to see a model of the diurnal cycle, and the effect that [CO2] has on the rates of heating and cooling.
I hope to have one in a few months. If I am successful, I’ll submit it for publication.
But I am glad you mentioned that, and I hope that more people become aware of this glaring deficiency. I have hammered on the inaccuracies entailed by the many equilibrium approximations, and this is the most glaring, in my opinion.
Where is the data?
There are lots of data that can be brought to bear on this question, and more are being accumulated. But the data sets are huge. This conference should be informative:
http://ams.confex.com/ams/92Annual/webprogram/21PROBSTAT.html
Matt, am I correct in the view that the peak temperature of the diurnal cycle, over land, further from noon the more ‘wet’ the ecology?
(Dr. Alan Batts of the Research Applications Laboratory has some nice stuff, here is an overview of his work
http://www.rap.ucar.edu/projects/watercycles/resources/DiurnalTucson.pdf)
I have always thought it useful to calculate the climate sensitivity for somewhere like Manaus, Brazil. At just 3° off the equator it give a nice range of input fluxes (Figure 7l-4:)
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7l.html
Matt, am I correct in the view that the peak temperature of the diurnal cycle, over land, further from noon the more ‘wet’ the ecology?
I don’t understand the question.
When does a location reach Tmax? Tmax appear to be reached in deserts near the time where light flux is highest.The greater the levels of water at the surface, the later in the afternoon the Tmax occurs.
In grasslands it appears that much of the light flux is used to drive the liquid/gas phase transition of water, so Tmax occurs in the late afternoon. How much of this is due to plants I am not sure. I doubt if anyone has studied the diurnal cycle on a patch of grass, before and after, spraying it with paraquat.
DocMartyn, now I understand your point, and I am sure that I do not know the answer to the question of whether that is widely agreed. I think that more studies of hour-by-hour variation in the data sets that have hourly measures (like TAO) will be necessary.
I think you are right that Tmax occurs later in the day for wetter surfaces, except when clouds form over the wetter surfaces and/or rain fall. But I don’t know.
Andrew,
Thank you for your devotion to this. Ball, any human being, very human being, deserves better than O’Sullivan. He harmed Ball’s case, he harmed Ball. Please keep up the good fight against O’Sullivan
If Scherr knows what he is doing he can make life very tough for Mann.
If Scherr knew what he was doing, would he employ a humbug like O’Sullivan as a legal consultant to help defend ball WITHOUT verifying whether O’Sullivan is licensed to practice law in British Columbia courts?
If Mr. Scherr knows what he is doing, why did he ignore the information I sent him last May concerning Mr. O’Sullivan’s bogus claim of “more than 10 years of successful litigation in New York State and Federal 2nd District Courts” and still keep him as a “legal consultant” helping to defend Tim Ball?
By hiring and then keeping O’Sullivan as a “legal consultant,” it appears Mr. Scherr has made life a lot tougher for Mr. Scherr — NOT for Michael Mann.
Mr. Scherr claimed in their court filings that John O’Sullivan’s communications with Tim Ball and with his law firm are privileged because O’Sullivan has been engaged to provide legal services for Ball since February 2011. Mr. Scherr now has to provide satisfactory evidence that O’Sullivan is qualified to provide legal services within British Columbia.
Mr. Scherr will have a difficult time convincing the Law Society of British Columbia that their records are somehow inaccurate, that Mr. O’Sullivan not only has a law degree, but that he is licensed to practice law in British Columbia. If he is unable to do that, Mr. Scherr may be found in violation of one or more of the Law Society of British Columbia’s rules regarding professional conduct of lawyers.
Judging by Mr. O’Sullivan’s removal of his claim of being a Legal Consultant for Pearlman Lindholm, assisting in the defense of Tim Ball, from his LinkedIn profile last week, damage control is now underway. Unfortunately for Mr. Scherr and Mr. Ball, it may be four months too late.
You should learn to read. I said If.
I don’t believe he does know what he is doing.
If he did, he could make things difficult.
Perhaps, you want me to explain to him how to do that?
And I repeated your “if” It is you, Mosher, who should learn to read. I’d be happy to have you go explain to Mr. Scherr how to defend Tim Ball in these libel suits. I believe he’s got an opening, now that John O’Sullivan has apparently “left the firm.”
Mosher,
You’re entitled to your opinion, as is anyone else, but you and Skolnick have now been made to look very stupid being that the British Columbia Law Society dismissed all of Skolnick’s complaints against me as being totally unfounded.
But don’t let independent investigations stop you libeling me. You carry on and if necessary, I will take my remedy in the courts and prove you to be the liar you are for aiding and abetting Skolnick in his defamations.
You discredit yourself as an impartial observer by placing your faith in the judgement of Skolnick who is a proven liar who falsely claims to have a master’s degree, lied that he won two lawsuits he didn’t and was fired from his job at the AMA for false representation. Sadly, it is by your appeal to Skonlick’s ‘authority’ in these matters that you reveal your own ignorance and bias in backing proven lies written about me.
To see which one of us is the baldfaced liar, check what Mr. O’Sullivan says in the bio he just provided a link to, against what Tim Ball’s attorney, Mr. Michael Scherr, told the Law Society of British Columbia. Here are the society’s summary letters sent to me and to Mr. Scherr:
http://www.aaskolnick.com/global_deniers/BC_LawSociety_4-nov311_Skolnick.pdf
In his answer to the society’s questions whether Mr. Scherr knew O’Sullivan is falsely claiming to be an attorney employed by his law firm, Mr. Scherr stated [emphasis added]:
“What I can say is that our firm did >not engage Mr. O’Sullivan to provide any services to our firm.”
“Mr. O’Sullivan is engage by our client, not this firm.”
“I was not aware that Mr. O’Sullivan was representing himself as a lawyer representing Dr. Ball in these actions.”
“I took no steps to investigate Mr. O’Sullivan’s professional status.”
Now compare Mr. Scherr’s statements with the bogus claims in the bio Mr. O’Sullivan has just drawn our attention to: [emphasis added]
“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. O’Sullivan also acts as a legal consultant for successful Canadian law firm, Pearlman Lindholm, Vancouver, Canada.”
Note: Not a word of this is true. O’Sullivan is NOT a member of the ABA. He is not an attorney or a litigant involved in the suits against Dr. Mann and Dr. Weaver. The law suits are libel suits, not “climate science suits.” He is not a legal consultant for Pearlman Lindholm. In addition, Pearlman Linhdolm is not always successful. And it is NOT located in Vancouver, BC It’s in Victoria.
In addition, he has never been licensed to practice law in New York, in U.S. Federal Courts, or anywhere else. And he has never published any articles in National Review of Forbes magazines.
In summary, he’s a complete humbug.
ASSkolnick,
how STUPID are you really?? Your highlight states that he claims to be a LEGAL CONSULTANT, NOT an ATTORNEY!!
Yet you appear to be trying to say he is CURRENTLY CLAIMING TO BE WORKING AS AN ATTORNEY ON THE CASE!!
Pull your head out man!! You are doing none of us any good, especially your self.
By the way, when are you going to refute O’Sullivan’s accusations?
Dr. Petty:
Venus: No Greenhouse Effect
Over the range of Earth tropospheric pressures, the temperature in Venus’s atmosphere at a given pressure is 17% higher than that in Earth’s atmosphere at the same pressure level, and this is due entirely and precisely to the difference in the two planets’ distances from the Sun, nothing else (that difference predicts a Venus/Earth temperature ratio of 1.176–due to an incident solar power ratio of 1.91, i.e., 1.176 = fourth root of 1.91–and 1.176 is in fact what the actual ratio is, outside of the Venus cloud layer). There is no greenhouse effect, of increase in temperature due to an increase in carbon dioxide (Venus has 96.5% CO2, to Earth’s 0.04%–more than 11 doublings of CO2, yet no effect beyond that just stated, due to the difference in received solar power). The observed temperature ratio means that the two planetary atmospheres are warmed precisely in accordance with their distances from the Sun , and nothing else–Venus’s atmosphere is warmed by 1.91 times the power that warms Earth’s atmosphere–even though most of the visible solar irradiation is reflected by the clouds of Venus. That means that the atmospheres are not warmed by visible radiation, they must be warmed (in the troposphere) by infrared radiation. In fact, they must be warmed by the SAME PORTION of the infrared radiation from the Sun, else the Venus/Earth temperature ratio wouldn’t be 1.176 so closely (implying a 1.91 Venus/Earth power ratio, which again is successfully and precisely predicted, solely from the ratio of their distances from the Sun). There is clearly NO GREENHOUSE EFFECT and NO ALBEDO EFFECT–there is simply no room for either, in the observed comparison of temperatures. Furthermore, this analysis also confirms what I was taught over 40 years ago as a physics student, that the proper boundary for substituting a blackbody for the Earth system, TO GET THE THERMODYNAMICS RIGHT, is outside of the atmosphere, not at the Earth’s surface where radiative physicists insist upon doing it.
It is quite obvious that radiative transfer theory, while apparently good for adding up radiation components, is no good for getting the thermodynamics of the atmosphere right. And it should have been obvious to any competent climate scientist, or physicist interested in the “greenhouse effect”, 20 years ago when the Venus data was obtained by the Magellan spacecraft. So I am sorry, but you and Dr. Curry, and every other scientist defending the “consensus” on the existence of the “greenhouse effect” are simply incompetent, due to the definitive comparison of Earth’s Standard Atmosphere with the October 5, 1991 data from Venus (which tells us also that the Venus atmosphere must be always in its equilibrium state, as also confirmed by the fact that Venus’s dark side is just as hot as its sunlit side). For all the lessons you and every other interested physicist should have known since 1991, read both the above-linked article and the comments following it.
One calculates the greenhouse effect from solar flux albedo and global temperature using well established constants. Calculations vary according to the parameters used but whatever the value for the greenhouse effect is calculated it has no effect on the planet because it is nothing more than a theoretical calculated value.
In his 1981 paper Hansen calculates the Earth’s greenhouse effect to be 33°C. If you ask your local astrophysicist to calculate the Earth’s greenhouse today in all liklihood the value will be the same 33°C
If you ask another astrophysicist who uses a different value for both the Albedo and the solar flux and comes up with the value 34.5°C it doesn’t mean that the global temperature will rise by 1.5°C to accomodate the new calculation. The greenhouse effect in proper scientific terms is nothing more than a theoretical calculatoin and while calculations are real they have no real effect on global temperature.
The climate change issue is predicated on the physical effect that forms the basis for the theoretical calculation and this effect which is the temperature difference between the Earth with and without an atmosphere does not exist in reality because the Earth does have an atmosphere.
One must remember that the enhanced greenhouse effect as depicted by the IPCC should cause a reduction in OLR directly proportional to increases in CO2 and the other so called greenhouse gases. 31 years of satellite measurement of OLR shows that no such enhanced greenhouse effect has occurred and if something stated to be as powerful as the enhanced greenhouse effect is stated to be then if it exists it should at least be detectable which it is not.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the greenhouse effect is that the only variables used in the calculation relate to incoming solar energy as flux and albedo with CO2 concentration not even being included anywhere in the calculation!
“Venus’s atmosphere is warmed by 1.91 times the power that warms Earth’s atmosphere–even though most of the visible solar irradiation is reflected by the clouds of Venus.”
That’s ridiculously thick. So he knows that most sunlight is reflected by Venus (leaving Venus absorbing less sunlight than the Earth), but then pretends Venus absorbs more sunlight than Earth anyway because it’s closer to the Sun.
“That means that the atmospheres are not warmed by visible radiation, they must be warmed (in the troposphere) by infrared radiation. In fact, they must be warmed by the SAME PORTION of the infrared radiation from the Sun”
Huh? what? venus is warmed by infrared radiation from the Sun.
I like how he uses the word “must” several times for something so stupid.
“Venus’s atmosphere is warmed by 1.91 times the power that warms Earth’s atmosphere–even though most of the visible solar irradiation is reflected by the clouds of Venus.”
-That’s ridiculously thick. So he knows that most sunlight is reflected by Venus (leaving Venus absorbing less sunlight than the Earth), but then pretends Venus absorbs more sunlight than Earth anyway because it’s closer to the Sun.-
Put aluminum which has mirror-like finish- say 1/4″ thick by 12″ by 12″ in a vacuum with one side facing sunlight. Does it get warm?
Have 3 foot square pieces: reflected finish, one painted white, and one painted black.
Put them on the ground in direct sunlight. What is difference in temperatures?
The Bond albedo of these objects should be around: 1, .9 and .1
If the painted black aluminum is 50 C what will polished aluminum be?
If air temperature is 20 C will the mirror like aluminum be close to 20 C? Will the white painted one also be close to 20 C?
What if these are put in orbit around the earth- one side facing the sun and other side facing around 4 K of the universe. What is the kind difference between these in space environment as compared to your backyard or lab?
The above is generally referring the hottest an object gets if expose to sunlight [an hour or so in the sun {noon sun}].
A different question is how much heat energy is made- watts per second.
A water solar heater would use coils which are black in color, what is the efficiency difference be if instead the coils were painted white?
A black garbage bag with water in it, will heat up if put sunlight, if instead you use a clear plastic bag would it also heat up?
If so at what difference of rate?
But we live near the ground
You said in comments:
“The Venus/Earth comparison I have done does a lot to correct current theory, and this is another basic point. You will note that I did not include albedo in my calculation of the effective radiating temperature of the Earth, or of Venus, and there is no room for an albedo effect in my results. ”
The Bond albedo seems to an important factor to climate scientists, I don’t think it has much affect on a planet’s temperature.
If the moon’s surface was white instead of it’s near asphalt color, it would have a significant affect on the surface temperature, but what the white material was could have bigger affect than just it’s brightness or color.
And if a planet has atmosphere it seems it would less affect.
It’s my impression that Venus atmosphere is very transparent- more transparent than Earth’s atmosphere. Or if earth had 90 times it’s atmosphere the surface on earth would have darkness during “day time”.
Whereas Venus probes showed diffused sunlight at surface of Venus.
On earth at noon there is about 1000 watt per sq meter on the surface,
and above Earth’s atmosphere it’s 1300 watts per square meter.
So our transparent atmosphere loses 300 watts passing thru the atmosphere. If we had twice the atmosphere it seems we would instead have around 700 watts per square meter hitting the surface at noon.
Since the sun comes thru earth’s atmosphere at different angles and thereby passes thru more of the atmosphere, one could measure exactly how much more atmosphere would affect the amount sunlight reaching earth.
It seems if earth had so much atmosphere so that it was very dim at the surface during the day, rather cooler, earth would be warmer [and night would very similar temperatures at the surface as during the day].
Mr. Huffman, as the brilliant discoverer of the Lost Continent of Atlantis (you claim the space aliens, who came to earth 15,000 – 20,000 years ago to reshape our planet, moved it up to the Arctic Circle and disguised it as Greenland!), please explain to us why Mercury is so much colder than Venus.
You’ve written that, “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
By your “reasoning,” Mercury — which is approximately 1.9 times closer to the sun than Venus — would receive approximately 3.5 times as much solar radiation, which would make it much hotter than Venus. In fact, Mercury would be so hot it would be glowing like a red dwarf star!
But the innermost planet is NOT hotter than Venus — it’s more than 500 degrees F. colder!!! Mercury’s average temperature is 333 deg F (440 deg. K ) vs. Venus’ metal-melting 867 deg. F (773 deg. K).
Such is the “astrophysics” of the discoverer of how our planet was shaped — not by natural forces acting over billions of years, but by the whims of aliens who came to earth less than 20,000 years ago to reshaped earth’s land masses in order to leave a message that only he has been able to decipher.
Harry Dale Huffman dismisses the scientific evidence of the greenhouse effect of Venus’ atmosphere the same way he dismisses plate tectonics and other scientific theories that disagree with his crackpot discoveries about space alien gods coming to earth to teach the ancient Egyptians how to build pyramids, to rearrange the stars around us to leave us a message, and to make Australia look like an upside down “sheep dog.” http://www.lulu.com/items/volume_37/576000/576552/1/print/independent_confirmation2.pdf
I invite others to look at some of his writings and tell us if they don’t think Harry Dale Huffman puts the kook in cuckoo.
“I invite others to look at some of his writings and tell us if they don’t think Harry Dale Huffman puts the kook in cuckoo.”
It seems to me the idea that earth was formed 15,000 to 20,000 years ago, qualifies a kook in cuckoo.
One thing is I would think one could narrow down more than 15,000 to 20,000 years, like 16,500 or something:).
And I fairly certain earth has more less stayed the same rough shape for a few billion years, and lean towards the idea of the Moon being formed from a collision with earth somewhere around 4 billion years ago.
And seems like a lot work to put all those impactors site all around the world- and dinosaurs, etc. I personally think that large impactors may have some effect upon tectonic plate movement- but haven’t looked into it.
Actually, Huffman doesn’t say the earth was formed 15k-20k years ago. He says just the land masses were shaped and moved around by gods who came to earth in UFOs 15,000 to 20,000 years ago — and stuck around to teach the Egyptians how to build pyramids.
Just as he says climate scientists are all nincompoops, he dismisses the geologists of the world as “incompetent” for believing the childish fiction of plate tectonics. All of earth’s land masses were shaped, he says, not by natural geological processes over billions of years, but very recently by advanced space visitors to earth, whom are ancestors called “gods.”
He 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 earth was reshaped — not by natural geological processes that took billions of years — but by “advanced people” whom our ancient ancestors called “gods.”
“Actually, Huffman doesn’t say the earth was formed 15k-20k years ago. He says just the land masses were shaped and moved around by gods who came to earth in UFOs 15,000 to 20,000 years ago — and stuck around to teach the Egyptians how to build pyramids.”
You didn’t read far enough [not that I fault you]:
“In other words, if the expansion was done to deliberately transform
a dodecahedron into a truncated-icosahedron–or to imply such a process–then the radius of the Earth would have been expanded from its initial value to 41.81/23.28 times that value, or approximately 1.8 times its original value. Since the Earth radius is now some 3,963 miles, its original radius would have been some 2,200 miles.”
The most surprising thing about the apologists for failed academia is their belief that public money wasted on filing cabinets full of pseudoscience does not hurt anyone and in fact is a good thing because it gets us one step closer to the truth. Nothing could be further from the truth.
J. writes: “I will agree with Judith in the sense that I think it is a “problem” to use the term “denier” too broadly, or to make overly broad assumptions about the motivations or reasoning of people who are “skeptical” of AGW.”
Mighty decent of you. Dripping with condescension though it is. I love the quotation marks around problem and skeptical.
Or should I say “love?”
I understand where Prof. Perry is coming from, although I think his arguments are colored by an idealistic view of academic scientists. Others who have posted here amply refuted the notion that crank ideas cannot last long in the sciences, and there is no need to add more examples. And while I agree with Prof. Perry that the vigor with which some climate scientists promote their ideas is not part of a cynical get-rich ploy, this does not exonerate them, just as it did not exonerate academics who vigorously embraced eugenics in the early 20th century without being incentivized by a desire to get rich from it.
I agree that “science by blog” leaves much to be desired, but on balance I think it is a good thing to see these issues being engaged even if the blogger isn’t being paid a salary from a research grant to do it. Unlike other areas of the sciences, climate scientists are bidding to drive public policy in a major way, so I think it is reasonable to see non-climate experts taking an interest in it. It also should be noted that many of the objections raised by so-called skeptics and denialists has been focused, very rightly in my opinion, on how the institutions of science have not lived up to the idealized roles that we wish we could join Prof. Perry in believing that climate science has been fulfilling.
My apologies to Prof. Petty for misspelling his name!
Consider Whitby, it is a seaside town inNorth Yorkshire, England. Whitby is at the mouth of the River Esk, and is on the steep sides of the narrow valley. It has very nice sharks teeth fossils. The met office has its temperature record from 1962 to the present.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/stationdata/whitbydata.txt
i picked Whitby, more or less at random, but mostly because in Bram Stoker’s ‘Dracula’, it is here that the vampire come to England.
Now we know that the Earth rotates and from Stefan–Boltzmann’s law we know that emissive energy is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body’s temperature.
So, this recycling of photons by CO2; what will it do?
It will increase the photon recycling of long wave energy. Where will it have its greatest effect, Tmax or Tmin?
Well Tmin of course. At night the rate of cooling is going to be far more influenced by reflected long wave radiation than will the peak daytime temperature.
So, if CAGW is true, and results from photonic recycling, leading to an increase in the ‘global average’ temperature, then we can dissect the Tmin and Tmax, to find its sticky little fingerprints in Whitby; or anywhere else.
In Whitby, since 1962, the average yearly Tmin has been rising by 0.0337 degrees a year.
However, the Tmax has been rising by 0.0479 degrees a year.
If you plot the yearly averaged Tmin vs Tmax you get a R2 = 0.795, quite respectable; but the slope is only 0.66.
Tmax rises more quickly than Tmin
So, the Skydragon has been puffing his magic fire in the day time, more than at night.
Your Skydragon isn’t atmospheric CO2, not it is Tarmac, concrete and brick. We do have man-made warming, its called building stuff.
I refute you hypothesis, and piss on your models. According to your hypothesis, Tmin should rise faster than Tmax., and you actually know this. However, even though you have both Tmin and Tmax datasets, you homogenize them, so as to get a pseudo-mean, that means you don’t have to address the thermodynamic/kinetic discrepancy.
“In a large way, we are driven to do the research we do because of the
> myriad and countless other fraudulent claims, presumptions, and
> sophistries related to climate science. It has become apparent to us
> that the errors extend to the deepest level of the science.”
i would say that *part* of the problem is the news reports and climate spokepersons. That climate science is spun for political reasons- and some climate scientists are also involved.
You have news reporters using science data for a story- and also climate scientists using media to get the story out.
It my opinion that news reporters get science in general wrong, quite often- and this doesn’t have any to with “political” reasons, but just incompetence.
Then you news reporters having the intention of “improving” their story which usually include wild speculations of various sorts.
Then have another category of news reports which one call advocacy [climate stories are important]. New reporters involved with advocacy also are incompetence and spiced up to sell the story.
One could imagine that if a news reporter was an advocate wishing to spread the news of the importance of dealing with AGW, they would be better informed, and provide accurate information but this isn’t the case.
And the other category is climate scientists using the news to get the message out. This is selling something. They provide a story and they get
whatever message they want out there. Perhaps they are selling a book, perhaps they want more public money spend, etc.
So in summary we have the inaccuracy of the news/media.
Other than just the news, we have the advocacy groups- organization dedicated to a cause. Advocacy groups are causes “requiring support” otherwise such groups aren’t created.
Advocacy groups aren’t needed for science. Causes which may or may not involve science could exist, that isn’t the point. The point science doesn’t get disseminated by advocacy groups. It’s not how it works.
So we have such persons as Al Gore involved with advocacy. And Al Gore
is working with James Hanson, and Gore is selling AGW.
Al Gore is spinning [which means being untruthful, exaggerating, or saying stuff in such a manner that seems true]. Al Gore isn’t a scientist. Al Gore isn’t honest. He is used car salesman/con artist/politican.
When a Con Man get Noble Peace Prize, it raise eyebrows similar to when Yasir Arafat gets one.
Giving Al Gore a peace prize may seem like a good idea to some people, but others find it troubling.
I am lawyer and it seems to me one of the main reasons that climate scientists have such a poor reputation is because they haven’t endured a century of legal scrutiny in the way engineers, pharma businesses and medicos, those in the science sector, as it were, have endured such legal attention. Re Perry’s letter I think legal attention is inevitable given that climate scientists so often cross their lines of research into policy conclusions, as you’ve noted Prof Curry. They’ve come to the attention of lawyers because of their increasing hysterical claims (and Perry’s letter is hysterical in tone IMHO). The Italian litigation against the seismologists over the L’Aquila earthquake notices is the first I’ve heard of litigation against scientists. I think we can expect more and the more I think about it the more I think that’s a good thing. I do not consider Hansen Romm Mann Trenberth Jones Flannery Steffen Karoly hoeghe-Guldberg should be released from liability in negligence for their hysterical unsupported claims. (loss and causation are issues not suitable for a quick comment here).
BTW, really enjoy this blog Prof Curry.
You are a lawyer and you’re talking about climate scientist having such a poor reputation? Seriously?
Who next wants to take a whack at climate scientists? Any used car salesmen want to try?
Perhaps WB might feel safer living under a totalitarian regime like the one that arrested, imprisoned, and even executed biologists for teaching genetics in the Soviet Union for half a century. Stalin believed the “scientific theories” of Russian charlatan Lysenko better fit the Soviet world view. As a result, Russians remained in the medical dark ages for half a century and millions starved to death because farmers had been forced to follow agricultural policies based on the charlatan’s “science.”
Welcome to the New Lysenkoism, bought and paid for by the Koch brothers, Rupert Murdoch, and other corporate tyrants.
Good grief, Koch bros, Murdoch? Calm down. These are symbols of Ieftwing conspiracy theory. I am no Lysenko. I just want climate scientists to be as professional as engineers are today and in my opinion legal scrutiny will focus climate science attention on deliverable measureable objectivey true results, and away from models and alarmism.
“and in my opinion legal scrutiny will focus climate science attention on deliverable measureable objectivey true results, and away from models and alarmism.”
Yes, Comrade, I agree. We should use the power of the courts to control scientists so that they serve the true interest of the people. Peer review should be replaced by judicial review. “Legal scrutiny” of scientists worked great for Stalin.
You call yourself an attorney and yet you don’t seem to know why the rules of evidence in science are different from the rules of evidence in court. Like Stalin, you’d like scientists to do their work looking over their shoulder to make sure the police don’t come knocking on their door.
Andrew,
You are a bit wound up.
You seem to have shot your wad busting the sky dragons.
And frankly ignoring the aparatchiks pushing AGW makes your work in busting sky dragons look a lot less significant.
I tend to agree with you. Power without responsibility.
Certainly in the UK, we have politicians who BELIEVE in the green agenda because they had scientists explain it to them. Naturally, scientists are never wrong. Electricity prices have risen, fuel poverty is becoming much more common, certain individuals are making money hand over fist from renewable energy and the 3rd world is suffering the effects of biofuel policy.
This stems absolutely from climate science. There may be no “mens rea” and stupidity is not, as far as I know, a criminal offence.
However, if major policy decisions are made on advice that is uncertain and causes great economic harm and suffering, those who have given that advice have not discharged their responsibility to act professionally and to the highest standards.
Having worked in clinical research, in a field with a capacity for disaster, I have been only too well aware of the need for safety regulation, transparent ethical procedures and responsibility for one’s actions. The spectre of liability hangs over medical researchers. While frustrating, it is there for the protection of patients and is necessary.
If climate scientists wish to involve themselves in policy making, because of their expertise, they should carry responsibility for their mistakes.
To Grant Petty
you vastly overestimate the role of fraudulent claims
and fundamental errors in the science.
1) Has any one in the climate science community corrected IPCC’s wrong claim of “accelerated warming” in the fourth assessment report? Here is what the actual observation shows: http://bit.ly/nz6PFx
2) Has any one in the climate science community corrected IPCC’s wrong prediction for a warming of about 0.2 deg C per decade in the fourth assessment report? The actual observation shows a COOLING of 0.1 deg C per decade: http://bit.ly/nz6PFx
3) Has any one in the climate science community educated the public the oscillation in the global mean temperature between the upper and lower boundary lines are due to ocean cycles? http://bit.ly/nfQr92
4) Don’t you think to claim a global warming rate of 0.16 deg C per decade from 1970 to 2000 to continue in to the future at a climate sensitivity of 3 deg C for CO2 doubling, instead of a long-term global warming rate of only 0.06 deg C per decade, giving a climate sensitivity of only 1.1 deg C (=3* 0.06/0.16) a fundamental error in the science? http://bit.ly/oI8dws
To Grant Petty
ON ADMITTING AND CORRECTING MISTAKES
What is the observed exponential carbon emission growth rate that was forecasted to be 1.5% in Hansen et al., 1988?
The observed carbon emission curve is shown in the following graph.
http://bit.ly/mBXivS
From the above data, the approximate annual global carbon dioxide emission in G-ton from 1970 to 2007 = 3.67*4.3*e^(0.0164*(year-1970))
As a result, the annual exponential growth rate is 1.64%, a bit higher than the 1.5% assumed by Hansen et al, 1988.
CONCLUSION:
The observed exponential carbon emission growth rate is about 1.64%, which was forecasted to be 1.5% in Hansen et al., 1988. As a result, among the three scenarios, scenario A is closer to the reality.
Here is the comparison of the three forecasted scenarios with observation (GREEN).
http://bit.ly/iyscaK
Which climate scientist has attempted to correct this obvious wrong prediction?
Here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction-advanced.htm
“Had Hansen used a climate model with a climate sensitivity of approximate 3.4°C for 2xCO2 (at least in the short-term, it’s likely larger in the long-term due to slow-acting feedbacks), he would have projected the ensuing rate of global surface temperature change accurately.”
So even though emission were higher than scenario A, we have to pretend that we should really compare the real data to scenario B. However, had we stopped burning coal/oil in 1990, Hansen would be claiming credit for saving humanity.
The lawyer above made some damned good points, I may not like the profession, but lawyers make damned sure that we, scientists, walk the line.
They weren’t higher than scenario A though. The fact that you deniers can’t even get basic facts right before you jump to conclusions speaks volumes.
lolwot
Use your head, rather than making silly statements like:
As Girma has pointed out from 1970 to today they were 1.64% of actual, while Hansen projected 1.5% for Case A. For the period 1980 to today they were even higher at around 1.7%.
If you are going to claim something, check it out first and avoid silly statements like “you deniers can’t even get basic facts right”.
Otherwise, you look real silly.
Max
lolwot
Do you seriously accept the “SkepticalScience” blurb you cited?:
Go through the calculation yourself. Don’t rely on this site. John Cook often gets carried away with enthusiasm for the calamitous AGW cause.
Hansen projected 0.9°C rise from 1985 to 2011 (= 0.35°C per decade) for Case “A” where he “assumed annual growth rate averages about 1.5% of current emissions”.
The actual temperature change over this period was 0.4°C (0.15°C per decade).
So Hansen was off by a factor of 0.9 / 0.4 = 2.25:1
The actual emission growth rate increased from 1.5% in the 1970s and 1980s to 1.7% from 1988 to today, so the actual rate of increase was actually greater than that assumed by Hansen for Case “A”.
So he was off by a factor of around 2.6:1, once correcting for this.
But ”had Hansen used a climate model with a climate sensitivity of approximate 3.4°C for 2xCO2”, what global surface temperature would he have projected?
Using the actual change in CO2:
C0 = 345 ppmv (CO2 level in 1985)
C1 = 390 ppmv (CO2 level today)
C1/C0 = 390 / 345 = 1.130
ln(C1/C0) = 0.1226
ln(2) = 0.6930
dT(2xCO2) = 3.4°C
dT (proj 1985-2011) = 3.4 * 0.1226 / 0.6931 = 0.6°C
So what “2xCO2 temperature response” did Hansen apparently use?
= 3.4 * 0.9 / 0.6 = 5.1°C
Ouch!
Max
lolwot
http://bit.ly/q7QESK
Scenario A assumes that growth rates of trace gas emissions typical of the 1970s and 1980s will continue indefinitely; the assumed annual growth averages about 1.5% of current emissions, so the net greenhouse forcing increases exponentially.
Actually, the observed CO2 emission growth of 1.64% emission is slightly MORE than scenario A of 1.5%. Are you saying current CO2 emission is less than that “typical of the 1970s and 1980s”?
Pat Michaels:
That model predicted that global temperature between 1988 and 1997 would rise by 0.45°C (Figure 1). Ground-based temperatures from the IPCC show a rise of 0.11°C
Here is the data that shows an increase in temperature of only 0.11 deg C:
http://bit.ly/nuE4df
CONCLUSION
Pat was right to say the observed global mean temperature change is more than four times less than Hansen predicted
think you need to actually read that skepticalscience piece, including the part following:
“Hansen’s Scenario B has been the closest to the actual greenhouse gas emissions changes.”
lolwot
Some advice.
When you are in the hole, stop digging.
Max
Dr. C wrote: “Andy, your statement assumes that all people who disagree with establishment climate science (e.g. such as represented by the IPCC) have the same reasons (motivation and substance) for disagreement as Inhofe and the Heartland Institute. The failure to recognize people with real concerns and questions (and often with valid points) on a variety of different aspects of climate science and policy and dismiss them as “deniers” and automatically lump them with Inhofe and Heartland is the source of the problem that we currently have. Continued efforts to improve communication of climate science won’t work until this is understood. And the continued lumping of all skeptics into the Heartland/Inhofe category and dismissing all disagreement and skepticism as fossil fuel funded tripe results in a huge backlash against the climate establishment.”
He can’t hear you, and thus can’t, or won’t, respond to this in any direct way. By the way Dr. Lacis, I couldn’t find a response to Hunter’s courteous, respectful query re Jones (and many others) concerning the lack of statistically significant warming since ’98. Perhaps I missed it, because it seems a pretty easy question to response to. I’ll look again.
Here’s another way of phrasing it: If the heats not missing, then why are they looking for it?
SkepticalScience:
Scenario A assumed continued exponential greenhouse gas growth, which did not occur.
http://bit.ly/q7QESK
It did occur as shown in the following graph, with exponential growth of 1.64%, a bit higher than Hansen’s Scenario A of 1.5% growth.
http://bit.ly/mBXivS
Note that the CO2 emission equation gives excellent estimate for the actual observed emission of 30.6 Gt for 2010.
CO2 Emission = 15.78 *e(0.164*(Year-1970)) Gt
CO2 Emission for 2010 = 15.78*e(0.0164*(2010-1970)) = 15.78*e(0.656) = 15.78*1.93 = 30.5 Gt
Hansen et al. 1988
“The range of climate forcings covered by the three scenarios is further increased by the fact that scenario A includes the effect of several hypothetical or crudely estimated trace gas trends (ozone, stratospheric water vapor, and minor chlorine and fluorine compounds) which are not included in scenarios B and C.”
‘Rhe global warming within the next several years is predicted to reach and maintain a level of at least three standard deviations above the climatology of the 1950′s’
standard deviation 0.13 degC.
‘We conclude that, on a time scale of a few decades or less, a warming of about .4 degC is required to be significant at the 3 sigma level (99% confidence interval)’.
No it didn’t occur. You are not factoring in CFCs and other greenhouse gases. Hansen’s scenarios were not just about CO2. Reading the actual skepticalscience article first – where this is fully explained – would have helped you avoid making that mistake.
one is not allowed to, post-hoc, change all the constants, as Gavin and John Crook:did. Hansen’s scenario A is closest the the actual changes that occurred.
RealClimate and Skepticalscience have a long history of distortion, misdirection, cherrypicking and rewriting their past statements.
John Cook has been shown to have re-edited contents, comments and replies to comments. As assertions made in the past have found to have been disproven by data, they past is rewritten. This type of ‘Stalinist’ rewriting of history is one of the motifs of the CAGW movement
http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/
.
“Stalinist rewriting.” I love you guys.
“Hansen’s scenario A is closest the the actual changes that occurred.”
No it isn’t. Stop lying.
I have no need to lie, I am not a climate scientist.
Here is Lucia’s plot of Hansens 1988 prediction. The twentieth anniversary.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/hansencomparedrecent.jpg
You will note that Lucia did not use ‘Gavin’s’ trick of rebaselining the plot,
http://www.annualreviews.org/na101/home/literatum/publisher/ar/journals/content/marine/2011/marine.2011.3.issue-1/annurev.marine.010908.163933/production/images/medium/ma030173.f1.gif
ouch. what great moral authority you bring to this. /sarc off
You claimed “emission were higher than scenario A” and “Hansen’s scenario A is closest the the actual changes that occurred.”
They weren’t. You are only looking at CO2 and ignoring the other gases
Willis,
While that was superbly written, as magnificent a polemic as I’ve read in quite a long while, I prefer to give J.C. the benefit of the doubt. I get angry at times myself at what seem unaccountable lapses, but I’ve come to respect the woman greatly. I get the increasing sense that she’s a confident enough person that she doesn’t feel impelled to explain every nuance of her position…..or if you prefer cover her own ass… every time she puts up a post.
Of course giving someone like Lacis space does not automatically imply that she’s in agreement with him. In Lacis’ case, I’m certain she knew quite well what the general response would be, a response with which I’m guessing she’s pretty much in accord. She can’t very well invite someone to post then turn around and attack him. And why should she when she knew damn well the denizens would it for her?
Regarding Grant Petty, I see nothing in her comments that look like a ringing endorsement of the man’s statements re climate scientists and the way science supposedly works. Dr. C, has made it quite clear as far as I’m concerned, that she’s disgusted with the actions of some climate scientists, and I doubt very much that she’s in agreement with Dr. Perry’s naive statements… beyond those directly bearing on the skydragon people
Hat’s off to Grant Petty! Well said, sir, well said!
Richard Dawkins does, he says, have a sneaking admiration for those creationist fundamentalists who don’t try to fudge the issue. For them Genesis is correct and modern science is wrong. They are sticking to their principles and for that, I suppose, they do deserve some, albeit grudging, respect. .
It’s the same on the CO2 issue. If you accept that CO2 and other GHG’s are part of the natural GH effect causing some 33 degC of warming then surely it follows that increasing the concentrations will cause additional warming. The figure of another 3 deg C, for a doubling, looks quite reasonable by comparison, doesn’t it?
So I guess what climate fundamentalists are saying is that they don’t want any fudging. The only way to give CO2 a clean bill of health is to deny that it, whether natural or man made, has any effect in the first place.
“Richard Dawkins does, he says, have a sneaking admiration for those creationist fundamentalists who don’t try to fudge the issue. For them Genesis is correct and modern science is wrong. They are sticking to their principles and for that, I suppose, they do deserve some, albeit grudging, respect. .
It’s the same on the CO2 issue. If you accept that CO2 and other GHG’s are part of the natural GH effect causing some 33 degC of warming then surely it follows that increasing the concentrations will cause additional warming. The figure of another 3 deg C, for a doubling, looks quite reasonable by comparison, doesn’t it?”
In comparison to creationist, I suppose it’s something one could associate with being sane.
I respect any religious person, including Dawkins, but I have no respect creationism in terms of science- it’s pseudo science.
But I believe Christians have better track record than Atheists in terms of doing actual science. But I don’t disrepect the atheists because there poorer record in this regard. Though I don’t accept there excuse of low numbers of atheists, other smaller minorities have done better.
As for accepting doubling CO2 means 3 deg C, it seems likely average temperatures could rise 2-3 C some time in the future- if you give it couple centuries. And it seems polar caps could melt if given 1000 years or so.
Co2 levels have risen to much higher level than doubling CO2 [by which meant 280 + 280 = 560 ppm. Though given enough time it could get as high as 400 + 400 = 800 ppm.
But no one is claiming 3 C rise and 560 or 800 ppm within say 50 years- other some like Ted Turner:
“Climatologists are predicting major droughts and rising temperatures
Our reliance on fossil fuel, which is running out, is beyond dangerous
On the path we are going now, within 30 years, most of the people on the planet will be dead
It will be 8 degrees hotter within 30 years and not doing anything at this point will be suicide.”
http://www.northfloridafarms.org/blog/ted-turner-most-humans-will-be-gone-within-30-years
I am not making any plans of retiring and growing orange trees in Oregon.
I don’t know why Ted Turner thinks “humans will be gone in 30 years”. That’s not what climate scientists think. He doesn’t know what he is talking about.
Just because Ted Turner is wrong (almost certainly !) , doesn’t mean that the IPCC have it wrong too.
The UN represents all sovereign nations, and was created by the most powerful, and righteous nation this world has ever had. It’s Infallibility
is a given.
I have posted a question to Judy about the Stefan-Boltzmann law used in climate science (which differs from the SB of radiative transfer in physics)
on my blog
http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2011/10/question-to-curry-about-stefan.html
and I expect a response from Judy.
On your blog you say that radiation detectors “measure frequency”,
“I explain there that 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”
http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2011/02/judy-curry-and-backradiation.html
Could you explain EXACTLY how this is done? I ask because Wien’s law relates to points on a Planck curve. If only frequency is measured, there is no other data available relating to any point on such a curve, which itself relates radiative flux and frequency.
Tony, the whole point is that the IR camera or thermometer (assuming it is not a microbolometer) measures frequency and computes temperature from that by WDL. After that any built in computations to determine radiative flux (using SBL) are prone to error. As the IR gadget probably assumes emissivity of 1.0 it can be way out if the emissivity of the atmosphere is only 0.2 for example.
Claes is right in his deductions in Computational Blackbody Radiation” and you will find more reasons why on my ‘Radiation’ page at http://climate-change-theory.com
There can be no other plausible mechanism by which the Second Law of Thermodynamics is validated for radiation. Imagine a hot body with low emissivity radiating less than a slightly cooler one. Net radiative flux could well be from cooler to warmer, but heat flow is the other way. Only Johnson’s Law (if I can call it that) provides the reason why.
See also my post below …
http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-168732
Grant Petty,
The Dragon slayer threads are what convinced me that the orthodox view that CO2 keeps the world warmer than it would otherwise be was correct. I remain sceptical, however, that anthropogenic CO2 is much of a problem because I’m not convinced that positive feedbacks are plausible. So I’m no great fan of the slayers, and neither am I a great fan of their rhetoric, which is every bit as bad as that of alarmists.
That said, yesterday I downloaded and read Donna Laframboise’s book about the shenanigans that goes on at the IPCC, all meticulously referenced. It’s the first time I have fully grasped the iniquity of the process by which the report for policy makers is produced. The scientists may well have been measured and cautious in conclusions, but the report ends up glossing over uncertainty and being extremely biased and misleading.
Okay – perhaps the scientists aren’t all a bunch of knaves and blackguards. But how many of them, fully aware of how the policy makers in various countries are being misled, are standing up to complain? Very few, and those that do so are the immediate target of vilification. And Donna’s research makes it quite plain that chapter leaders are seeded placemen who often have links with green activist groups. The whole thing is quite disgraceful, and yet the honest scientists you are talking about aren’t crying foul in droves.
My friend, evil thrives when good men stand by and do nothing. The climate science community has a great deal to answer for, so forgive me if I don’t buy into protestations of innocence and integrity. They appear reluctant to bite the hand that feeds them and to value their iron rice bowls over virtues like those.
I’m not convinced that positive feedbacks are plausible.
Two possible PF mechanisms.
1) when ice melts, it tends to be replaced by seawater or bare Earth. The albedo falls. More solar heat is absorbed, That means more ice melts .
2) When the atmosphere warms slightly, more water evaporates. Water is a GH gas. Therefore the atmosphere warms even more.
And you are saying that neither of these feedback mechanisms are even “plausible”? They both sound pretty plausible to me, although I would say that plausibility alone is only a starting point.
Again ignoring observations. Do you also think that warming is in the pipeline?
Global temperature flattened at the highest CO2 “forcing”, just like it always does.
“1) when ice melts, it tends to be replaced by seawater or bare Earth. The albedo falls. More solar heat is absorbed, That means more ice melts .
2) When the atmosphere warms slightly, more water evaporates. Water is a GH gas. Therefore the atmosphere warms even more.”
Global warming would cause these things to happen. Yes?
We have had global warming for more than 150 year?
Have we already seen this affect during the 150 years?
Of the temperature rise to date how much has caused from this affect?
If warming trend continues how much warming would expect from this factors in next 50 years?
M. Larkin wrote: “My friend, evil thrives when good men stand by and do nothing”
That was all well said sir. Line above made me think of Yeats’ chilling poem:
“The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.”
Pokerguy:
I wish I could claim the saying was mine, but I was paraphrasing this:
“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” (Edmund Burke)
To Grant and Judy: I have exposed the error in the derivation of the SB-law used in climate science in a new blog post
http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2011/10/comparing-true-sb-with-false-sb.html
and I await a reaction, since this post by Grant and Judy is about my criticism of the SB law of climate science. To first suggest critique of my work and then hide in silence when I meet the critique, is not reasonable.
Come out and argue instead of resorting to only snipe shooting.
Claes, true to form, you set up a straw dog to knock down. The Stefan Boltzmann equation is the integral of the Planck function. No one calculates atmospheric radiative heat transfer using the Stefan Boltzmann equation (not since the 1960’s, anyways).
Thanks Judy, finally a little sign: Could you now please answer the following questions related to your statement that DLR/False-Sb is a straw dog:
1. Do you agree with me that DLR should once and for all be removed from climate science?
2. Do you agree with me that the Kiehl-Trenberth energy budget with DLR is grossly incorrect?
3. Do you agree with me that climate scientists have invented a form of SB which does not have support in physics literature, and which in fact is false because it involves a violation of the 2nd law?
4. Have you read an digested my derivations of Planck/SB without statistics of quanta?
I appreciate prompt answers, which should be possible since you are now on line.
Claes Johnson,
Do you believe that photons emitted by the atmosphere to space carry away thermal energy, thus cooling the earth system? And if you answer that in the affirmative, please explain why those photons emitted by atmospheric gases that strike the earth’s surface do not carry thermal energy.
I don’t know anyone who disputes the idea that things with mass and temperate radiate. That’s not the point. The point is, can radiation be emitted from a surface, absorbed, then re-emitted to come back to the surface and make it warmer than it was? This is necessary to support the warming argument–that we will experience higher and higher average temperatures and higher and higher peak temperatures. It baffles me that anyone with the slightest clue about thermodynamics would believe this, but they do.
Sorry, not temperate, temperature.
Ken Coffman,
So you believe that you can add more of the bits that absorb/radiate to the atmosphere, without raising the temperature of the earth system? It don’t matter how much water vapor, C02, methane, etc. is in the atmosphere, it ain’t going to get no warmer. Conversely, if you take all that stuff out of the atmosphere, no change in temperature. Right? You are willfully ignorant.
Don, when you add a molecule to an air sample–that wasn’t there before–does the conduction and convection increase or decrease?
Ken,
Nobody is saying that radiation returning to the surface by whatever means is making the surface any warmer than it would have been.
But what can and does happen is that the “returning radiation” reduces the net energy flow from the surface, thereby stopping the surface from cooling as much as it otherwise would.
Think of it this way: a single photon is radiated from the surface. The surface is now cooler by the amount of energy contained in that photon.
That same photon is now returned to the surface, which is now ‘cooler’, so the surface absorbs it, and the absorption of that photon returns the surface to the same temperature it was before.
No mystery, no violating of the 2nd law, nothing. It just works.
Which physicist claims thqt that the atmosphere is emitting IR photons?
Not Einstein in any case. So who?
Oops, it seems I’ve accidentally left italics on
Claes,
Are you denying that some gases in the atmosphere absorb IR photons?
If you’re not then what do you imagine happens to them once they’re absorbed? If these gases do not also emit IR photons then how do you imagine the IR energy leaves the system at the TOA?
If you’re convinced that we’re all missing some fundamental point, then how about explaining it with a few worked examples? Because it seems clear that your reasoning is being lost in the translation.
Peter,
This is like talking to rocks. These characters have had this explained to them many times. They are committed to ignorance.
Oh, Peter, you are so close. CO2 can delay radiation to space by a long time, perhaps as long as a few milliseconds on average. Now, how does this tiny, immeasurable effect cause things like the following to happen?
1. As northern countries warm, disease carrying insects migrate north, bringing plague and disease with them.
2. As the temperature of oceans rises, so will the probability of more frequent and stronger hurricanes.
3. Increased probability and intensity of droughts and heat waves.
Although some areas of Earth will become wetter due to global warming, other areas will suffer serious droughts and heat waves.
4. Economic consequences. Most of the effects of anthropogenic global warming won’t be good.
5. Fires and wildfires. As the planet continues to warm, dry areas of land that are already susceptible to wildfires are likely to be ravaged by even more frequent and destructive episodes.
from http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com
Ken, if you think I’m so close then you should have little difficulty in explaining the last little bit you think I’m missing.
So why don’t you do just that, instead of setting up a whole lot of strawmen, as you’ve just done?
Claes, if you are looking for a scientist’s name associated with IR absorption and emission in the atmosphere, it would be John Tyndall (1820-1893). Also check out the subject of Infrared Spectroscopy which is a whole field of science devoted to this. You might find some people working on that in a nearby university physics department.
Jim, I have Tyndall’s Contributions to Molecular Physics in the Domain of Radiant Heat and I can’t find the place where he mentions “back radiation” from a rarefied gas increasing the temperature of the emitter to something greater than it started out. On the contrary, he mentions the delay in outgoing radiation as being like a “dam”. A dam, of course, does not add energy to a system–it only modulates the rate energy is dissipated in a system.
I could be missing something and I’d be happy if someone was more specific about the effects of “back radiation” adding energy to a system instead of smearing Tyndall’s good name. I don’t see anything in Tyndall’s writing that contradicts what the Sky Dragon Slayers have to say.
“I can’t find the place where he mentions “back radiation” from a rarefied gas increasing the temperature of the emitter to something greater than it started out. On the contrary, he mentions the delay in outgoing radiation as being like a “dam”.”
OK, let’s take the dam analogy and develop it.
We pump water at a fixed rate into a narrow channel. The pressure of the water corresponds to temperature, and the flow rate of water corresponds to heat flux. A certain height of water builds up at the top of the channel, and hence pressure, that drives the water through the rest of the channel.
Now we partly block the channel by putting a dam across it. The rate of flow in is the same, but the water level rises in order to get the extra pressure to force the same water flow past the extra resistance. The water leaning up against the dam exerts a pressure on it – so why doesn’t the dam move? The answer is that the dam is exerting a back-pressure on the water, opposing its flow. The two forces cancel out, the dam and the water in contact with it stay where they are, but the back-pressure from the dam is the ultimate source of the resistance to the flow that the extra pressure is needed to act against. However you look at it, the water level is higher as a result of putting the dam in place, even though the dam adds no additional water, nor forces water to flow upstream.
So far, I agree with you 100%, Nullius. Think of the original flow of the river before it was blocked. The dam could break and the temporary flow could be greater than the original flow, but the dam represents an additional loss in the system, it does not add any energy (or water, to maintain the analogy). The dam does not create any additional water. Conservation of “water” is observed.
Judy, I have posted my questions on my blog
http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2011/10/curry-on-straw-man-of-false-sb.html
and I expect a prompt answer about the straw dog you are speaking of.
Oh boy!
“I expect a prompt answer about the straw dog you are speaking of.”
Claes’ arrogance is only surpassed by his inability to follow anyone’s argument.
Claes Johnson,
You go back to your blog and wait for her. She will be right over, when she gets back from church.
I’ve been following the email exchanges with Dr. Petty and I appreciate his patience and the challenges he offers. If he wants to believe IR emissions from the surface get diffused into the atmosphere with a portion returning to the surface to make it hotter than it was (rather than temporarily warmer than it would have been for minority portion of a 24-hour cycle), that’s fine with me. However, I would love to see a portion of his skepticism applied to Kiehl/Trenberth’s global energy flows or to the idea that “greenhouse” gases increase our average surface temperature by 33C…and see where that leads us.
Ken, do you still stand by your colleague John O’Sullivan and his claims that he is a lawyer and an American Bar Association member, who has “successfully litigated for more than a decade in NY State and Federal 2nd District Courts”? That he’s an attorney hired to help defend Tim Ball in Mann’s and Weaver’s libel suits in British Columbia? And that he’s the author of two National Review climate articles? Or do you now agree he’s a shameless humbug?
I stand 100% with John on his analysis of climate science and global warming….he’s a very bright guy and thinks very analytically. Beyond that, I don’t know anything and my comments would be less than worthless. I don’t care about his resume–or your resume for that matter–and I think appeal-to-authority arguments on my side or your side or any side are a waste of my precious time, I like to talk about physics and ideas. I like John’s ideas. I don’t like yours. Fair enough?.
Ken, like most promoters of pseudoscience, you don’t understand the difference between an “appeal to authority” and an “appeal to honesty.”
You have surrounded yourself with and are helping to promote people who lie about their professional and academic credentials and then pretend that their dishonesty is not relevant for examining their claims. That’s utter nonsense.
People who falsely claim to have expertise and academic and professional credentials they don’t have cannot be trusted to tell the truth about anything.
I think others may agree with me that your continuing to defend O’Sullivan, after his pathological lying about his academic and professional credentials has been exposed, is what makes your comments “less than worthless.”
Andrew if as you say John O’Sullivan’s qualifications claims are false then he joins a long line of such frauds.
You are right to bring it to our attention.
However you would be wrong to attach any substantial importance to his influence.
He is a kind of “in your face” sort of guy, a bit like yourself.
Climate Science seems to attract all sorts of folk like Al Gore and George Soros .
You can even get a Nobel prize for spouting total rubbish – it is truly a very odd branch of science – perhaps unique.
Grant Petty and Andy Lacis think its practitioners are no different to the other sciences.
However claims of fraud are counterclaims are commonplace between practitioners.
Is this normal science?
Is refusing to divulge data normal science?
Is cut and paste graphs like Mann’s hockey stick normal science?
Skolnick has been thoroughly discredited and shown to be a liar after the British Columbia Law Society investigated his allegations against me and determined that every one was utterly unfounded. The fact Dr. Curry permits Skolnick’s lies to remain published on her blog exposes her bias and lack of objectivity and fairness.
But my colleagues and I are not in the least surprised being that Dr. Curry has shown the same lack of objectivity and inability to discern the truth when addressing our Slaying the Sky Dragon book.
The Law Society of British Columbia confirmed today that the complaint I filed against John O’Sullivan — not Michael Scherr — was not closed. It is still being investigated:
“As we are in the midst of reviewing a complaint of unauthorized practice, we cannot comment specifically. … The Law Society investigates complaints of people who aren’t lawyers engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. These investigations are based on specific facts and circumstances. Where there is a question of public protection the Law Society seeks undertakings from unauthorized practitioners that they cease. If someone refuses to sign an undertaking we may seek an injunction from the courts.”
nice
Ken,
Couldn’t seem to reply up thread. It seems there are now a few of us pointing out the fact that when the Earth radiates, the temperature drops, and returning a portion of the radiated energy via “back radiation ” or whatever you want to call it, will not restore that drop, let alone raise it.
The deniers of the the conservation of energy laws are gradually being backed into a corner. Good for you!
Well said, Ozzie. As time goes on, I have less and less respect for academia. As an engineer, I can’t just make up physics to suit myself. If I want to cool a semiconductor, I can’t wave my hand and invent a radiation modulator out of thin air.
Yeah, boss, you see, the CPU will dissipate 10W, but it won’t get hot because I have a really efficient IR radiator that will cool it…all we have to do is evacuate the CO2 and methane from around the heatsink and the thermal resistance will go down and the die temperature will be reduced by by 33C.
How you get from “slows the cooling rate by a few milliseconds” to “we’re melting the ice caps and we’re all going to die”? There are smart people who buy into this nonsense. They must really, really want to believe it. I can only shake my head with wonder.
Dear Ken Coffman,
I am not really keeping count, but there are at least seven of us. Next step – world domination!
No, boss, you don’t have to dry out the humidity in the air. No wonder you couldn’t make it as an engineer and got bumped up to management. You see, water vapor is a “feedback” and CO2 is a “forcing” .The WV won’t know what to do if there is no CO2 or methane, so we can ignore it. Oh, if the thermocouple says the chip is getting really hot, you can ignore that too, I’ve got some elaborate models and simulation which show outstanding results. Don’t worry, boss, I have a storyline for everything brought up in the design review.
Bryan says, “However you would be wrong to attach any substantial importance to his [John O’Sullivan’s] influence.”
Oh, really. I suppose the title of this Dragon Slayer discussion (and all the previous ones) means the Dragon Slayer leader’s has had no influence on the debate. Good one.
I suggest you do what Mr. O’Sullivan loves to suggest to anyone who questions his importance and influence: Google “John O’Sullivan” and “climate” and see how many blogs and web sites around the world publish and mirror his dishonest commentaries.
The comfort that so many climate warming “skeptics” show toward having prominent humbugs like O’Sullivan and Tim Ball in their ranks makes their cries against “fraud” ring hollow.
Andrew
Ken is right to say that the physics is what people want to discus on this site.
Claes Johnson and Joseph Postma have featured in three major threads.
If you feel confident enough to challenge their conclusions you should enlighten us.
I would be very keen for you to for instance find any fault in any of Joseph Postma’s three papers.
Bryan, when all the readers here take a vote and elect you and Ken to be their spokespersons, I’ll consider your claim to know what “people want to discuss on this site.”
I can understand why you and Ken don’t want people discussing the dishonesty of the Sky Dragon Slayers. What matters more to me is what the public has a right to know — especially those who are considering the false and deceptive claims of the Sky Dragon Slayers.
Andrew
I have already said that you were right to bring this point up.
I think all the readers have “got it” and factored it into the “fraud file” of climate science.
However if your only contribution is to endlessly repeat the same point it gets more than a little tiresome.
Let’s be clear, Andrew. I don’t care what you discuss. Say what you like. Write a book about it. Run a magazine ad. Run off at the mouth all day long. If you think that’s the best use of your time, then have at it. Get a megaphone. Type until your fingers bleed, it’s fine with me. Irrelevant, but fine.
Ken, you do see the obvious self-contradiction in your comment, don’t you? LOL!
Andrew,
First, understanding the character of people pushing big ideas is important. Character impacts quality.
Most skeptics agree that not only are the ‘sky dragons’ wrong, but that some of their leaders are dubious at best.
Now how about putting some of your effort into say, the enrichment of Hansen, the qualities of Mann, or the games at Penn, UEA, Jones, etc.?
Dr. Lacis,
Looks like Katia in Iceland’s about to blow. Cold PDO (with accompanying stronger, more frequent la ninas), low solar activity despite recent uptick, high latitude volcanos going off left and right. It’s looking more and more like the brutal NH winters are going to continue for the foreseeable future…
FYI, when Laki blew its top in the late 1700’s, another massive volcano in Iceland, the following winter the eastern U.S. was nearly 5 degrees C. below average. That’s some serious cold.
Andrew Skolnick: The comfort that so many climate warming “skeptics” show toward having prominent humbugs like O’Sullivan and Tim Ball in their ranks makes their cries against “fraud” ring hollow.
Sadly, if you have a point of view there is at least one nut-case and at least one charlatan who agree with you, and it is next to impossible to separate yourself from all the weeds. To make it worse, some of your honest friends are taken in by them. I agree with you that AGW skeptics should stop calling AGW promoters “frauds”, but then again, some of them are.
Matt, you can’t agree with me that “AGW skeptics stop calling calling AGW promoters ‘frauds,'” because I never said that. If there’s a AGW “promoter” who is a fraud, then he should be called on it.
However, you better be sure your charges are true or you may wind up like Tim Ball, defending yourself in a defamation suit.
“Next to impossible to separate yourself from all the weeds…”
Oh, really? Simply making a public statement that you reject the opinions and claims of the humbug and his bogus academic and professional credentials would show that you’re not hiding among the “weeds.”
Excerpted from ‘Gender differences in the academic world: a reflection’
by Don Aitkin
[ http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/gender-differences-in-the-academic-world-a-reflection/ ]
‘What has all this to do with any university, you might want to ask. My short answer is that the university, like all institutions in our society, has been largely defined in male terms, and thus as a Game. I am most conscious of this in an area in which I have spent a very long time: the business of research funding. Research grants schemes are all about winning, and great virtue comes from gaining a grant: one has a new and important entry on the c.v., promotion is greatly assisted, one can buy pieces of equipment for one’s own use or travel to distant places, one’s general status is enhanced. To me this is a classic Game. Since the research is being done with other people’s money you might think that there is an implied contract, and that the outcomes of the research will be scrutinised to see if the contract has been honoured. Not a bit of it. Those running such schemes usually have to be pressed into looking at outcomes at all. For the research community the outcome is tested when the peers in the peer review scheme decide whether or not to give the applicant another grant. One critic of the system has said mordantly that the only certain outcome of publicly-funded research is a further research grant application. After half a century in this system I have come to the view that it is fundamentally wasteful of money and ought to be replaced, but I do not have to tell you that it is fiercely defended, overwhelmingly by men, who are its overwhelming beneficiaries.’
in refutation of Petty’s entire first paragraph….perhaps knocking out the underpinning of his entire letter…other than the part about ‘nutters’, of which there is no shortage on either side of the climate issue.
Since Claes didn’t reply to my question above:
He calls DLR a “fiction”
http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2011/10/fiction-of-downwelling-longwave.html
yet says above “A microwave radiation detector magnifies input artificially possibly into a heating effect on the detector” – if DLR doesn’t exist then just what is the detector detecting, magnification or not?
If as he says on his blog “radiometers measure frequency”,just what are they measuring the frequency of?
It is interesting to plot out the average temperatures of the planets
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4073/4944315517_34e68d4e1a.jpg
This would seem to indicate that Venus is much hotter than would be expected just from its distance to the sun.
Strong evidence for a GH effect?
IMO not. What is the temperature of Venus’ atmosphere at 1 bar height?
As self-selected spokesperson for eagles, bird people, balloonist, and all sky people, 2/3 an atm is more important for all.
Why should we cling to tired old traditions of air conditions of the bottom dwellers.
Minorities unite!
2/3rds is a super majority!
Down with the cave dwellers and the lizard people!
Temp,
it could also mean that Venus is a young planet that hasn’t cooled off yet or had a catastrophic impact with another object in the somewhat recent past.
For some strange reason our modern Consensus Science seems to like the Greenhouse theory even though their models cannot explain the temperature without even MORE assumptions such as large amounts of water.
Don’t you love ASSumptions??
By the way, you should read up on the actual physical science being done on Venus. Up to 60% of the heat retention in the lower atmosphere is currently being assigned to REFLECTION of IR from the cloud layer. Another ASSumption to make the models work as they cannot account for the large IR flux just below the clouds otherwise.
In other words, they really don’t know at this point!!!
“it could also mean that Venus is a young planet that hasn’t cooled off yet or had a catastrophic impact with another object in the somewhat recent past.”
And your evidence for this silly scenario? I mean other than that you read it in one of Velikovsky’s crackpot books?
It could also mean that Venus is heated by campfires lit by Leprechaun gold miners (who abandoned Ireland during the Great Potato Famine). There is as much proof of this as there is for your “young planet” hit by another planet explanation that flies in the face of what we know about astrophysics.
I expect you’re going to tell us that Einstein was a good friend of Velikovsky. And we’re supposed to say, Oh, then his crackpot theories must be right.
The rest of your “argument” is another silly argument of ignorance: If scientists don’t know everything, they can’t know anything.
The temperature at the surface of Venus is higher because the atmosphere is very thick, and has high level clouds that radiate most of the heat to space.
The heat from the sun balances the heat radiated to space at around the average altitude of emission to space. For Venus, this is in the thick clouds about 50-80 km above the surface. (Very little light gets through them to the surface.) Below this, the temperature increases as the turbulent atmosphere is compressed by increasing atmospheric pressure at a rate of about 8 K/km, giving a greater than 8*50=400 K temperature difference from the clouds. CO2 plays a role, but the basic reason for Venus being so hot at the surface is that it has a lot more atmosphere.
This compression effect is the actual mechanism of the (badly named) greenhouse effect in a convective atmosphere. Backradiation certainly exists, but has little to do with it. They dragonslayers are wasting their time arguing about it.
The number plotted for Jupiter is, in context, the wrong number. I think that’s the temperature at the level of the visible clouds. As you descend to the “surface”, the temperature again rises by compression, and Jupiter’s core is thought to be at around 35,000 K.
Another good question to ask about Venus is why the night-side temperature at the surface is almost exactly the same as on the day side, even though the days are very long. What happens to the greenhouse effect explanation with no incoming shortwave radiation?
High CO2 does have an effect on Venus. The temperature at the level where the pressure matches the Earth’s surface is significantly (but not dramatically) higher than on Earth. But the very high surface temperature combined with the high percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere there is not a good example to “prove” the importance of CO2.
Nullius in Verba says
…..”This compression effect is the actual mechanism of the (badly named) greenhouse effect in a convective atmosphere. Backradiation certainly exists, but has little to do with it. They dragonslayers are wasting their time arguing about it.”……
I would agree that the compression effect plays the major part in the 33K difference between surface and effective emission levels.
Postma makes that very clear in his papers that this is his position.
The dragonslayers confront the backradiation greenhouse theory because it seems to be the current IPCC paradigm.
Bryan,
Yes, the dragonslayers confront the backradiation argument, but by trying to claim that it doesn’t exist instead of saying it exists and has no net effect under convection, they’re letting the dragons fly away unscathed.
Just as I argue that the AGW proponents are not going to persuade sceptics with an incorrect back-radiation argument, so I would say that dragonslayers cannot fight believers with an incorrect back-radiation-doesn’t-exist argument. The result is sheer confusion.
“…the basic reason for Venus being so hot at the surface is that it has a lot more atmosphere.This compression effect is the actual mechanism of the (badly named) greenhouse effect in a convective atmosphere. Backradiation certainly exists, but has little to do with it.”
This is one of the more idiotic explanations (and hardly more credible than the leprachaun lighting campfires explanation for Venus’ hellish temperature). I understand why deniers want to confuse compression with pressure. Any argument, no matter how false or silly serves the purpose of creating the impression of “scientific disagreement” in the minds of the public.
Come on guys, this is fundamental science you were supposed to learn in the 6th grade. Compression produces heat, static pressure does not. And there is no any evidence that Venus’ atmosphere is being compressed. No any known force in the universe that would explain such a compression.
Yes, the planet’s mostly CO2 atmosphere is under enormous pressure — about 95 times earth’s. But anyone who has ever held a carbon dioxide fire extinguisher in their hand, or other tank of compressed CO2, knows that it is NOT hot — even though the gas is compressed nearly as much as the atmosphere at Venus’ surface. The compressed gas is at ambient temperature because the gas is “compressed” — not “compressing.”
Andrew Skolnick
….”Come on guys, this is fundamental science you were supposed to learn in the 6th grade. Compression produces heat, static pressure does not. And there is no any evidence that Venus’ atmosphere is being compressed. No any known force in the universe that would explain such a compression.”……
Andrew lets deal with the Earth first.
The density and the pressure decrease very strongly due to the Earths gravitational field.
For an adiabatic atmosphere a rising air parcel will find its temperature dropping to compensate for the expansion (PV work) done.
This energy is stored in the atmosphere.
A parcel on cooling at a high altitude will perhaps become colder than its surroundings and start to fall.
The volume will be compressed due to the increasing pressure.
The atmosphere is now doing work on the parcel.
The internal energy of the parcels gas inside increases and consequently its temperature rises.
The lapse rate measures this adiabatic effect.
Meteorologists and a number of smarter climate scientists would agree with what I have just written.
Should read
The density and the pressure decrease very strongly with altitude due to the Earths gravitational field.
Yes, Bryan, I can see why you want to switch the discussion to something else. Sheesh. I’ll cut to the bottom line. The temperature of Earth is not increasing because gravity is compressing our atmosphere. Period.
The average atmospheric pressure on earth at sea level is about 29.92 inches of mercury or 14.7 pounds per square inch. While barometric pressure varies locally with changing weather, the average atmospheric pressure on earth at sea level has not changed since scientists began measuring it.
The same goes for Venus.
Even if you could greatly increase atmospheric pressure on earth or on Venus by dumping a huge amount of mass on it — to increase the planet’s force of gravity — or a huge amount of gas to increase the weight of the atmosphere, the heating effect would be temporary and the heat of compression would gradually dissipate into space.
Next red herring?
Andrew Skolnick says
…….” I’ll cut to the bottom line. The temperature of Earth is not increasing because gravity is compressing our atmosphere. Period.”…..
Well Andrew because I know your background isn’t in science I tried to explain it as carefully as I could.
Its standard physics, Nullius says much the same in his own way.
Get a physics text book, look up the Carnot Cycle.
It will explain what adiabatic expansion and contraction means.
However, perhaps you mean that surface temperatures have not increased significantly in the last 150 years then I would agree with you.
“Well Andrew because I know your background isn’t in science….”
Bryan, you really do seem to prefer falsehoods over the truth. If you got a nickle for everyone like this, you’d be a very rich man.
Andrew I thought you were a journalist.
I could not expect you to have a deep grounding in thermodynamics.
However if you claim to have a science background why, such appalling ignorance?
Andrew Skolnick,
“The temperature of Earth is not increasing because gravity is compressing our atmosphere.”
Red herring. The claim is, at least how I understand it, that Earth’s temperature (atmosphere at surface) is a thermodynamic state variable (intensive) and as such determined by other state variables (pressure, molar volume or density) according to the equation of state (ideal or real gas). It’s not an energy/heat balance argument. It’s not about heat of compression. Just thermodynamic state.
Two red herrings:
1) “temperature increasing”
2) “heat of compression”
Pekka,
Yes, you’re right that the Venusian atmosphere would be quite different without GH gases. Remove them and the clouds which NIV is referring to would probably be quite different, or even non-existent. That’s the same problem we have on Earth, you can’t just change one parameter in isolation. Change one thing and everything else changes with it.
However, if the clouds somehow did end up being exactly the same and using the model NIV describes – IR opaque clouds 60km high – then the mechanism he is describing is essentially a GH effect. It is IR opacity which causes a GH effect and, it wouldn’t necessarily have to be caused by atmospheric gases. If clouds were more transparent to light coming in from the sun than they were to IR radiation from the ground then they too would set up, or contribute to, a GH effect.
Andrew, It’s actually the standard explanation. There’s a paper by Carl Sagan somewhere from back in the 60s where this is precisely the explanation used for the Venusian atmosphere.
The driving force for compression is vertical motion of the atmosphere due to convection. The winds are incredibly strong and turbulent on Venus, and push gas vertically. Vertical mixing leads to compression and expansion, and when combined with diffusive mixing the result is a vertical temperature gradient called the adiabatic lapse rate.
(Incidentally, it is technically incorrect to say that compression produces heat – the word “adiabatic” means “without heat”. Compression produces an increase in temperature, or internal energy, which is slightly different. That’s a technicality though – the use of “heat” for internal energy is an everyday usage that we all understand.)
Static pressure, as you say, does not lead to a temperature gradient. Only vertical mixing due to convection (or other bulk motions of the atmosphere) can drive the changes in pressure that do.
The adiabatic lapse rate is perfectly standard meteorology. No leprechauns required.
You know you truly have a gift for moronic arguments. You claim the enormous heat of Venus’ atmosphere comes from atmospheric convection. And where does the energy that drives atmospheric convection on Venus come from? Why, from the enormous heat of Venus’ atmosphere, of course.
Have you considered applying for a patent on this mechanism? Oh, that’s right — the patent office will not grant a patent on any form of perpetual motion machine. I suggest you contact your Senators and Representative and ask them to appeal the Laws of Thermodynamics.
Solar energy is the ultimate source of energy that drives weather on planets with an atmosphere. Atmospheres heat themselves only in the land of cuckoos.
Unless you can show how some giant cosmic hand is continuing to heat Venus up by compressing its atmosphere, you should apologize to Dr. Sagan.
Carl Sagan, bless his soul, would slap you silly for attributing such nonsense to him.
“And where does the energy that drives atmospheric convection on Venus come from? Why, from the enormous heat of Venus’ atmosphere, of course.”
No. Not from the enormous heat of Venus’ atmosphere. I haven’t said that or anything like it. If you’re going to argue with arguments you just made up, do you really need me to be here?
The energy comes from the differences in insolation between the day and night sides, and between equator and poles. A temperature *difference* is required to drive a heat engine.
And if you’d care to wager your credibility regarding the Sagan paper, I’d be happy to look it up for you. Interested?
OK, I think I get it now, the “energy” which is heating Venus to an average temperature that is more than 500 degrees F hotter than Mercury, “comes from the differences in insolation between the day and night sides, and between equator and poles. A temperature ‘difference’ is required to drive a heat engine.”
Oh, and what drives that “heat engine”? Why, the great heat contained in Venus’ atmosphere. The heat of Venus’ atmosphere drives the atmospheric convection and this convection heats the atmosphere making it more than 500 degrees hotter than the planet nearly twice as close to the sun.
Which is why I urge you to send in your application to the U.S. Patent Office for the biggest perpetual motion machine in the solar system. Like everyone, they could use a good laugh.
What a hopeless maroon.
“Oh, and what drives that “heat engine”? Why, the great heat contained in Venus’ atmosphere.”
Having just corrected you and said that it is the differences in insolation that drive the heat engine, why would you say – again – that it was the heat content of Venus’s atmosphere?
You appear to be arguing against something that is only in your own imagination. Sorry, I can’t help with that.
I’ll try just one more time to get you to explain where the heat comes from that drives the convection currents on Venus — which you claim is the source of heat that makes the planet more than 500 degrees hotter than Mercury (though Mercury is almost twice as close to the sun).
You say Venus is heated by convection currents in the atmosphere and that the convection currents are generated by the temperature differences between the day and night sides and poles of the planets.
And where does the heat come from that makes the day side hotter than the night side and poles?
Would you finally answer this question and stop obfuscating?
Andrew you ask, what drives the system and of course the answer is the Sun
However the Earth has several energy storage systems for storing the Suns energy.
Of which the adiabatic atmosphere is just one
The formula for the Dry Adiabatic Lapse Rate(DALR) is derived for the no convection condition.
DARL = -g/Cp
The DA lapse rate derived from thermodynamics is for still air.
All that is required is heated base and cooling top and diffusion(collision transfer) can transfer heat along the gradient.
The hydrostatic condition is also satisfied by constant vertical speed parcel of air.
The meteorologists call this the neutral atmosphere and this condition is relatively stable.
More usual however is the turbulent convective flow which will transfer heat at a faster rate.
Meteorologists place more emphasis on the latent heat of vaporisation of water for the departure shown from DALR for the environmental or moist lapse rate than a radiative explanation.
Evaporation and condensation is another storage system.
Even during the DALR the CO2 must still be radiating but its effects are included in the bulk heat transfer quantities such as Cp.
The Earth system has several storage systems and combined they can exceed the input energy from the Sun at a particular instant.
An analogy would be a tuned LC parallel circuit.
As Ken would know there is a much larger flow of energy between inductor(L) and capacitor(C )than the make up energy from the supply(Sun).
A simpler example is a child on a swing being pushed.
The KE and PE interchange energy of the child plus swing is much larger than the make up energy from the push
For the atmosphere a parcel of air rising adiabatically in a gravitational field.
The parcel will do work on the surrounding atmosphere so internal energy will be reduced and the temperature falls.
At the TOA radiative losses cause the parcel to be denser than surroundings so the parcel now falls.
The gravitational force effects now compress the parcel increasing internal energy hence raising the temperature of the parcel.
Back at the Earth surface the parcel will have recovered most of its original temperature.
This is no surprise because Gravity is a conservative force.
This is just one example of an Earth energy storage system.
Evaporation and condensation of water is another and so on.
IPCC proponents seem to grant the “greenhouse gases” with the full credit for the 33K difference between the Earth surface temperature(288K) and the effective emission temperature of 255K
“I’ll try just one more time to get you to explain where the heat comes from that drives the convection currents on Venus”
As Bryan says, from the sun. Stronger insolation at the equator and on the day side reduces the density, cooling to outer space on the night side cools the top of the atmosphere and increases the density. The resulting pressure difference drives circulation.
Bryan,
Thanks. Quite correct.
Nullius finally answers where the energy comes from that makes Venus so much hotter than Mercury — “From the sun.”
So let’s try to follow his “thinking”: The sun heat’s Venus’ atmosphere, but heats it unevenly. The uneven heating creates convection currents (winds) that then heats the atmosphere much hotter than it would be be if heated by the sun alone.
This may seem like magic, but only to people who care too much for the Laws of Thermodynamics.
Nullius (and Bryan) won’t deny that Venus is more than 500 degrees F hotter than Mercury (which receives 3.5 times as much solar energy than Venus). But they explain this fact by claiming the sun heats Venus’ atmosphere unevenly, this uneven heating produces convection currents, and it’s these currents that heat the planet far above and beyond what the solar energy could do alone.
Got it?
Like Mercury and Earth, Venus is heated almost entirely by solar energy. It is utterly moronic to believe Venus’ atmosphere can adsorb solar energy and then magically use it to create a whole lot more energy than it receives from the sun.
Venus receives only about 35 percent of the solar radiation Mercury receives and, because Venus’s albedo is almost 5 times higher than Mercury’s, it actually adsorbs only 1/9th the solar radiation that Mercury adsorbs.
These schlemiels want us to believe Venus is more than 500 degrees hotter than Mercury because of convection currents — and here I thought all deniers are opposed to wind power.
Yes sir, they say, the extra energy needed to make Venus so much hotter than Mercury comes from wind power — though they do concede that the energy that drives these convection currents comes from the sun.
Obviously, somewhere on Venus, there’s a magician with a powerful magic wand, who with each wave of his wand creates winds that multiply solar energy like the sorcerer’s apprentice’s broom. Or more likely, somewhere on Earth, there’s a couple of guys with some very loose screws.
Andrew
Perhaps you did not notice but I have not commented on Venus.
The reason being there are for me too many unknowns.
For instance it emits much more energy than it absorbs from Sun.
This indicates that there must be significantly more geothermal energy on Venus than Earth.
There is also significantly more atmospheric electrical activity(lightning).
Its reasonable to suggest that the surface light on Venus has an atmospheric rather than a solar origin
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/tierra_hueca/esp_tierra_hueca_8e.htm –
Let me ask you a question!
If you know so little about Earths atmosphere how come you claim to be an expert about Venus?
I have an enviable reputation for accuracy.
Why squander this by indulging in wild speculation.
I hope we can agree that it would be wrong to jump to conclusions about Venus and then apply them to the Earth.
“Nullius finally answers where the energy comes from that makes Venus so much hotter than Mercury”
“Finally”? I told you the first time you asked. You ignored what I said, and made up something about the heat content of the atmosphere to argue with instead.
“The sun heat’s Venus’ atmosphere, but heats it unevenly. The uneven heating creates convection currents (winds) that then heats the atmosphere much hotter than it would be be if heated by the sun alone.”
Well done!
“This may seem like magic, but only to people who care too much for the Laws of Thermodynamics.”
It’s exactly the same thermodynamics as a heat pump: such as a refrigerator. A fluid is pumped around a cycle being alternately compressed and allowed to expand. Expansion cools it allowing it to draw heat from its surroundings, compression warms it so it can expel the heat to its surroundings. The net effect is to pump heat from one place to another. (The inside of the refrigerator to the outside, or from the top of the atmosphere to the surface.) The power to do so is supplied externally – to the refrigerator’s pump/compressor in one case, by differential heating driving winds in the other.
It’s not magic unless you also consider refrigerators to be magic.
The adiabatic lapse rate is standard theory in meteorology, climatology, astrophysics, thermodynamics,…
“It is utterly moronic to believe Venus’ atmosphere can adsorb solar energy and then magically use it to create a whole lot more energy than it receives from the sun.”
All the energy comes ultimately from the sun. None is created. The internal energy of the hot atmosphere near the surface is a portion of the heat supplied to the daylit equator of Venus, concentrated into a smaller volume by wind-driven compression.
I notice that you carefully didn’t take me up on the wager over the Sagan paper. Not sufficiently confident, were you?
Anyway, for anyone else who might be interested…
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1967ApJ…149..731S
Heh.
“For instance it emits much more energy than it absorbs from Sun.
This indicates that there must be significantly more geothermal energy on Venus than Earth.”
It seems unlikely there is more geothermal energy on Venus than Earth.
One could have sudden occurrences- where the entire surface on Venus is lava but seems unlikely such event have occurred within a few million years- cratering indicate at least more 50 million. And seems unlikely Venus is just about to re-surface itself- it should have a lot volcanic activity prior to this.
“The planet may have had a major global resurfacing event about 500 million years ago, from what scientists can tell from the density of impact craters on the surface. Even though there are over 1,600 major volcanoes on Venus, none is known to be erupting at present and most are probably long extinct. However, radar sounding by the Magellan probe revealed evidence for comparatively recent volcanic activity at Venus’s highest volcano Maat Mons, in the form of ash flows near the summit and on the northern flank.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanism_on_Venus
Of course there could be something unseen. Earth might not appear to very volcanic with poor observation. Most of earth volcanic activity is in the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, which is hidden by the ocean. But excluding the Mid-Atlantic Ridge the earth should still appear much more volcanic then Venus does.
So I wouldn’t rule out volcanic activity heating the atmosphere, but to explain a large difference of incoming solar energy and outgoing seems
way off.
Earth has 174 petawatts incoming energy. venus might have at least twice this amount [or 4 or more times] to think that say 100 petawatt or more is added to outgoing energy seems unexplainable.
It seems more likely that measured energy coming from the Sun and leaving venus is wrong.
Where is this information. I have never heard of it before.
Nullius,
if you research it you will find that the surface temperature of Venus is very consistent with little variation one would expect to find if it was due to insolation. The atmospheric temperatures below the clouds are similar in that there is little change from equator to pole or day to night hemisphere. These facts mean there is little chance that the energy from the winds are provided from differential heating and convection similar to earth. Additionally the winds are primarily in the rotational plane rather than toward the poles.
If they were insolation/convection driven I would think they would be strong at the surface. They are weakest at the surface and high in the upper atmosphere and strongest in the middle atmosphere.
This is another reason I keep telling these “experts” they simply don’t have enough information to model Venus. It simply does not fit the assumptions based on earth/mars/mercury. Atmospheric rotation, winds, is more like the gas giants.
Nullius,
“The resulting pressure difference drives circulation.”
This may actually be closer to reality, but, for different reasons. One of the strange things I ran across when looking for information on Venus is that the height of the dayside atmosphere is much lower than the nightside.
“if you research it you will find that the surface temperature of Venus is very consistent with little variation one would expect to find if it was due to insolation.”
What makes you think it would be differences in insolation at the planet’s surface? Sunlight is absorbed and radiated at the cloudtops. Convection has to be driven primarily from the top.
The deep oceans on Earth are also very uniform in temperature – again, because convection is driven from the top.
And I already mentioned the conflict of the uniform surface temperature at the surface in connection with the usual “trapping” explanation. I’m well aware of it.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-123244
NIV,
You can consider a GH effect to be caused by back IR radiation or you can consider it to be caused by the Earth having an effective radiative surface some 5km high. The lapse rate of 6 deg C/km ( the temperature drop you notice when you climb a mountain) means that the surface temperature is 30 degC warmer than the effective radiative surface. That’s the GH effect.
Which is the right way of looking at it? I don’t think it matters. There is often two ways of looking at a particular problem which lead to the same answer.
Nullius,
“What makes you think it would be differences in insolation at the planet’s surface? Sunlight is absorbed and radiated at the cloudtops. Convection has to be driven primarily from the top.”
Except that convection is driven from the heating at the bottom on earth so, at least this part is not comparable to what we know. In the ocean we have downwelling at the poles due to changes in density both from temp AND in salinity. We have upwelling due to mechanical movement of surface waters by winds. Neither by itself would create the currents we know.
You keep stating the wind speed on Venus is convection driven without explaining how convection can cause a planetary atmosphere rotation. Convection is vertical movement. We have a huge horizontal movement with little vertical movement on Venus similar to the gas giants?????
“Which is the right way of looking at it?”
Simple test – consider a case where the back-radiation is immensely strong, but the adiabatic lapse rate is near zero. If the back-radiation explanation is correct, you ought to still get warming, yes?
Well, a pool of water acts like a GHG for trapping radiation – water vapour is a GHG, all we’ve done is increase the density 20,000 times. So sunlight on the bottom of a pond should radiate upwards, and be instantly absorbed and re-radiated by the water above it. Each successive layer of water above that should do the same. I won’t repeat the argument here, but I recently had a long debate with Lucia on Collide-a-scape about the effect, where I showed that the back-radiation argument applied to water would cause the oceans to boil! Because the lapse rate in a liquid is near zero, convection prevents such a build-up.
Second test – suppose the local environmental lapse rate is negative, as it is in the stratosphere. Then the lapse rate argument predicts that extra GHGs will result in *cooling*! I recall my amusement at Gavin of RealClimate getting into a *right* pickle trying to explain stratospheric cooling using back-radiation, and eventually having to admit defeat. It’s not easy! I also recently got my comments censored from Michael Tobis’s new climate site for bringing it up, too.
What do you think? Back-radiation, or lapse-rate?
“You keep stating the wind speed on Venus is convection driven without explaining how convection can cause a planetary atmosphere rotation.”
True. You didn’t ask that. And anyway it’s complicated – but basically it’s a cyclostrophic zonal flow in which the equator-pole pressure differential is balanced by the meridional component of the centrifugal force, in much the same way that geostrophic winds on Earth balance pressure differentials against the Coriolis force.
But whatever. If you’re dead set on the winds on Venus being driven by immigrant leprechauns or wizards waving their magic wands, have it so. I think I’ve made a respectable effort at explaining myself.
Nullius,
“And anyway it’s complicated – but basically it’s a cyclostrophic zonal flow in which the equator-pole pressure differential is balanced by the meridional component of the centrifugal force, in much the same way that geostrophic winds on Earth balance pressure differentials against the Coriolis force.”
When you explain the technical terms you threw out above and include the energy source you will have offered an explanation. Until then you are arm waving like I do a lot. I am not using self reference when I tell you that “experts” don’t know where the energy comes from to drive the atmospheric rotation as opposed to your “winds”.
Anyway, just give me a back of the envelope computation of how much pressure differential there would have to be to create the atmospheric rotation we observe on Venus and what maintains it without the temperature differentials!!!
Nullius
I have read the Sagan article and it raises a number of questions.
I read in one of your later posts that you’re in imminent danger of chronic blog fatigue.
However perhaps you could comment on a previous disagreement that I have had with Pekka and Joel Shore.
I contend that the dry adiabatic lapse rate is derived for the still air (no convection) condition.
Convection itself is a closely related but not a necessary condition.
(See bottom of page 13)
In the absence of convection (still dry air) heated from the bottom and cooled at the top a temperature gradient would be set up and is in fact given by the DALR.
The dry lapse rate can be satisfied by diffusion(molecular conductive heat transfer)
This is what meteorologists call the neutral atmosphere.
The neutral atmosphere can be quite stable.
See page 31 and the residual layer.
www-as.harvard.edu/education/…/ch2_brasseurjacob_Jan11.pdf
“I contend that the dry adiabatic lapse rate is derived for the still air (no convection) condition. Convection itself is a closely related but not a necessary condition.”
It’s sort of like the boiling point of water being 100 C. The boiling point of water is still 100 C even when it is not boiling, and it is possible to heat water just to the point of 100 C without it actually boiling. But the point is that when you then add extra heat, no matter how much or how little, the temperature will be held at 100 C. It’s a boundary that you can push the liquid up against, and when so pushed, other considerations become secondary.
Similarly, the adiabatic lapse rate sets a limit on the vertical thermal gradient that when pushed against is relieved by convection. It is, as you say, possible to push it to the boundary without convection taking place, but it requires a precise set of circumstances to achieve it – exactly the right amount of heating and cooling in exactly the right places. Too little and it will settle at a lower gradient, too much and convection will start. The reason the adiabatic lapse rate is so significant is that it is robust to a wide range of circumstances – once pushed beyond the point where convection will take place, the adiabatic lapse rate is the default, and known. Saying “convective” robustly guarantees a condition where it would otherwise be a delicate affair hard to recognise, just as the cookery instructions will say “boiling”, even though “at 100 C” would be sufficient.
The two are so commonly used together – one a consequence of the other – that people think they mean the same thing.
Hi Nullius in Verba, talking of censorship, I see that you suffered at the hands of staunch CACC supporter Michael Tobis. I suffered the same fate on his InItForTheMoney blog “ .. Moderation is back on. Mr. Ridley is not welcome .. July 10, 2010 8:47 AM .. ” (http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2010/07/arrogance.html).
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Nullius in Verba: You make a distinction I’ve glossed over when reading about Venus. So let me check that I’ve got it right.
Venus is hot because it has a much thicker, denser atmosphere than earth, which traps heat, causing a greenhouse effect. It does not matter that the Venusian atmosphere happens to be mostly CO2.
The CO2 greenhouse effect of the current climate change debate, in which CO2 traps infrared radiation, contributes little to the high temperature of Venus.
Venus is hot firstly because the part of the atmosphere that absorbs and radiates heat, and hence approaches the fairly moderate temperature appropriate to its albedo and distance from the sun, is the layer of clouds 80 km above the surface, and secondly because convective atmospheres commonly have a vertical temperature gradient called the adiabatic lapse rate that makes the surface far below that warmer by a fixed amount.
I need to be careful about saying the CO2 doesn’t matter. In the current state of Venus’s atmosphere, its concentration doesn’t have a lot of influence, and it certainly isn’t the correct explanation for the surface temperature. But it does affect things somewhat above the clouds, and what would happen if there wasn’t any at all is a more complicated question that I’d prefer to avoid for the moment.
Hmm.
Back at the CO2 Control Knob discussion, Dr. Lacis says:
Lacis follows that with a calculation of the CO2 greenhouse effect on Earth (without feedbacks) and adds, “Similar formulas could be derived for Mars and Venus.”
To be sure the CO2 greenhouse effect can be calculated for Venus and presumably it makes the surface temperature somewhat warmer, but from what you say CO2 is not the real story of Venus’s extremely high surface temperatures (compared to the rest of the solar system).
Furthermore, the scare stories that Venus suffered a “runaway greenhouse effect” and the Earth might experience a “runaway greehhouse effect”, therefore the Earth could end up like Venus due to AGW, are entirely beside the point.
The main lacking piece in your argument is hiding behind the words: convective atmospheres commonly have a vertical temperature gradient called the adiabatic lapse rate. That’s indeed commonly true, but not always. To be true it needs something that maintains convection throughout the layer that has the adiabatic lapse rate. It’s not at all obvious that heating at altitudes above or around 80 km would induce convection at low altitudes. Basically the adiabatic lapse rate is likely to be absent below the lowest altitude that’s heated. A smaller lapse rate causes stratification that stops effectively convection and thus allows the lapse rate remain smaller than adiabatic.
The greenhouse effect is always an essential part of the mechanism that drives convection. Without GHE the lapse rate would always be less and convection minimal. Strong horizontal gradients would induce some circulation but without GHE there would not be enough free energy to drive convection to the extent needed for maintaining the adiabatic lapse rate of a thick troposphere.
“It’s not at all obvious that heating at altitudes above or around 80 km would induce convection at low altitudes. Basically the adiabatic lapse rate is likely to be absent below the lowest altitude that’s heated.”
I agree, it’s not at all obvious, which is why I was avoiding the complication.
I invite you to consider how deep convective circulation extends into the oceans on Earth. The top is heated near the equator, and cools near the poles. The denser polar water sinks to the bottom of the ocean, circulates equatorwards, and then rises again to flow across the surface polewards.
Does the circulation only extend down as far as the sunlit layer, or deeper? How else is the deep ocean kept so cold, given that it is continually receiving heat input from the sun above and geothermally from the rocks below? What else could drive the global deep ocean circulation?
You know certainly that salinity is an important factor for the ocean circulation. It would be very different and possibly very weak without that specific effect that’s related to formation of Arctic ice cover during winters.
If the circulation on Venus down from the main absorbing layers is driven at some moment by the colder polar regions, that’s likely to result in a lower atmosphere that does not follow the adiabatic lapse rate.
Even the little solar radiation that reaches the surface helps in maintaining convection on Venus. That’s the only factor that I know to work that way. There may be others, but then their persistence must be explained as the most likely outcome would be a reduced lapse rate and stratification.
OK, I’ll put it another way.
While it’s not clear to what extent convection would still occur on Venus without GHGs, you only have to check the wind speed on Venus to know that as things are, something *is* driving convection below the cloud layer at the moment. Quite vigorously, too. And the measured lapse rate matches the calculated adiabatic lapse rate.
So would you agree that on Venus as it is in reality, the convective/adiabatic explanation is the better explanation for the current value of the surface temperature?
NIV,
Venus is hot firstly because the part of the atmosphere that absorbs and radiates heat, and hence approaches the fairly moderate temperature appropriate to its albedo and distance from the sun, is the layer of clouds 80 km above the surface, and secondly because convective atmospheres commonly have a vertical temperature gradient called the adiabatic lapse rate that makes the surface far below that warmer by a fixed amount.
What you are describing is essentially a GH effect. The effect of CO2 in Venus is at saturation levels. So yes, in a sense, the CO2 which in the lower levels of the Venusian atmosphere isn’t contributing to the overall effect. What matters is what happens on the effective radiation surface which you say is 80km high. Although this would vary according to the IR spectrum being measured.
Similarly you could say the effective radiation surface of the Earth is 5 km high. Which is ~6 degC/km = ~30 deg C cooler than the surface. That again is the GHE.
“What you are describing is essentially a GH effect.”
Yes. Exactly.
I most certainly do not agree that the Venus atmosphere would be to the least as it is without greenhouse gases.
It’s remotely possible that they have their influence only in the upper part of the atmosphere, but there’s no possibility that they would not be essential in some part of the atmosphere.
Convection maintains the adiabatic lapse rate, where it exists, but maintaining convection requires greenhouse gases. There are no other sources than the combination of solar radiation and greenhouse effect for free energy that would be even remotely sufficient.
Pekka and Nullius,
I find it interesting that both of you failed to mention that at least some of the circulation of the oceans is driven by winds. In La Nina conditions wind pushes warm surface water west forcing colder water to surface to replace it. I would think that anytime there is a relatively steady wind similar conditions would prevail.
Nullius, temp, Pekka: Sorry to be bringing up the rear in this discussion, but to recap, as I understand so far…
There are two greenhouse effects on Venus: one based on its thick, compressed atmosphere, the other based on the CO2-IR effect that we discuss in this blog with regard to Earth? And the interaction between them is complex?
“Convection maintains the adiabatic lapse rate, where it exists, but maintaining convection requires greenhouse gases.”
I note your opinion.
But I think it takes us too far afield. If we can get general agreement that the adiabatic lapse rate plays the major role when GHGs *are* available, I’d be very happy to move on to that question some other day.
“I find it interesting that both of you failed to mention that at least some of the circulation of the oceans is driven by winds.”
Some of it is driven by jellyfish swimming about, too. There are lots of contributors. But I was talking about the deep ocean circulation.
“There are two greenhouse effects on Venus: one based on its thick, compressed atmosphere, the other based on the CO2-IR effect that we discuss in this blog with regard to Earth? And the interaction between them is complex?”
Roughly speaking, the greenhouse effect in a convective atmosphere consists of two parts: the average altitude of emission to space settles at a temperature sufficient to radiate all the heat absorbed, and the temperature of all other altitudes are fixed in relation to it by the adiabatic lapse rate times the difference in heights.
T_surface = T_emission + ALR*(h_emission – h_surface)
T_emission is controlled by the amount of incoming sunlight, the planet’s albedo, etc.
ALR is controlled by the force of gravity, the specific heat of the atmosphere, and on Earth, by the humidity.
h_emission is controlled by the concentration of greenhouse gases, thickness of the atmosphere, height and thickness of Venusian clouds, etc.
On Earth, increasing GHGs increases h_emission and hence the surface temperature.
On Venus, (h_emission – h_surface) is very big because of the thickness of the atmosphere and the height of the thick light-absorbing/emitting clouds within it, which is why the surface is so hot.
Nullius,
“Some of it is driven by jellyfish swimming about, too. There are lots of contributors. But I was talking about the deep ocean circulation.”
And you think the deep ocean PUSHES the upwelling water up against the convective tendency of the colder water to sink?? And it does this purely on the sinking of the colder, more saline water at the poles??
I agree with Nullius on the description of the GHE in a convective atmosphere. The only issue that was not settled concerns the question on what’s needed to maintain the convection. Based on the above discussion neither of us has studied the issue sufficiently to have the best available understanding on that (I certainly don’t and the way Nullius expressed himself makes me think that he does’t either), but our preferred explanations seem to differ. What’s the level of certainty in the present scientific understanding of the Venus’s atmosphere is also unknown to me.
Convection is driven by differences in the potential temperature, which is defined as the temperature that a parcel of atmosphere would have, when bought to a standard pressure by adiabatic compression or expansion. In a convective atmosphere the potential temperature at the lowest altitudes that solar radiation reaches is much higher than at the top of the atmosphere and also much higher than would be maintained by the radiative balance alone in absence of the greenhouse effect. Therefore those levels would cool, which would cause stratification and stop convection. Driving convection strongly enough to cancel this effect requires work, which must be produced by an “atmospheric heat engine”.
Naturally we need the the strong downwelling radiation also at the Venus surface. The surface radiates IR according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Thus it would cool extremely rapidly unless it would be heated by essentially same power of downwelling radiation, as there’s very little solar radiation at the Venus surface. The downwelling radiation is the only significant energy flux to compensate for the energy loss involved in the emission. The downwelling radiation is that strong, because the lowest atmosphere opaque to IR and has essentially the same temperature as the surface. The greenhouse gases are thus totally essential for the surface temperature of Venus.
Convection cannot heat the surface without the downwelling radiation from lowest atmosphere. Convection can heat the atmosphere even at low altitudes, but that requires something to drive the convection. There must be enough free energy production to compensate all dissipative losses of circulation. IR from the surface would also cause a similar loss at a high power, if the surface has a much higher temperature than the locations, which interact with it directly through radiative energy transfer. This loss is small, when the radiative energy transfer reaches only the lowest atmosphere of nearly the same temperature.
“And you think the deep ocean PUSHES the upwelling water up against the convective tendency of the colder water to sink?? And it does this purely on the sinking of the colder, more saline water at the poles??”
Do I?
I suppose you think that the weight of the salt in the top 1 m of water slowly frozen out over a period of 6 months is sufficient to drive vast currents half way around the world? You think that convergence zone winds blowing in towards the equator can drive ocean current towards the poles?
You’re not nit-picking because you disagree, or don’t understand. You’re nit-picking to have something to say, to argue with. Ozzie was doing it just to be annoying. Andrew was doing it because he apparently had some sort of vision in his head of what he thought I believed, involving leprechauns, and couldn’t separate it from reality. Why are you doing it?
“I certainly don’t and the way Nullius expressed himself makes me think that he does’t either”
I think it would be fair to say that I don’t have a good way of explaining it to make it clear, yet. As Feynman would have said, if you can’t explain it to a layman in non-technical terms, you don’t really understand it yourself.
But given how the current much simpler debate has gone, I would expect it to be lengthy, convoluted, and argumentative, and I don’t have the energy at the moment to do it justice. I’d just get half way through and then abandon it unresolved. I’m sure there will be another opportunity.
I appreciate the agreement on the initial point. Amongst (arguable) adversaries seeking out points of disagreement and weakness, we too often overlook giving feedback on where we do agree.
Nullius,
Since you are claiming I am just being argumentative I would point out that you made a rather rude comment about jellyfish to attempt to make my comment sound silly.
The question I believe was what causes currents and how does the ocean heat fluxes work. There were parallels being drawn between the atmosphere and the oceans. In the oceans convection cannot work the same as in the atmosphere as most of the heating is done in the top layer by the sun. I do not have all the answers or would try and explain them all just for you. What I did present is fact. If you think it is wrong state the case. Otherwise I will accept your concession that you were at least partially wrong.
It wasn’t intended to be rude – and probably no more so than suggesting I’d been neglectful not to say deep ocean currents were driven by wind as a way to make my comment that it was convection look silly. Jellyfish swimming up and down to the sunlit regions each day do actually play an important and previously unexpected role in deep ocean mixing, which in turn plays a role in propagating heat deeply enough into the water to drive convection.
I will admit that in arguing with Andrew and others at the same time, who were being more than rude, some of the acerbic nature of those interactions may have spilled over into my other comments. If you found it so, I apologise.
What I was saying is that there are lots of factors playing a role in driving ocean currents, including wind and salinity, but I would still contend that the only major energy source big enough to drive circulation on such a scale would be the heat differential. You objected that I failed to mention another factor. I simply pointed out that there were even more I was neglecting – I can’t mention them all.
You say “In the oceans convection cannot work the same as in the atmosphere as most of the heating is done in the top layer by the sun.” I’m not sure what you mean by that. Obviously, it’s not exactly the *same*, since the physical arrangement is different, density, viscosity, compressibility, etc. are all different. Are you trying to say that in the oceans convection cannot work *at all* because most of the heating is done in the top layer by the sun?
That seems to me to be to beg the question. The example was given to illustrate that convection is still possible (although far less efficient) with the temperature differential applied at the top. (Another way is to think of convection in reverse/negative: instead of concentrating on the warm fluid rising after being warmed, concentrate on what happens to the cold fluid after it has been cooled, sinking down from the top.) The same applies on Venus: the surface is at a constant temperature, while the temperature differential is at the cloud layer, and yet there are vast Hadley cells on Venus extending from the equator to 60 degrees of latitude, together with rapid high-altitude circulating winds below the clouds maintained by the high-altitude temperature differentials between equator and poles. It hardly seems fair to argue against examples intended to show that top-driven convection is possible by saying they can’t possibly be convection because they’re top-driven. At the least, you can’t expect me to simply accept that as sufficient.
Do you have another reason for concluding that top-driven convection is necessarily impossible? Or was that not what you meant?
Nullius,
mass convection similar to an atmosphere cannot work in the ocean as the upper layer is kept less dense by the heating. How do you get the warmer water down past the thermocline with convection?? The downwelling at the poles is convective due to cooling at the surface and the increase in salinity making the water denser than surrounding water. Upwelling has the problem that the water is denser than the water it seemingly replaces. To consider it to be pushed upwards by downwelling thousands of miles away simply is not credible. The forces spread and are not concentrated. Without the mechanical effect of the wind there would not be enough energy to bring that denser water to the surface against convective forces. It takes both plus the jellyfish and whatever else you wish to toss in. Here is an interesting page from NOAA:
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/currents/03coastal4.html
It is also interesting as it claims downwelling alternates with upwelling on the west coast of the US based on the wind direction. They seem to separate the THC from the surface upwelling and downwelling caused by winds. As surface water goes down, then water must come up somewhere to replace it so their separation may only be to decrease confusion. Of course the THC is much slower than the surface flows. It also must include a much smaller area or would simply become too diffuse to be a coherent current at the slow speeds suggested. In fact, about a year ago a paper came out claiming to have observed small upwellings scattered over the central North Atlantic of water that was identified as having been recently part of the Arctic downwelling. This would seem to indicate that the THC is not quite as monolithic as thought and that inlets and outlets are varied along the general route. This then would indicate a more continuous mixing that would not keep all the heat, or CO2, down for 1000 years.
http://blog.lib.umn.edu/mill1974/EGAD/022679.html
Is an interesting blog post about British research on Arctic downwelling. They found that as the ice decreased the downwelling decreased. Of course, when the downwelling slows the surface current bringing warm water to the Arctic slows providing a natural feedback.
So, is the hypothesis that the downwelling water isn’t as cold now as it was in the past caused by very slowly migrating very slightly warmer water to the depths on the back of the wind and convective pump? It would seem that this would cause a slight slowing of the currents as the differentials would be smaller. That should be measurable in the downwelling areas and not need deep measurements to prove or disprove. It might even be measureable in the upwelling areas. I wonder if anyone is doing the studies with fixed floats for more consistent measurements since the differential would be quite small. I would note that the THC was claimed to have slowed and in the last year or so sped back up. The question I guess would not be whether there can be changes in temperature of the deep oceans but whether they have a trend. The THC speed would make it seem that there was a small warming for a while that has now stopped.
We still have the issue of how such strong winds can be driven on Venus. The lapse rate is close to the earth up to the clouds where it is about the same as the other planets by pressure. Again, the surface temperature only varies by about 1c. The surface winds are only about .3-1m/s. The atmospheric temperature is relatively stable with night and day very close and the most noticeable differences at the poles with the cyclones. It would appear that hot air is brought up from closer to the surface and would seem to qualify as a driver for the rotation. The issue here is that there simply isn’t enough area and energy involved to drive the entire atmosphere at equatorial speed of 540km/h at 65km height. Super-rotation does not pick up till about 10km height and is over about 95km height.
http://www.imcce.fr/vt2004/en/fiches/fiche_n13_eng.html
The last paragraph of this Venus paper talks about possible causes.
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/The_Unexpected_Temperature_Profile_Of_Venus_Atmosphere_999.html
Had to include this article for yucks. They use the bicycle pump analogy to explain anomalously warm air pockets in the upper atmsphere. Figured to get a very small dig at those claiming that the pressure of the Venusian Atmosphere can’t heat the air!!
thermocline:
“Most of the heat energy of sunlight is absorbed in the first few centimeters at the ocean’s surface, which heats up during the day, and cools at night (as heat energy is lost to space by radiation). Waves mix the water near the surface layer and distribute heat to deeper water, such that the temperature may be relatively uniform for up to 100 m (300 ft)
…
The thermocline varies in depth. It is semi-permanent in the tropics, variable in temperate regions (often deepest during the summer), and shallow to nonexistent in the polar regions”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermocline
Wave action is large factor. But it’s deepest in temperate zone during summer [are there more storms and wave action in the summer?]
Photic zone
“The photic zone or euphotic zone (Greek for “well lit”: εὖ “good” + φῶς “light”) is the depth of the water in a lake or ocean that is exposed to sufficient sunlight for photosynthesis to occur. The depth of the photic zone can be affected greatly by seasonal turbidity.
It extends from the atmosphere-water interface downwards to a depth where light intensity falls to one percent of that at the surface, called the euphotic depth. Accordingly, its thickness varies widely on the extent of light attenuation in the water column. Typical euphotic depths vary from only a few centimetres in highly turbid eutrophic lakes, to around 200 metres in the open ocean.”
So most of energy of sunlight reaches a few centimeter beneath the water, but visible light can reach down to 200 meter. So within the thermocline. One has significant amount of energy from the sun. Obviously, if sun angle is low this energy can penetrate to shallower depth, and if directly overhead can penetrate to deepest levels.
Therefore in temperate zones when sun is at higher angle, it can reach lower depth and therefore increase the depth of the thermocline in the temperate ocean areas during the summer.
I have exposed the incorrect derivation of the incorrect form of SB in yet another post
http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2011/10/from-plancks-law-to-false-sb.html
I have asked Grant and Judy for a reaction, because they started this post questioning my work. Sniper shooting from some hide out is not the idea of scientific debate: If you say something you should be able to stand up for your statement and not run away from responsibility. The discussion concerns a basic law of physics, SB, and my criticism that an incorrect form
of SB is used in climate science, must be met sooner or later, because of its crucial role in CO2 alarmism.
Come on now Judy: You have given up backradiation and since DLR = backradiation, your next step will have to be to give up DLR and thus the very basis of CO2 alarmism.
My criticism will not disappear just because you hide and say nothing. If you run a blog criticizing my work, you have to meet my response by arguments and not just empty silence. Right?
Right. So, when will you bring at last a consistent response to the accurate and devastating critics of “your work” on the previous threads ?
http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/04/slaying-a-greenhouse-dragon-part-ii/
http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/04/slaying-a-greenhouse-dragon-part-iii-discussion/
http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/10/greenhouse-dragon-technical-discussion-thread/
http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/13/slaying-the-greenhouse-dragon-part-iv/
I will be happy to respond to any criticism if it is only articulated concisely and not hidden in many thousands of comments. What is the criticism? My derivation of Planck’s law? My conclusion that False-SB is not true?
It strikes me that sometimes there is a lack of comprehension between what a mathematician will accept as a proof and what as scientist will accept.
I only pursued mathematics to the second year of a university course apart from some free standing modules.
I remember that in mathematics it sometimes took 12 pages or so to prove what seemed to me to be the “bleedin obvious”.
But of course the mathematicians were correct.
When a gifted mathematician like Claes comments on equations he cannot be ignored.
Physicists originally had only 3 laws of thermodynamics and overlooked what is now known as the zeroth law.
When this was pointed out it had to be proved by experiment.
The zeroth law is as usual quite awkward to fit into a greenhouse theory.
Two objects are at thermal equilibrium(same temperature).
What happens when you bring a third object close to the two?
A clumsy greenhouse enthusiast would expect the temperature to rise due to the extra radiation.
However a more skilled believer would be able to reconcile the theory with the reality that there is no change.
I should have made clear that the third object is at the same temperature as the original two.
It depends on whether the third object is at the same temperature as the background, and whether the heat being supplied to the system changes.
For the two objects to be in equilibrium in colder surroundings, heat must be being constantly supplied to them from somewhere to keep them at a fixed temperature.
If the third object blocks some of the heat from escaping, but heat is still being supplied at the same rate, then the supplied heat (not heat from the third object) raises the temperature.
The backradiation from the new object is just a way of explaining what is meant by the escape of heat being “blocked”.
If you have two people starting out with $1000 each, and they are paying bills at the rate of $100 a month, then a third party comes along (who has about 300 bucks) and starts giving each one of the first two $10 bucks a month, their money will last longer. Case closed.
Don, how do you extend this analogy to the hazards of global warming? All the sudden we have $2,300 in the system. Then we have $2,400. Now we have out-of-control money growth. Soon we have $3,000 flying around killing endangered Polar bears and melting the ice caps where the average temperature is -50C. Then we hit a tipping point and there is $10,000. OMG! We need a government program.
I don’t extend the analogy to the hazards of global warming. I don’t have to believe in catastrophic global warming, just because I am willing to admit to the basic physics of heat transfer by radiation. You should try admitting it. It doesn’t hurt that much. And others, who are in the know, will then look upon you as possibly being rational.
I have to say, adding $300 from some source outside the system, then claiming it has some relevance to conservation of money in a system is a typical kind of accounting we see from global warming activists. It reminds me of atmospheric 340 W/m^2 as a source of energy contributing to surface warming in the Keihl/Trenberth energy balance diagram.
I was merely following the discussion that involved three objects, to illustrate a point on the basic physics of radiation heat transfer. I didn’t say that the third object (in the analogy, a person) came from outside the system. Let’s say that all the money originally comes from the Sun. If I was interested in wasting any more time on you, I would make an analogy with the velocity of money in an economy, but you wouldn’t understand that either.
Ken,
“All the sudden we have $2,300 in the system. Then we have $2,400. Now we have out-of-control money growth.”
Are you making fun of leftists and their economic plan or climate scientists?? 8>)
Claes
http://xkcd.com/967/
Perhaps you need to be American to understand the criticism?
Grant Petty states (optimistically – and a bit defensively – IMO):
This is arguably true for those “pieces of the giant jigsaw puzzle” that are visible today, but it takes a leap of faith to think that it is true for predictions made today for decades or even centuries in the future (as we see in IPCC reports).
When can we see that the IPCC projections of up to 6.4°C human-induced warming over the 21st century “don’t fit”?
Can we get a first clue when the prediction of 0.2°C warming over the first decade of the 21st century didn’t “fit”?
Max
kuhnkat says
“If you research it you will find that the surface temperature of Venus is very consistent with little variation one would expect to find if it was due to insolation. The atmospheric temperatures below the clouds are similar in that there is little change from equator to pole or day to night hemisphere. These facts mean there is little chance that the energy from the winds are provided from differential heating and convection similar to earth. Additionally the winds are primarily in the rotational plane rather than toward the poles.”
“A giant vortex at the south pole of Venus is actually a shape-shifter that changes form at least once a day, at times bizarrely taking on the appearance of a giant letter “S” or the number “8,” a new study reveals.
Venus, the second closest planet to the sun, possesses giant, hot and essentially permanent vortexes of clouds whirling fast at its poles. These result from how Venus’ atmosphere circulates much faster than any other rocky planet’s in the solar system — the cloud-level atmosphere of Venus on average spins 60 times faster than the planet’s surface.”
http://www.space.com/11325-venus-vortex-changes-shape.html
I’ll repeat:
“These result from how Venus’ atmosphere circulates much faster than any other rocky planet’s in the solar system — the cloud-level atmosphere of Venus on average spins 60 times faster than the planet’s surface.”
Venus does rotate quite slow. Earth rotates at 1000 mph, so that is quite different than Venus. Rather figure out the mph of the wind. I see if another article about.
“High velocity winds are known to spin westwards around the planet, and to take only four days to complete a rotation. This ‘super-rotation’, combined with the natural recycling of hot air in the atmosphere, would induce the formation of a vortex structure over each pole. But why two vortexes?”
http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMYGQEFWOE_index_0.html
That article has interesting thermal images. But still no speed.
“Thermal infrared imagery from the Pioneer Venus spacecraft subsequently revealed an enormous depression in the cloud blanket at the North Pole. This relatively warm polar ‘hole’ was thought to be caused by downward movement of gases, rather like water flowing down a drain. However, detailed examination of the thick clouds and dense atmosphere over the South Pole had to wait until the arrival of Venus Express in April 2006.
….
“The new observations, reported this week in the journal Science on the Science Express website, show that the vortex has a highly variable shape and internal structure. Images show that its morphology is constantly changing on timescales of less than 24 hours, as a result of differential rotation.”
http://www.spacedog.eu/solar-system/venus/the-amazing-southern-vortex-of-venus.html
Interesting bit while looking:
“The amount of water vapour present today in the atmosphere of Venus would be enough to cover the planet with a 3-centimetre deep liquid layer. If we find out that heavy water – a trace of the original water – is massively present in the top atmospheric layers where it can more easily escape, than the amount of water in the past may have well corresponded to a layer up to a few hundred metres deep,” Bertaux concluded.
http://www.universetoday.com/274/science-updates-from-venus-express/
“”Although the air over the polar regions in these upper atmospheric layers on Venus was colder than the air over the equator in most measurements, occasionally it appeared to be warmer,” said Dr. Theodor Kostiuk of NASA Goddard. “In Earth’s atmosphere, a circulation pattern called a ‘Hadley cell’ occurs when warm air rises over the equator and flows toward the poles, where it cools and sinks. Since the atmosphere is denser closer to the surface, the descending air gets compressed and warms the upper atmosphere over Earth’s poles. We saw the opposite on Venus. In addition, although the surface temperature is fairly even, we’ve seen substantial changes – up to 54 degrees Fahrenheit (about 30 K change) – within a few Earth days in the mesosphere – thermosphere layers over low latitudes on Venus. The poles appeared to be more stable, but we still saw changes up to 27 degrees Fahrenheit (about 15 K change).” ”
And finally:
“This upper atmospheric variability could have many possible causes, according to the team. Turbulence from global air currents at different altitudes flowing at more than 200 miles per hour in opposite directions could exchange hot air from below with cold air from above to force changes in the upper atmosphere. Also, giant vortexes swirl around each pole. They, too, could generate turbulence and change the pressure, causing the temperature to vary. ”
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/venus-temp20110926.html
gbalkie,
Do you like the way there are few FACTS in their suggestions as to what MIGHT cause the winds?? 8>)
That’s science- it takes a while.
“Venus Express (VEX) is the first Venus exploration mission of the European Space Agency. Launched in November 2005, it arrived at Venus in April 2006 and has been continuously sending back science data from its polar orbit around Venus. Equipped with seven science instruments, the main objective of the mission is the long term observation of the Venusian atmosphere. The observation over such long periods of time has never been done in previous missions to Venus, and is key to a better understanding of the atmospheric dynamics. It is hoped that such studies can contribute to an understanding of atmospheric dynamics in general, while also contributing to an understanding of climate change on Earth. The mission is currently funded by ESA through 31 December 2012.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_Express
So Venus Express in terms of getting scientific information has barely begun, and years after the mission is finished, the data will continue to be developed and analyzed.
I said:
“Earth has 174 petawatts incoming energy. Venus might have at least twice this amount [or 4 or more times] to think that say 100 petawatt or more is added to outgoing energy seems unexplainable.”
I was guessing wrong. It about twice the solar energy per sq meter of earth and Venus is slightly smaller. So not “at least twice” but about twice or little bit less than twice. And certainly not “4 or more times”
So around 300 petawatts.
But if one talking about tens to hundreds of petawatt difference, interior heat of Venus is unlikely explanation.
gbalkie,
The cloud layer makes a strong dividing line between the upper atmosphere and the surface. The surface of Venus only gets about 18% of the insolation of earth due to the reflectivity of the clouds and the absorption of the atmosphere.
IMO, this group has damaged the credibility of skepticism about climate change and provides a convenient target when people want to refer to “deniers” and crackpots.
In one way it’s helpful. It separates skeptics who are skeptical of the over-sell of certainty of the model and certain aspects of the science, vs those who think the whole thing is a flat out fraud.
Nullius in Verba:
“where I showed that the back-radiation argument applied to water would cause the oceans to boil!”
Most of the ocean floor are inky darkness. But many lakes should boil.
Dr Curry,
I’m not so sure that someone claiming that climate models are “grounded in real science and physics”, whereas they are formally invalidated by comparison to observations, would deserve being called a scientist.
And I’m not so sure he would deserve our attention.
There still seems to be a lot of argument over the natural GH effect. I would say its all driven to the AGW issue and a desire to completely counter any argument that human CO2 emissions can possibly cause any further warming, and so making the world safe for unlimited expansionary capitalism.
The natural GH effect has been known for over a hundred years now. Were there any significant objections to it before the AGW issue came to the fore in the late 80’s?
That is a good question, tempt. You might also ask why anybody would have given much thought to the issue, before hysterical alarmists started running around trying to shut down the World economy. It would also be interesting to know how many scientists were employed in the climate industry, before the big scare/big boom began.
“You might also ask why anybody would have given much thought to the issue…
But, Don, that’s what true scientists do! They look at problems dispassionately. They are driven by a sense of inate curiousity. They don’t start thinking about an issue just because they think that it may have an effect on the price of petrol/gasoline!
tt, That must explain how the ‘green’ company that brought us the Gossamer Albatross with NASA help and our money, is now going to sell the US ARMY, kamikazes’ in a tube. If skeptics don’t get it, you can now get them… you will experience no collateral damage while you are using: Switchblade…
http://www.avinc.com/resources/press_release/u.s._army_awards_av_4.9_million_contract_for_switchblade_agile_munition_sys
Maybe we should put our Air Jordan’s, on now? Cold science for a cure.
Temp,
GH theory was known for about 100 years. During that time it was advanced at least 3 times and refuted each time. It wasn’t until the 70’s/80’s that it became accepted by Climate Scientists and those not paying attention.
“refuted each time” ??
By whom? Reference please.
temp,
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
This is an AGW centric history.
They don’t even mention Wood’s experiment!!
Ken Coffman | October 16, 2011 at 12:02 pm |
I don’t know anyone who disputes the idea that things with mass and temperate radiate. That’s not the point. The point is, can radiation be emitted from a surface, absorbed, then re-emitted to come back to the surface and make it warmer than it was? This is necessary to support the warming argument–that we will experience higher and higher average temperatures and higher and higher peak temperatures. It baffles me that anyone with the slightest clue about thermodynamics would believe this, but they do.
It baffles me that anyone with a knowledge of thermodynamics would post what you do, but there you go perhaps you really don’t know much about thermo. Explain to me in your thermodynamics how an unshielded thermocouple in an open flame can measure a temperature of say 1500ºC and then when a radiation shield is added around it the measured temperature will increase. This is well established physics and is well understood, there are excellent NACA reports on the subject for example.
So let’s have your answer, I fully expect that you will do what Claes Johnson did when I posed the same question to him, i.e. runa way and hide!
What is this radiation shield? Something that reflects radiation? Does it have any effect on convection? Is it something that absorbs radiation and achieves a higher temperature than the flame? If so, I would be very impressed. Good luck with that.
So you’re too lazy even to look it up!
It’s a cylindrical shield that prevents the radiation from the hot Th/C interacting with the surroundings, the shield itself heats up to a temperature close to the original temperature of the Th/C. Because the Th/C is now exchanging radiation with the shield which is hotter than the surroundings (but not as hot as Th/C itself) the temperature of the Th/C increases to nearer the true temperature of the flame. Sometimes a second shield is used around the first which allows a further, but smaller increase in temperature. Temperature differences can be as much as 100ºC.
Phil, do you really expect to get Coffman or Johnson (or any of the Sky Dragon Slayers) to abandon one of their two key “debate” tactics: Ignore & Deny
First, they’re ignore, then they’ll deny.
And in between, they’ll interject a convoluted and disingenuous discussion of convection currents, adiabatic lapse rates, and how many angels can be compressed onto the head of a pin.
It’s long been clear their goal is to not the change the minds of scientists, but to convince the public that a debate is raging over global warming among scientists.
For almost half a century, the tobacco industry was able to get away with this scam using some of the very same “think tanks” and PR agencies that are now working to deceive the public about climate science.
Trust me, Hades will freeze over before you get Ken Coffman to acknowledge why thermocouple shields are used and how they work. Acknowledging facts which refute their pseudoscientific claims is just not in the Sky Dragon Slayer’s play book.
Andrew
Its really commendable for you to turn up in your spare time to this thread to learn some physics.
However your day job is as an investigative journalist I believe.
Well here’s a scoop for you.
Over at WUWT they are running an item on how Al Gore faked a number of experiments for his recent TV presentation of Climate Science 101.
You being a fearless seeker after truth will bring your own analysis to expose such fraud.
Some unkind people will think that you wont bother because you are a party hack.
Go on and prove them wrong.
Phil,
Yes, I am too lazy to look it up. I also don’t see how blocking radiation from the hot or burning material causing an INCREASE in measured temps helps the AGW theory, but, I am dumb or uneducated or something.
Would you mind giving us a link to the NACA report(s)?
I’m traveling and can’t invest any time in this at the moment. Please don’t feel any obligation to make this easy for me, Phil. There are interesting cases where things with large thermals masses and accompanying long thermal time constants can have increasing temperatures after a heat source is removed, but these cases conserve energy. Of course they do. I’m curious about this radiation shield…how its constructed, what it’s made of and the intended point of using it. But, don’t trouble yourself, Phil, when I get time, I’ll poke around and figure it out.
Phil says
…..”Explain to me in your thermodynamics how an unshielded thermocouple in an open flame can measure a temperature of say 1500ºC and then when a radiation shield is added around it the measured temperature will increase. This is well established physics and is well understood, there are excellent NACA reports on the subject for example.”……
Most people understand insulation.
The shieding will produce an insulating effect.
Heat will be impeded from leaving the area of the open flame.
Remember that heat can travel by conduction convection and radiation
If the amount of energy being produced by the flame stays constant but less escapes then the thermistors temperature must rise.
The radiation shield should( if it is any good) have good radiative insulative properties .
A “perfect” radiation shield would reflect all radiation landing on it back in the direction of the flame.
It would not absorb any of the radiation landing on it!
So this example does not advance the cause of a belief in a CO2 powered greenhouse effect.
No the shield doesn’t reflect the radiation at all, it relies on absorption and emission. Try again!
Phil you have not given a link to your radiation shield.
You have left everyone trying to guess what (if anything) you are trying to say!
I can assure you that a “perfect” reflector would not absorb any radiation.
You will no doubt be familial with the perfect absorber the famous “black body” which also does not exist.
It’s not ‘my’ radiation shield it’s standard technology, just Google it, they’ve been around for decades!
A thermocouple in a flame receives heat mostly by convection but cools via radiation and at the steady temperature convection and radiative loss are balanced.For a typical Th/C parameters the measured temperature in an open flame is about 100ºC low at a flame temp of about 1200ºC.
Putting a cylindrical shield around the Th/C doesn’t affect convection but interposes a hot radiating body (preferably high emissivity) between the Th/C and the surroundings. Typically the Tshield will be `1300K rather than 300K, a factor of ~4X so the returned thermal energy will be about 256X larger so radiative loss is very much reduced and therefore the measured temperature will be much closer to the flame temperature. So the Th/C is hotter because it is receiving radiation from the cooler shield.
All standard heat transfer, known to engineers and used by them for decades.
Phil,
Thanks for the explanation as far as it goes. I would note that the TC still does not reach the temperature of the flames. The TC is warmed more with the radiation from the flames blocked and replaced with radiation from a solid surface which is exposed to more flame area than the TC and will be a more consistent black body form, meaning a wider range of frequencies. I would also point out that the shield apparently becomes the energy supply for the TC which has nothing to do with the atmospheric configuration. Taking the earth and surrounding it with a solid shell tells us little about the physics of a gaseous atmosphere.
You have not described the orientation of the shield and how it is mounted and the coverage or the materials involved so it is impossible to research the specific properties so I have no idea of other issues. It is also impossible to know whether the increased absorption area of the shield is CONDUCTING to the TC through the mounts or just concentrating the energy from the larger absorption area of the shield.
Again, a link please? How about a search string that will get it onto the first couple of pages of results?
Phil, you might as well give up. Bryan and the other deniers are not in any way bound by reality. Bryan and Ken will just respond with gibberish while utterly ignoring the physics of shielded thermocouples you’ve just explained.
They’re not trying to convince scientists that they’re wrong. They’re only trying to convince the uninformed public that scientists can’t agree.
The more you argue with them, they more they’ll brag how “scientists don’t agree” on the global effects of burning fossil fuels. And since they can’t agree, it would be recklessly foolish to devote any limited public funding to finding alternative energy. If you’re paying attention to public opinion polls, you would know that this well-funded strategy is working only too well.
Andrew
why are you not trying to pin down Al Gore with his pack of fake experiments?.
It appears more likely that you are a biased hack rather than a fair minded objective reporter.
Don’t you think that Phil’s failure to come up with link to a particular radiation shield is rather odd?
If you google “radiation shield” you get thousands of hits of all sorts.
Which one is he talking about?
Phil’s “radiation shield” apparently needs to be a very good absorber, so let it be a perfect black body.
If you combine it with CO2 you can create a new improved class of thermos flasks .
Old thermos flask technology
Double glass concentric bottles with a vacuum between them and highly silvered reflective coating on the vacuum side of bottles.
New IPCC approved technology (as above with these changes)
Replace the vacuum with high pressure CO2
Replace the silvered highly reflective coating with a perfect black body coating.
Take out a patent on it and make a fortune.
Thanks Brya for illustrating my point.
I just want to hold their feet to the fire with their nonsense. Claes Johnson and his ‘new derivations’, if he can’t explain well established physics of radiation heat transfer which is used in practical devices every day then it’s not worth the paper it’s written on. When presented with the problem he just runs away and hides, the guy’s a charlatan and proves it when he ducks the questions.
“When presented with the problem [Claes Johnson] just runs away and hides, the guy’s a charlatan and proves it when he ducks the questions.”
You noticed that too? I’m still trying to get him to explain how the atoms in a “black body” are able to “catabolize” and “anabolize” like living cells.
The only explanation I’ve been able to get out of him is that he likes to “speak in parables.” Just like Jesus.
Phil,
I would suggest that you not make disparaging remarks about people like Claes Johnson until you take the time to understand what the heck he is talking about.
You might start with explaining to me exactly how an instrument that measures the BRIGHTNESS in frequencies different that the ones we are interested in is helpful in telling us anything about the amount of energy that is alledgedly absorbed by the surface from IR emitted by GHG’s.
Maybe the ASSUMPTION of SB is built into the instrument?? Still doesn’t tell me how much fabled DLR there is or whether it is absorbed, reflected, eaten by the Cookie Monster on Sesame Street…
“The point is, can radiation be emitted from a surface, absorbed, then re-emitted to come back to the surface and make it warmer than it was?”
Like others, I have some difficulty working out what the problem is – but it’s like that with a lot of conceptual problems. They’re only obvious when you see it.
I have little hope, but I’ll try a different approach. Collect a bucket of pebbles and sit down with two friends. One friend sits with the bucket, and throws them to you at a constant rate, one a second, say. You collect a few and then start throwing them away, the more you have, the faster you get rid of them, so if you have less than five you only throw one every two seconds, when you have ten you throw one every second, when you have thirty you throw away two every second, and so on. After a while, you should find you settle down with enough pebbles that you’re throwing them away as fast as you get them – ten, say.
Now get your other friend to start catching half of them and throwing them back. He has no bucket of pebbles, every pebble he gets from you, so clearly you can’t be getting any extra pebbles from him. Every pebble passed between you goes both ways, for a net transfer of zero.
The question is, with both of your friends now throwing pebbles at you, do you accumulate any more, until you can increase the rate at which you throw them away? If so, where do they come from?
“This is necessary to support the warming argument”
No, not really. As I keep saying, you can explain the greenhouse effect without invoking back radiation at all, and you can cite cases with significant back radiation and no greenhouse warming. It’s got nothing to do with it, arguing against it achieves precisely nothing, and it wastes a lot of time that could be better used attacking the areas where there are real weaknesses. Think of it as a decoy, if you like.
Nullius, you have to add some features to your thought experiment to make it line up with the concepts of global warming. A few minutes thought would do it for you if your mind was open. For one thing, the bucket you’re taking stones from gets dumped out every evening…this is a reset condition. Rarefied gases don’t have any storage capacity compared to the heat sink and heat emitter that really matters, the oceans. There are lots of things wrong with your analogy, but never mind. If you want to believe a cold, rarefied gas can store (or block, or whatever) outgoing thermal energy and kick it back to the surface to make it warmer than it started, then have at it. Think about all the horrible things global warming is supposed to do, then try to figure out how a small modulation of cooling rate can cause these effects? You want to believe it? Don’t let me stand in your way.
Ken as I see it;
On matters of substance Nullius has similar views about the thermodynamics of the troposphere to those of Jebling and Gilbert.
Postma and Hans Schroeder also would find large agreement with his view that;
1. The adiabatic atmosphere recirculates heat and is largely responsible for the 33K difference between Earth surface and effective emission level
2. CO2 is IR active and plays a minor role in the troposphere, sometimes slowing down heat transfer and sometimes increasing it.
3. Where CO2’s role is more significant is at TOA where it radiated to space.
“For one thing, the bucket you’re taking stones from gets dumped out every evening…this is a reset condition.”
The bucket represents the sun.
“Think about all the horrible things global warming is supposed to do, then try to figure out how a small modulation of cooling rate can cause these effects?”
That’s an entirely different question.
As I keep trying to say, acceptance of one aspect of climate science does not imply acceptance of all the others. I am a sceptic – I don’t believe in catastrophic global warming predictions – but I’m also a physicist and I’m not going to say the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist at all when it’s quite clear to me that it does. It’s badly named, doesn’t work the way they say, and the change in it is likely to be undetectably small, but it does exist.
If there were people around saying you had to give all your wealth to the priests to stop the coming flood drowning the entire world, you’d be the person telling everyone that there’s no such thing as rain.
This week the British Medical Journal, one of the world’s leading science publications, hosted an international conference on the health effects of climate change that was attended by 300 delegates from healthcare, the military, climate science, industry, business, and politics.
The latest issue of the journal has an editorial by three leading economists plus a commentary by BMJ’s editor, Dr. Fiona Godlee, warning physicians and other health care professionals that the greatest threat to public health now comes from the effects of global warming.
http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d6789.full
How on earth do we combat climate change?
The greatest risk to human health is neither communicable nor non-communicable disease, it is climate change. Saying this, as I and others have started doing at conferences, seems to take a certain courage. We’ve been emboldened by clear statements from WHO’s director general Margaret Chan and from the Lancet (www.thelancet.com/climate-change). But this week, at a meeting hosted by the BMJ in collaboration with an extraordinary alliance of organisations (http://climatechange.bmj.com, doi:10.1136/bmj.d6775), it became clear that we are going to have to get braver still.
Let me begin by acknowledging that putting climate change at the top of the list of things to worry about is hard when faced with the daily challenges of clinical care: supporting the family of a suicidal person, advising a woman with polycystic ovaries about the possible outcomes of a pregnancy, telling a young person he or she has maturity onset diabetes, or treating asylum seekers while under pressure not to do so.
But to the top of your list climate change must go. The meeting of over 300 delegates from healthcare, the military, climate science, industry, business, and politics, heard frightening news that none of us want to hear, made more frightening by the measured way it was delivered. As Lord Michael Jay said in his opening remarks, there is no need for hype; the cold hard science is scary enough. Chris Rapley, former director of the Science Museum and head of the British Antarctic Survey, told us that “the science is overwhelming and settled.” His conclusions were unflinching: “Is the planet warming? Yes. Is it us? Yes. Does it matter? Yes. Must we do something about it? Yes.”
To prevent catastrophic climate change, global temperatures will need to rise by less than 2°C above pre-industrial levels by 2100. At or above such temperatures, health and military experts painted a picture of economic and social breakdown, with death and disease on a massive scale caused by resource shortages, migration, and conflict (BMJ 2011;342:d1819). Business as usual will raise temperatures by 5°C. Even if all current pledges on carbon emissions are met, we will hit 4.3°C. The consequences of such global temperatures are unsurvivable. A statement released at the meeting calls for governments to aim for a safer, lower rise of 1.5°C by 2100. But how on earth to achieve this?
Professor Hugh Montgomery of University College London, who instigated the meeting, concluded with stark honesty: “What can we do? I don’t know.” The UK’s Climate and Energy Security Envoy, Rear Admiral Neil Morisetti, agreed that there was no clear answer but that we now need to own the problem and the solutions, both as individuals and at an institutional level. “No more talk of them and us,” he said. The meeting concluded that we must give politicians the ammunition they need if we are to create radically different ways of living, and we must develop better narratives to articulate the health and economic benefits of tackling climate change. An editorial this week takes up the challenge.
The madness of crowds. Combat climate change? We might as well combat gravity. Or seasons. Or night and day.
… or smoking-related cancers, heart disease, birth defects, and emphysema, or HIV, or Measles, Mumps, Chickenpox, and other vaccine-preventable diseases,
You’re right, it is a daunting challenge to combat such health problems when you have powerful industries financing opposition to change. It took the public health community a half century to prevail over the hired-gun “scientists” who were able to deceive the public into believing there was no scientific consensus on the deadly effects of tobacco on smokers as well as on the victims of second-hand smoke.
Madness of the crowds indeed.
Climate changes by default. It’s the natural state of climate. It’s never stopped and it will never stop changing. We still don’t completely understand which factors drive the changes so we can’t know which way it will go if we try to change it intentionally. It’s mad to want to combat climate change. We might as well wanna combat seasons, like I said.
We have powerful industries financing war on climate change and it’s just like the war on terror – crazy, stupid and senseless. When is the war on climate change over? When the climate stops changing? That’s never. You want perpetual war on climate change?
Where or where have we heard a spin like Edim’s before?
“Climate changes by default. It’s the natural state of climate. It’s never stopped and it will never stop changing. We still don’t completely understand which factors drive the changes so we can’t know which way it will go if we try to change it intentionally. It’s mad to want to combat climate change. We might as well wanna combat seasons, like I said.”
Oh my, how well he channels the double-speak of a tobacco industry flak some 40 years ago:
“Cancer is a disease that arises from natural and largely unknown causes. Scientists still don’t fully understand how any cancer begins. We now know a lot about how to treat it, but we know next to nothing how to prevent it. It would be unwise to pass laws restricting the enjoyment of millions of Americans who choose to smoke based on guesses that have not been proven scientifically. They would force millions of Americans out of work with no reason to believe they would prevent a single case of cancer.”
Anyone else here an echo here? Today’s well-financed deniers have taken the scripts used by tobacco industry flaks for more than 40 years and have just swapped a few words here and there.
Andrew,
You’re the one who’s using Orwellian phrase Climate Change in order to spin (maybe not intentionally). AGW machine is well financed, by Big Oil too. Sceptics are mostly lovers of science and are disgusted by the pseudo-science. We disagree and that’s ok, but time will tell.
“We’ve learned from experience that the truth will come out. Other experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you were wrong or right. Nature’s phenomena will agree or they’ll disagree with your theory. And, although you may gain some temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a good reputation as a scientist if you haven’t tried to be very careful in this kind of work. And it’s this type of integrity, this kind of care not to fool yourself, that is missing to a large extent in much of the research in Cargo Cult Science.”
Have a nice day
“You’re the one who’s using Orwellian phrase Climate Change in order to spin.”
Hmmm. I can’t seem to find the scientific term “climate change” in Orwell’s great novels on dystopia. Oh, wait! It’s a joke, right?
“The AGW machine is well financed, by Big Oil too.”
LOL! I should have read the rest of your post. Funny one.
“Sceptics are mostly lovers of science and are disgusted by the pseudo-science.”
Ha,ha, ha, ha. Better stop or I’ll wind up wetting myself.
You ever try stand up?
Andrew,
I see you’re not being serious. It’s not a game. If you have any comments/questions, be my guest. I am not interested in LOL-ing.
Edim, you’re wrong again. I am very serious.
You don’t seem to understand the use of satire any more than you understand the use of science. Satire is writing that uses irony, sarcasm, or ridicule to hold human folly and vice up to scorn. Don’t for a moment doubt that, when I scorn you, I’m being serious.
Andrew,
You don’t sound serious at all. Do you want to combat climate change? Do you think humans should combat climate change? If yes, please confirm. Maybe I misunderstand.
Misunderstand? Edim, the fact that you ask this after I posted the British Medical Journal commentary on the unprecedented threat to world health from human-caused global warming shows you understand nothing.
The world has been gradually warming since 1600’s.
In the last 150years the increase is about 0.7C.
Since 1998 there has been no increase!
Relax!!!
Bryan, that’s such a total and ridiculous lie even you know it’s false.
As Dr. Curry (a co-author of the studies) just posted, the results of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Group studies were released today and they confirm that there’s been more than a 0.9 degree Centigrade increase in average land temperature across the earth over the past 50 (not 150) years and that the increase in the temperature curve has even steepened since 1998
http://www.berkeleyearth.org/analysis.php
Shame on you Pinocchio.
Yes, and I commented on that commentary. It’s bad. Propaganda full of wiesel words and Orwellian language.
–
“But to the top of your list climate change must go. The meeting of over 300 delegates from healthcare, the military, climate science, industry, business, and politics, heard frightening news that none of us want to hear, made more frightening by the measured way it was delivered. As Lord Michael Jay said in his opening remarks, there is no need for hype; the cold hard science is scary enough. Chris Rapley, former director of the Science Museum and head of the British Antarctic Survey, told us that “the science is overwhelming and settled.” His conclusions were unflinching: “Is the planet warming? Yes. Is it us? Yes. Does it matter? Yes. Must we do something about it? Yes.”
To prevent catastrophic climate change, global temperatures will need to rise by less than 2°C above pre-industrial levels by 2100. At or above such temperatures, health and military experts painted a picture of economic and social breakdown, with death and disease on a massive scale caused by resource shortages, migration, and conflict (BMJ 2011;342:d1819). Business as usual will raise temperatures by 5°C. Even if all current pledges on carbon emissions are met, we will hit 4.3°C. The consequences of such global temperatures are unsurvivable. A statement released at the meeting calls for governments to aim for a safer, lower rise of 1.5°C by 2100 (doi:10.1136/bmj.d6760). But how on earth to achieve this?”
–
The science is settled? Cold hard science? Frightening news? Catastrophic? To prevent climate change? Death and disease on a massive scale? 5°C? Unsurvivable?
Edim, excuse me for saying so, but your baseless opinion is like a miasma, gaseous and of no benefit to anyone.
“the fact that you ask this after I posted the British Medical Journal commentary on the unprecedented threat to world health from human-caused global warming shows you understand nothing.”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Yup, epidemiology studies are one of the few areas that might be even more stupid and corrupt than IPCC Climate Science!!!
kuhnkat | October 19, 2011 at 5:52 pm |
Phil,
Thanks for the explanation as far as it goes. I would note that the TC still does not reach the temperature of the flames. The TC is warmed more with the radiation from the flames blocked and replaced with radiation from a solid surface which is exposed to more flame area than the TC and will be a more consistent black body form, meaning a wider range of frequencies.
No, I was very clear the heating of the Th/C is primarily by convection from the flame not radiation!
I would also point out that the shield apparently becomes the energy supply for the TC which has nothing to do with the atmospheric configuration.
Really, so you agree that the hotter thermocouple is being heated by the cooler shield?
Taking the earth and surrounding it with a solid shell tells us little about the physics of a gaseous atmosphere.
You have not described the orientation of the shield and how it is mounted and the coverage or the materials involved so it is impossible to research the specific properties so I have no idea of other issues. It is also impossible to know whether the increased absorption area of the shield is CONDUCTING to the TC through the mounts or just concentrating the energy from the larger absorption area of the shield.
That would be bad design, also the conduction would be from the Th/C to the cooler shield, the object is to get the Th/C to measure the temperature of the flame, radiation losses to the surroundings lead to errors of ~100ºC. The shield’s job is to reduce those radiative losses not to add new ones, I guess you think the engineers who design and work with these devices are stupid?
Again, a link please? How about a search string that will get it onto the first couple of pages of results?
Since you asked nicely here’s one to get you started, it describes single and double shields:
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire99/PDF/f99112.pdf
This paper describes the physical construction of the aspirated thermocouple systems…
http://jfs.sagepub.com/content/26/6/509.full.pdf+html
I have admitted many times that I don’t think progressive activists are capable of of objective analysis…every thought in their head is polluted by the sure knowledge that humans are bad for the environment and the other canards of self-loathing.
However, we can always keep trying…
When the TC [Thermocouple] measures gas temperatures outside a flame, the sensor can be heated due to radiant energy transfer from a nearby flame. This will result in artificially high gas temperatures. In applications where the TC is in a flame, it may be subject to radiational cooling due to energy loss to cool surroundings if the flame is relatively thin.
Since radiation is proportional to T^4, it is obvious that at high temperatures a thermocouple bead could be radiating much more energy that it is receiving. This is especially true when the surrounding environment is at a much lower temperature and not emitting radiation to the bead, which is common in fire environments. To compound the problem, a large radiant energy source is present as well. When the flame is in close proximity to the sensor it radiates energy that may increase the temperature of the bead
significantly over that of the gas surrounding the sensor.
–http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/67056.pdf
If you think information like this supports the idea that IR radiated from the Earth’s surface can stimulate CO2 molecules, be “back radiated” and make the surface hotter than it already was, then I can only shake my head with wonder. Actually, I want you to keep believing your nonsense–it makes it easier for me to compete with you in the real world.
Ken Coffman’s reply to Phil’s thoughtful comment:
“I can only shake my head with wonder. Actually, I want you to keep believing your nonsense–it makes it easier for me to compete with you in the real world.”
People with holes in their head like Ken should avoid shaking their heads if they don’t want more of their brains to fall out.
Phil and Ken,
The term aspirated thermocouple from your link was very helpful Phil. It helped me find a number of good papers with this highlight:
“The gas flow over the shield and thermocouple increases convective heat transfer and brings both surfaces closer to the actual gas temperature.”
Page two paragraph one in the PDF linked from here: http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire99/art149.html
Apparently the radiative transfer doesn’t always overwhelm the other transfers on earth or in the literature. Phil, I probably won’t be the first person to caution you about people who use models.
“The gas flow over the shield and thermocouple increases convective heat transfer and brings both surfaces closer to the actual gas temperature.”
Indeed, which is what I told you, and the Th/C is hotter than the shield, and the shield is hotter than the surroundings due to radiational losses.
Apparently the radiative transfer doesn’t always overwhelm the other transfers on earth or in the literature. Phil, I probably won’t be the first person to caution you about people who use models.
Who said that radiation was dominant? However the heat exchange between the Th/C and the shield is predominantly radiation.
Your caution about the use of models is inappropriate in this case, the physics of our knowledge of convection and radiation, verified by experiment, is used to explain the observation. I asked Johnson and Ken to explain it using their alternative physics, so far no reply!
Phil,
“Who said that radiation was dominant?”
Indeed, you have me there. You simply stated that the temperature differential was due to radiation while not saying anything about how the convection would change anything.
This still means that you need EMPIRICAL proof, instead of the video games, to show the net effect of the radiation increased by the change!!! You have not provided this and the paper I referenced concluded that it is the convective change that causes the temperature change.
In other words, you misrepresented the situation with the assistance of models and witheld data like any good little climate scientist!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Phil your link does not prove your point, whatever it was.
The article you link to is a development of a new model hoping for a more accurate assessment of real temperatures.
No tests were carried out to determine if this new model was an improvement or not.
All the % error calculations were PREDICTED rather than measured.
Call me old fashioned but I would have been much more impressed by an experimental method based on using the double and single shielded and unshielded thermocouples to measure known temperatures.
To call Claes Johnson
” the guy’s a charlatan ” on the basis of that article is well OTT.
Further the article uses several references to Schack.
In their peer reviewed article Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner quote Schack as saying that the radiative properties of CO2 though significant at furnace temperatures can be ignored at atmospheric temperatures
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
Phil,
a quickie before looking at the link. I did not state the TC was heated ONLY by radiation. I was attempting to clarify that the TC was heated MORE when the radiation from the flame area was blocked and replaced by a grey body of different properties than the flame.
This is why I need a link so can SEE the orientation of the components. I believe last time I suggested that changes in flow could be part of the issue, but, without actually seeing the configuration was just guessing.
“Really, so you agree that the hotter thermocouple is being heated by the cooler shield?”
Maybe. I also agree that a cooler magnifying glass can cause combustion by changing the DISTRIBUTION of the electromagnetic radiation and that Microwave ovens work at a COLD frequency. Think about it.
Kuhnkat, microwave ovens work by a completely different principle.
Please, the temperature of the magnifying glass is irrelevant the light it’s focussing is from a source of ~6000º. You’re barking up the wrong tree, read the paper. The radiation from the flame is negligible.
Phil,
a 6000 degree source 1 AU distant. You do remember the BASICS in physics don’t you?? The primary issue of 6000 degree is the frequency distribution of the output since we are so far away.
Peter317, microwaves work on RT principles. So does the magnifying glass. It turns out that the issues in the aspirated TC may NOT be primarily RT as claimed by Phil. See the paper I linked in my recent response to Phil.
Kuhnkat, microwave ovens work by dielectric heating, where the material to be heated is in the same order of magnitude of size as the wavelength of the radiation, as opposed to absorption and emission of radiation at the molecular level.
And there is no radiative transfer in a microwave??
Kuhnkat, Radiative transfer does take place, but it’s pretty much one-way.
Peter317,
i am not sure what point you are trying to say. Could you please start over and reference where you agree or disagree with what I posted and state what point you are trying to make??
a 6000 degree source 1 AU distant. You do remember the BASICS in physics don’t you?? The primary issue of 6000 degree is the frequency distribution of the output since we are so far away.
Yes I do, apparently you do not.
Well Phil,
like Peter you have lost me. What is your area of disagreement again?
You’re wasting your breath Phil. Bryan and Kumquat’s game is to deny, deny, ignore, and deny. Now that they used the magnifying glass and microwave oven cards, they’ll no doubt play a oven mitt, milk can, or even a rolling pin or roasted turkey leg distraction, just to shift the focus from a discussion of shielded thermocouples and how they clearly demonstrates one of the scientific principles behind the greenhouse effect.
It’s just a big game to them of continuous obfuscation, denial, and deceit. You’ll NEVER get either of them to honestly discuss any scientific phenomenon relevant to global warming. That’s not at all what they’re here for. They’re here to loudly bang their verbal pots and pans together to make people think there’s a heated scientific debate going on in this kitchen.
Andrew are you for real!
Hopefully you will keep up your appearances and certainly don’t dilute your take on sceptics and the big oil mega bucks narrative.
Its particularly good when you comment on some details of science you seem to have a natural feel for the subject.
Your creative take on the old fashioned fuddy duddy rules of thermodynamics is refreshing.
I think that a Nobel prize is not too faraway even Al Gore got one for a lot less effort.
Andrew, what are you doing here, serious question?
He thinks he’s winning an argument by being charming with rigorous, undeniable logic.
sorry to be rude, but I don’t remember asking you
Bryan | October 20, 2011 at 11:27 am | Reply
Phil your link does not prove your point, whatever it was.
The article you link to is a development of a new model hoping for a more accurate assessment of real temperatures.
No tests were carried out to determine if this new model was an improvement or not.
Bryan, I provided one reference out of many available because one of the commenters here didn’t understand what a radiation shield was. I provided a clearly written paper with clear diagrams and clear equations describing the physics of the heat exchange of a working thermocouple in a flame. I find it amusing that posters like you with no scientific credentials feel qualified to second guess decades of work by scientists and engineers and think that they were too stupid to think of something that just occurred to you! We know that thermocouples measure too low, we know that the smaller the thermocouple and the higher the gas velocity the smaller the error. We also know what the effect of a shield is because we have done the experiments! One of the reasons I chose that paper is because it also has some good references to earlier work on the subject. Now stop being a jerk and read the papers.
All the % error calculations were PREDICTED rather than measured.
Call me old fashioned but I would have been much more impressed by an experimental method based on using the double and single shielded and unshielded thermocouples to measure known temperatures.
Been done, read some of the references.
To call Claes Johnson
” the guy’s a charlatan ” on the basis of that article is well OTT.
That designation has been well earned by him by his previous behavior.
Further the article uses several references to Schack.
In their peer reviewed article Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner quote Schack as saying that the radiative properties of CO2 though significant at furnace temperatures can be ignored at atmospheric temperatures
If he actually said that then he’s wrong, but I wouldn’t trust anything from that junk paper.
Phil
From your series of rambling posts it was very difficult to make out the point you were trying to make.
Your extreme reluctance to give a link has not helped!
The thermocouple is not a source of heat.
It reacts to changes in temperature and so can be used to indicate the temperature.
Of course radiation will affect the result.
The SB equation can be used to quantify this.
Postma uses the SB equation.
Different designs will perhaps produce more accurate results.
The radiation from each element as “seen” by the thermocouple will contribute to the overall reading.
Nothing controversial here at all.
And your point is????????.
Now when you finally gave a link it was to a paper proposing a new model for reducing % errors in temperature readings.
It may well have done so but we will never know because it was not tested by experiment.
This seems to be a feature of climate science.
There are currently several models being used to predict the effects of increasing CO2 on the planets climate.
All of them are are a pointless waste of money since they are not bases on experimental science.
They are little more than elaborate computer games.
As to science credentials it would appear than mine are several orders of magnitude higher than yours.
So Phil stop being such a plonker go and read some physics books.
Perhaps after a few years of serious study you will be able to ask rational questions
From your series of rambling posts it was very difficult to make out the point you were trying to make. Your extreme reluctance to give a link has not helped!
Bryan, please stop being so disingenuously idiotic. Phil gave you a link to a reference — which it appears you didn’t bother to read. And it’s not his posts that are rambling, but yours. His points were perfectly clear.
The thermocouple is not a source of heat.
Wrong. As Phil clearly explained to you, the purpose of thermocouple shields is to capture and re-radiate heat back to the thermocouple sensor to obtain a more accurate measurement of the temperature of the gasses being measured. Without a shield, the thermocouple sensor radiates a lot of the heat it captures from the gasses being measured, which causes it to yield an inaccurately low temperature. By capturing and re-radiating the lost heat back to the thermocouple, the shields help the thermocouple provide a much more accurate measurement.
But I’m pretty sure you know this. You’re just pretending not to in order to deny what virtually every student of thermodynamics learns.
It [thermocouple] reacts to changes in temperature and so can be used to indicate the temperature.
Like duh! One of Bryan’s favorite rhetorical ruses is to obfuscate with the obvious that, while true, has nothing to do with the question.
Different designs will perhaps produce more accurate results.
Double duh!
Now when you finally gave a link it was to a paper proposing a new model for reducing % errors in temperature readings.
It may well have done so but we will never know because it was not tested by experiment. This seems to be a feature of climate science.
And of course, Bryan is always ready to resort to the bald-faced lie — a much beloved tactic of climate warming deniers. As anyone can see in the study Phil cited, the author conducted an experiment and provided the data she measured:
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire99/PDF/f99112.pdf
And it’s not “a paper proposing a new model for reducing % errors in temperature readings.” Bryan doesn’t even bother to read the studies he attacks. He doesn’t think he needs to since the ignorant he’s preaching to are not likely to check.
He turns again to the bald-faced lie:
There are currently several models being used to predict the effects of increasing CO2 on the planets climate. All of them are are a pointless waste of money since they are not bases on experimental science.
Bryan plays his final card by thumping his breast and proclaiming his is bigger than Phil’s — ending with one last whopper:
As to science credentials it would appear than mine are several orders of magnitude higher than yours. So Phil stop being such a plonker go and read some physics books.
Andrew I said
…….”The thermocouple is not a source of heat.”……..
You apparently disagree.
Could you give me your definition of HEAT.
To help you I will give you a few hints.
Heat always moves spontaneously from a higher………………….to a lower …………..
Never the reverse.
Clausius and the second law of thermodynamics.
Bryan, don’t you get it? If you’re an academic or activist, you can invent your own science to serve the vital mission. You can block or trap radiation in thin air! You don’t have to constrain yourself with the real world agents of chaos like reflection, diffraction, absorption and diffusion. You don’t care about thermal masses, thermal time constants and thermal gradients. You can toss one pebble into the air and get two pebbles back…all day long. You can get pebbles back without tossing pebbles. It’s amazing!
Ken says, “You can get pebbles back without tossing pebbles. It’s amazing!”
Only because you keep “shaking your head with wonder.”
Ken, as I warned you before, people with holes in their heads should not shake their heads too much or all their rocks will fall out.
BTW, Ken, I don’t understand your contempt for academics, but at least it explains why you prefer to work for humbugs like John O’Sullivan and Tim Ball, who claim bogus academic and professional credentials.
Yes and in this case the heat flows via convection to the thermocouple which loses heat to its cooler surroundings, via radiation to the surroundings and back radiation from them giving a net loss of heat. When the surroundings are hot, as in the case of the shield, the back radiation is high and can even be seen by the naked eye giving a lower net loss and a more accurate measurement. All in agreement with the laws of thermodynamics and radiation.
Phil,
too bad that the guys who wrote the paper I linked for you attributed the increase to convection and not radiation!! Do you only accept the work you LIKE?!?! Or do you simply ignore things like flow velocity and turbulence that is affected by shields like you are touting?
Phil,
Please provide quotes and your explanations of what you believe is JUNK in the G&T paper.
My understanding is that it was put together to kill all the MYTHOLOGY that had been popularized around AGW, NOT the basic science. The paper by Chris and friends attacked strawmen that G&T hadn’t built.
Oh yeah, do you know where we can find English translations of the Shack work?? It would be very interesting to see the context around the statement that G&T reference. I don’t believe they invented it, so, there must be some reason for it which we may not be “getting.”
One speculation I have is similar to the difference between CO2 here and on Venus. I believe on Venus the temp and pressure broadens IR response of CO2 quite a bit. It may be even more at combustion temps and pressues making its atmospheric response appear minor!!
Hi Professor Curry, thanks for posting that tribute to the patience of Professor Petty for his efforts in those exchanges involving the “Slayers”. Despite the fact that it is impossible to make headway trying to debate intelligently with the “Slayers” Professor Petty persisted in presenting real science rather than the version offered by John O’Sullivan’s team. That was not a waste of his time because not all of the 32+ people involved in those E-mails are “Slayers” or members of their “association” PSI Scientific International (http://principia-scientific.org/). As discussed, the numbers involved seem to be dwindling. Those of us who want nothing to do with PSI very much appreciated Professor Petty’s expert contribution and you too deserve a vote of thanks for your contributions and your willingness to encourage discussion of “Slayer” pseudo-science on your thread..
The E-mail exchanges on the subject of “Back Radiation” were started on 6th September by Roger Taguchi just after he had posted a comment on your “Physics of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect” thread (http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/30/physics-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect/#comment-108941). Slayers (and managers/directors of PSI as proposed in January) included in those exchanges were Tim Ball (Chairman), John O’Sullivan (CEO & Director), Allan Siddons – who wrote nearly half of the chapters in “Slaying the Sky Dragon” – (Director), Charles Anderson (Director), Joseph Olson (Director), Martin Hertzberg (Director) and Geraldo Lino. Also involved were Dr. Robert Knuteson, Professor Grant Petty and Chris Colose who joined in on 7th Sept. then you on 10th. plus four others along with Roger and me. Professor Petty contributed numerous helpful E-mails to that and subsequent threads.
Even Andrew Skolnick had a mention in a later thread, with John O’Sullivan devoting six paragraphs to him on the 29th Sept. Joe Shore also joined in with contributions, but after a spurt of exchanges in the past week activity has now dwindled away. As you said to John on 9th October “ .. your dragonslayers are jumping ship .. ”, possibly as a result of the enlightenment provided by Professor Petty.
Among the links that you provided in your “Physics of the atmospheric greenhouse (http://www.nada.kth.se/~cgjoh/ambsblack.pdf) effect” thread was one to Professor Claes Johnson’s “Mathematical Physics of BlackBody Radiation ” article. In Chapter 12 of that article Professor Johnson discusses in what he calls “A 2ND LAW OF RADIATION”. He says of this “ .. that radiative heat transfer is possible only from warmer to cooler .. ” and “ .. If A and B are two blackbodies in radiative contact, then A can be heated by B only if B has higher temperature than A. Radiation energy is transferred only from hotter to colder.
I find this somewhat puzzling for two reasons. One is the reference to “radiative heat transfer” rather than radiated energy transfer. The other is because as a Radio & Electronics engineer implementing communications systems for offshore oil and gas platforms I never encountered a communications problem when exchanging energy (in the form of radio waves) between earth-stations and satellite transponders up in space. Neither did I have reports of problems when sending energy over optical cables at 1300nm (IR) from transmitters on one platform that was not hotter than the receivers at the other end on two other platforms 20km away. I did raise this point on 19th Oct. in the exchanges with the Slayers but no-one has responded so maybe one of the experts here can help me to understand what Professor Johnson is trying to tell us.
In that thread you also linked to the Slayers’ book “Slaying the Sky Dragon”, which starts off with the extravagant claim “ .. Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory .. ”. The lead “Slayer” is renowned for making extravagant claims and lots are made on the web-site of their embryonic company PSI. The word “transparency” appears a lot on those promotional pages under the “About us” tab and some may think assume the those claims provide sufficient transparency about the organisation, but do they?
Back in Dec/Jan. the motivation for forming the company was debated long and hard in about 200 “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mail exchanges and those E-mails provide the detail about the original plans for PSI that are outlined in “Slaying the Sky Dragon” Chapter 21 ““Legal Fallout from False Climate Alarm”” by lead Slayer John O’Sullivan.
In the recent E-mail exchanges that you were privy to I tried very hard to get the “Slayers” to discuss that Chapter 21 and those “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mails but they remained tight-lipped. Are you interested in having that discussion here. I suspect that Andrew Skolnick is not the only one who’d be interested.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
It should be fairly obvious, but for some reason isn’t, that there is no party line with the dragons.
Petty and Postma have less to disagree about than say Postma and Claes Johnson.
Also the story that the dragons are funded by the billions of big oil dollars is obviously stupid tripe.
We have a collection of individuals whose only common denominator is a firm conviction that IPCC science is almost fraudulent.
The other sceptics groups are free standing and there is no sceptics manifesto.
If climate science was normal science there would be no need for such a massive movement calling it into question .
The various varieties of the Greenhouse Effect also have no common agreed bottom line.
Nullius in Verba posting here has a version of the “greenhouse effect” is almost identical to Postmas “atmosphere effect”.
Why have an e-mail debate?
Lets get it out in the open where incorrect formulations can be exposed and plausible ones reinforced.
Hi Bryan, ref. your comment on October 21, 2011 at 8:19 pm. what a surprise that you were the first person to respond to my comment (more on that later).
There was an enormous flurry of several hundred E-mails on the subject of “John O’Sullivan’s specious claims” during 8th – 20th Oct. a subject that was started by Professor Petty with QUOTE:
.. On Sat, 8 Oct 2011, JOHN OSULLIVAN wrote: “ .. of the so-called greenhouse gas effect) being that no such concept exists anywhere in the laws of thermodynamics. ‘Back radiation’ is now proven to be as unphysical and absurd an idea as suggesting there exists ‘back conduction’ or ‘back convection’ because energy, when measured as heat, can only move one way, from warmer to colder. You call our book .. ”
I’ve been trying to avoid getting embroiled in this fruitless “debate”, but I can’t help but respond to the above claim. .. In short: The downward emission of IR radiation by the atmosphere — which this group calls “back radiation” — is both well documented and well understood. It is settled science and has been for more than a century.
John O’Sullivan correctly asserts that thermodynamics forbids the spontaneous flow of heat from cold to warm, but he reveals a glaring misunderstanding by applying this statement to the ONE-WAY flux of radiation from one body to another rather than to the TWO-WAY EXCHANGE of radiation between two bodies. It is the NET FLUX (upward minus downward) that must obey the 2nd Law.
Both Planck’s Law and the Stefan-Boltzman Law (the latter is just an integration of the former over wavelength) have been known for generations to accurately predict EMISSION (one-way) from a blackbody. Nothing in either formulation requires one to know the temperature of the body (if any) RECEIVING the radiation. And Planck’s Law was itself derived via thermodynamic arguments by a guy who understood the 2nd Law extremely well.
John O’Sullivan’s statement is tantamount to a claim that neither Planck’s Law nor the Stefan-Boltzmann law is valid, a century’s worth of unambiguous experimental evidence notwithstanding. Please judge his “scientific” arguments with that fact in mind. UNQUOTE.
Several hundred E-mail exchanges followed that one but it has all suddenly gine very quiet. I’ve received none since John O’Sullivan’s response to Joel Shore on “ .. 20 Oct 2011 16:20 .. Subject: Re: John O’Sullivan’s specious claims ..
Joel, Is that really all the ‘evidence’ you have to prove the Slayers are “ideologically motivated”? Canadian, Joe Postma, describing an American as a “patriot” and your innuendo that our U.S. publisher may not be quite as PC as you about racial sensitivity? Wow .. ”.
Joel had suggested on several occasions that the “Slayers” are ideologically motivated but I had raised the issue of political motivation in an E-mail on 8th Oct. with reference to a comment by Professor Curry (http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/04/slaying-a-greenhouse-dragon-part-iii-discussion/). I commented that QUOTE: .. it looks as though Professor Johnson listened to Professor Curry’s advice “ .. I am hoping that Johnson learns from this that if he wants his scientific arguments to be taken seriously, that publishing them in a politically motivated book does not help his credibility and does not motivate people to take his arguments seriously .. ”. Professor Johnson seems to have wisely dissociated himself from the “Slayers” and PSI UNQUOTE
In John’s response (the one to which Professor Petty responded on the subject of “John O’Sullivan’s specious claims”) John said to me “ .. You call our book “politically motivated” – please elucidate as to what politics it supports .. You then seek to smear Chapter 21 of the book authored by me which addresses legal matters. .. the chapter was peer-reviewed extensively and is based upon first hand evidence supplied inter alia by esteemed NZ barrister, Barry Brill. .. For your information, Roger Sowell, a Californian lawyer and qualified engineer has kindly accepted our offer to review the book (plus my chapter) and will be providing his own review in due course. So what other due diligence do you suggest I now do to further prove your allegations baseless and biased? .. ”.
I repeatedly attempted to get the “Slayers” to discuss this issue of political motivation using Chapter 21 of “Slaying the Sky Dragon” and the “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mails of Dec/Jan. as a basis but to no avail. In the spirit of transparency that is claimed to be so important to PSI I also tried to persuade the “Slayers” to discuss the issue on their PSI web-site but there were no takers.
You say “ .. It should be fairly obvious, but for some reason isn’t, that there is no party line with the dragons. .. ” but there is more to politics than the party line. Also, there is more to any company than what is declared in its Mission Statement. Very few companies are formed with the sole objective of pursuing a “ .. good cause .. ” (http://www.gofundme.com/1v39s). On top of that there is the financial motive and the desire for recognition.
The financial motive is hinted at repeatedly in the “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mails, with the words “money” and “pay” or their derivatives appearing rather frequently. Also, John said on 2nd January, two weeks before that appeal for charitable donations was made QUOTE: ..
Personally, I have no time to not earn a living. I know from my own private conversations that my coauthors may also not have time to devote unpaid to setting up and running a charity .. The ‘Slayers’ project is first and foremost a commercial operation because, for all our hard work and endeavor, we wish to be paid .. ”. “ .. 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) .. ” (http://principia-scientific.org/about-us/why-psi-is-a-private-assoc). Note that clause “The ‘Slayers’ project is first and foremost a commercial operation” and the PSI executive comprises – “Slayers”.
I would have hoped this important matter of financial incentives for its executives would be highlighted on the PSI web-site for all potential subscribers to see but I haven’t found it yet. It would be helpful if one of the PSI managers were to provide a link to where this is spelled out or why no statement is made about it. After all, as I indicated in my previous comment, it is claimed that “ .. Transparency is an important aspect of PSI .. ” (http://principia-scientific.org/about-us/principles-of-association). Maybe Ken Coffman can encourage one of the PSI managers to post a link or even the financial incentives here.
In those recent E-mail exchanges with the “Slayers” I provided a link to John’s self-promotion on LinkedIn (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/john-o-sullivan/19/6b4/84a). John has updated his profile to now present himself as CEO and Legal Consultant at Principia Scientific International – very impressive if PSI was all that is claimed on the Web-site. As I pointed out recently to the “Slayers” the Web-site is presenting incorrect information and needs to be updated and I do wonder about those claims made by John in July that “ .. 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 .. ” (http://climaterealists.com/?id=8073).
In an E-mail to the group on 30th September I suggested to John that “ .. you could consider replacing much of you latest PSI promotional material (which I doubt many find inspiring) with facts about the status of the organisation, e.g. confirmed membership list, outstanding applications (you know the kind of thing) so that your target market can understand the real picture .. ” but he didn’t take me up on that.
You say “ .. The other sceptics groups are free standing and there is no sceptics manifesto. If climate science was normal science there would be no need for such a massive movement calling it into question .. ” but I hope that you are not referring to PSI with that “massive movement”. Very early in the “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mail exchanges I asked “ .. why start a new organisation when there is already in existence an international structure with the same objectives – The International Climate Science Coalition (http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/) .. ”. John’s response the question was “ .. Let me ask you this question: why have none of those organizations filed suit already? They are fearful perhaps? Lack of knowledge, expertize and commitment may be a factor. I’ve staked my reputation, sweat and own money on beating the AGW fraud in the courts-its the only serious game in town. My legal associates and I are ready and waiting to take the battle on. The navel gazing and hot air blowing around the blogosphere has gotten nowhere for years. I recommend you look here to see what my legal strategy has already accomplished:
http://www.suite101.com/content/legal-defeat-for-global-warming-in-kiwigate-scandal-a294157 .. ”.
I wholeheartedly agree with your “ .. Lets get it out in the open .. ”. Maybe Professor Curry will allow the discussion to take place here.
Of course, as well as the politics there is a scientific discussion about the “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change” (CACC) hypothesis still to be had. You said that “The various varieties of the Greenhouse Effect also have no common agreed bottom line. Nullius in Verba posting here has a version of the “greenhouse effect” is almost identical to Postmas “atmosphere effect”. Why have an e-mail debate?”. I raised that same point with the “Slayers” concerning their extravagant claim to have caused “The Death of the Greenhouse Effect”. Alan Siddons’s response was QUOTE: .. I don’t know what you mean by “chosen version of the definition of the Greenhouse Effect.” We go by the consensus version, if it may be called that .. UNQUOTE.
After posting my last comment here I had started another, which so far says QUOTE:
I found Bryan’s comment of 17th October at 5:53 am interesting “ .. The zeroth law is as usual quite awkward to fit into a greenhouse theory. Two objects are at thermal equilibrium (same temperature). What happens when you bring a third object (at the same temperature) close to the two? .. ”.
“ .. thermal equilibrium: .. the relationship between two isolated systems the states of which are such that no net transfer of energy would occur between them if they were connected by a diathermic wall. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/thermal+equilibrium).
See http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/thermo0.html and http://www.newrelativity.net/Energy.Dynamics.pdf
UNQUOTE.
I’ll come back to that in a later comment (if Professor Curry allows me back) because after reading “Slaying the Sky Dragon” (not that I wasted any money buying it but managed to get a free copy from someone involved with the “Slayers”) I had the impression that most of them found it hard to draw a distinction between radiated and conducted energy.
Before pursuing that topic I would like to ask to whom you are referring when you say “ .. We have a collection of individuals whose only common denominator is a firm conviction that IPCC science is almost fraudulent .. ”. If you are referring to the “Slayers” and their puny Principia Scientific International” association then I am interested to find out where you get your information from (other than from their own promotional web-site http://principia-scientific.org/).
Best regards, Pete Ridley.
Pete Ridley
Thanks for your post.
Before it arrived I was thinking up a response to the “changing minds” thread, your post concentrated my impressions.
Judith’s blog is a good testing ground for the tumult of ideas around climate science.
Anyone who participates with an open mind cannot but be helped by thoughtful comments from others.
For my own part I have no links to any faction and just tell it as it appears to me.
I am well left of centre in politics and it this contradicts the right wing climate sceptic stereotype.
Central Scotland where I live has significant unemployment among former mining communities and other heavy industrial areas.
This produces mental depression with attendant drug and alcohol abuse causing reduced health and decreasing lifespan.
I became energised by the climategate e-mail exposure.
It showed a seriously dysfunctional branch of science which also unfortunately was set on a course to recommend to governments policies that would effectively deindustrialise the advanced economies.
I have a Physics degree and thought that I could perhaps say something useful so I revised my thermodynamics.
As Bob Dylan says “in a hard rain” its important to “know your song well before you start singing”.
You say…..
..”JOHN OSULLIVAN …wrote: “ ….‘Back radiation’ is now proven to be as unphysical and absurd an idea as suggesting there exists ‘back conduction’ or ‘back convection’ because energy, when measured as heat, can only move one way, from warmer to colder”……
Is nonsense!
All three exist and “back convection” with gravitational compression is the main cause of the 33K misnamed “greenhouse effect” as Postma and Nullius in Verba both say in their own way.
However IPCC advocates it seems are only interested backradiation.
This is because it provides the only link to the “pollutent CO2 and global warming”.
Its unfortunate that climate science spokespersons seem to be non experts like John O’Sullivan, Al Gore , Chris Huine and Lord Monkton.
On the other hand when John O’Sullivan says……
….”Joel(Shore), Is that really all the ‘evidence’ you have to prove the Slayers are “ideologically motivated”? Canadian, Joe Postma, describing an American as a “patriot” and your innuendo that our U.S. publisher may not be quite as PC as you about racial sensitivity? Wow .. ”.
I have to agree with John.
Joel Shore is himself highly politically motivated.
The US publisher is certainly not PC but does that mean that we can disregard his climate science publications?
You say…..
“ .. Transparency is an important aspect of PSI .. ” (http://principia-scientific.org/about-us/principles-of-association). Maybe Ken Coffman can encourage one of the PSI managers to post a link or even the financial incentives here.”……
I would agree.
There is no doubt that there is a massive disproportionate allocation of funds in favour of the popularising the IPCC position as against a scettic critique.
A sceptic organisation would need office and publicity staff and publishing would involve costs plus the usual trade mark up.
The necessary professional back up people should be paid the going rate.
University pay grades for actual hours worked and no more and so on.
I would be very disappointed if unusual incentives were paid.
Of legal matters I know nothing.
Andrew Skolnick has made a number of serious allegations about John O’Sullivan.
John has failed to respond which gives the impression that Andrew might be correct.
If so the rest of the “Slayers” must consider what impression their organisation wish to create with the public!
On the zeroith law of thermodynamics I was commenting on an example of something that had initially been assumed rather than tested.
This was to support Claes Johnson position in that a similar assumption was being applied to two objects radiating individually as predicted by SB law.
Is it unreasonable to say that in proximity they may interact collectively in a different way?
Claes is on a unique mission to turn back the years and correct the Planck departure from determinism.
I wish him well but regard the project as very much work in progress.
He has taken a lot of abuse because of his stand on global warming.
His difficulties at his university I feel is partly due to AGW zealots.
Postma and Hans Schreuder have made a useful contribution to the debate.
Postma gave a good defence of his paper here on Climate Etc.
The only question that seemed to throw him was one put by Judith.
That is it is not always acceptable to work backwards from the radiation intensity to derive a temperature.
The other point where the Slayers seem pointlessly to depart from physics is the effect of insulation on a source that continues to be supplied with constant power.
At times they appear to be saying that the source would remain at the same temperature.
From what I have said it should be clear that I would support publication of all the recent material that you have posted about.
Hi Bryan, ref. your comment on October 23, 2011 at 7:11 am. you raise some interesting points which fit neatly into what I was intending to talk about.
I agree that Professor Curry’s blog “ .. is a good testing ground for the tumult of ideas around climate science. .. ” and she is to be commended for encouraging open debate between supporters and sceptics of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) hypothesis. She runs an extremely informative and well-read blog.
John O’Sullivan, lead “Slayer”, CEO of and Legal Consultant at Principia Scientific International, does not always show Professor Curry or other scientists who dare to challenge the “Slayer” version of science the respect that they deserve. On the contrary, on 8th October in the “PSI & Politics” exchanges John said to me QUOTE: .. Your appeal to the less qualified authorities of Lord Monckton (a journalist) and Judith Curry (a geographer who admits little training, if any, in thermodynamics) only serves to further weaken your case (simply an unscientific appeal to authority rather than science) when laid alongside the scientific, engineering and mathematical credentials of the authors and supporters of the Slayers (23 with PhD’s) .. UNQUOTE.
John then went on to say on 9th “ .. Unlike many of the Slayers, Curry admits she has no training in higher-level thermodynamics – key to comprehending the more arcane elements of climate. Monckton and Colose, I suspect have less still than Curry; while Professor Petty seems to be lacking in that department, too .. ”.
John’s 9th Oct. outburst against Professor Curry in the “PSI & Politics” exchanges says it all really “ .. True to form you run liked a scared cat from debate hurling insults at those who challenge you. It hasn’t escaped notice that although you hosted a few discussions on your blog you were frequently conspicuous by your absence. Indeed, I recall nothing of note ever having been contributed by you in those discussions. When you did appear you were soon taken to task and grudgingly had to concede Claes was correct about back radiation and you abandoned this nonsense. Is that your definition of being taken seriously?
As for recommending the Slayers submit to the climate science peer-review system – well, that’s broken and well beyond repair as everyone knows. So please don’t try that tired old dodge on us.
As for your closed doors “professional meetings”, they also do nothing to expose the woeful incompetence you and your climate peers are so desperate to keep hidden. Frankly, you’re refusal to woman up and defend your ‘science’ is precisely why you and those discredited IPCC pseudo-scientists are treated as a joke among the wider scientific community .. ”.
John must have been standing in front of a mirror talking to himself when he put that comment together.
On 18th Sept. John said “ .. Curry goofed by posting on her blog that even her students could refute us. I wonder how – is she actually suggesting her students are better educated on the science than her? I know my co-authors are. Aren’t you smelling her brand of BS yet?
So please man up on this or we may reasonably infer that ad hom and ignorance wins the day in the unscientific world of Ridley and Curry .. ”.
You said “ .. Of legal matters I know nothing. Andrew Skolnick has made a number of serious allegations about John O’Sullivan. John has failed to respond which gives the impression that Andrew might be correct .. ”. At the end of September John and I discussed this matter of tight-lipped silences. During those exchanges I said “ .. I get the impression that Andrew Skolnick (and other like-minded individuals) might consider the claims made on the PSI promotional page “Principles of Association” (http://principia-scientific.org/about-us/principles-of-association) about the credentials of its principal founder are just another “ .. brand of BS .. ” (as you put it about Professor Curry). You claim on that page and in “Slaying the Sky Dragon” that you have “ .. litigated successfully for over a decade in government corruption cases in the New York State Court system and Federal Court (Second Circuit) .. ”. Andrew has challenged you on that but if it is true then I expect that you are aware of what is said in “Criminal Justice: Does Silence Mean Guilt?” (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,899502,00.html). Regardless that “ .. The decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States have, in effect, shattered the tacit-admission rule .. ” silence can still leave a strong suspicion of guilt in the minds of the lay public .. ”.
One of my comments to John was “ .. You .. remain silent about the challenge that I issued regarding the “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mails and your academic and professional claims. .. In my E-mail of 18th Sept. I made a request that you persistently ignore “ .. will you provide:
– access to all of the E-mails that we all exchanged during the December/January discussions about setting up PSI as a CIC. I’m happy for all of my E-mails to be made available to the public, how about you and the rest of those receiving this E-mail,
– full substantiated details of your academic and professional training and experience .. ”.
I followed up with QUOTE: .. Having said a fair bit about Andrew Skolnick and friends we are in danger of allowing ourselves to be dragged down a side-track away from the main issue of interest to me, PSI and transparency. You seem to be reluctant to take up my challenge that you make the “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mails available for public scrutiny on the PSI web-site and have remained silent on that. I suspect that many are suspicious of those who worship Harpocrates (http://www.whale.to/b/silence.html) .. UNQUOTE.
Silence is not always golden.
I don’t disagree with your QUOTE: .. IPCC advocates it seems are only interested (in) back radiation. This is because it provides the only link to the “pollutent CO2 and global warming” .. UNQUOTE. The IPCC is a highly politicised organisation, not a scientific one. I understand that the scientific content of AR4 WG1 had not been agreed when the Summary for Policymakers was published in March/April 2007 and the WG1 scientific report had to be aligned with the SPM rather than the SPM properly reflecting the scientific report. As you suggest, the objective appears to be to finger CO2 as a culprit, but I am of the opinion that this was for political, not scientific, reasons. (I expect someone to jump in shortly and accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist like Lyndon LaRouche.)
You are of course correct that “ .. A sceptic organisation would need office and publicity staff and publishing would involve costs plus the usual trade mark up. The necessary professional back up people should be paid the going rate .. ” but the real question is what could the “Slayers” and PSI add that is not already available from organisations like The International Climate Science Coalition (http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/), The Centre for Research on Globalisation (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=section§ionName=about) or the UK’s Science & Public Policy Institute (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/). Similar points were discussed during the Dec./Jan. “PSI & Due Diligence” exchanges.
As I said in my previous E-mail, John’s justification for trying to form another such organisation was “ .. beating the AGW fraud in the courts-its the only serious game in town .. ”. Slaying the Sky Dragon Chapter 21 and the “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mail exchanges in Dec./Jan. indicate that this may have been John’s original plan for PSI.
On 15th Jan. John told the “Slayers” QUOTE: .. PSI IS NOT A LITIGATION MACHINE Pete’s opinion is that PSI will still be “construed as a political campaigning organisation.” On the issue of litigation, PSI is not pursuing a primary goal to litigate – to insist on making this unfounded assertion would also be defamatory to PSI once it becomes a legal entity .. ”. My response on 18th Jan included “ .. Without the objective of taking legal action against Governments/Agencies/individuals to court there appears to be little difference between CRG and PSI so why would PSI, constrained in this way, succeed where so many other groups of sceptical scientists have so far failed to get policy-makers to acknowledge that CACC has no sound science to support it? What extra benefits would another separate organisation like PSI bring to this “noble cause” that is not or cannot be better provided by giving support to established organisations? In my opinion this is simply fragmentation of effort when what is needed is a strong, unified international group .. ”.
In my final E-mail of those Dec/Jan. “PSI & Due Diligence” exchanges I said “ .. In the first of my “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mails last year (Dec 30 2010, 08:52 PM) I quoted from the Executive Summary of my “Due Diligence” report QUOTE: Executive Summary “Self-praise is no praise at all”
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. I find no convincing evidence that PSI will be anything other than a minor addition to the existing tally of international organisations of people who are sceptical of the doctrine that our continuing use of fossil fuels is leading to catastrophic change to the different global climates.
UNQUOTE .. ”.
Here we are 10 months later and it appears to me that nothing has changed excepting that the original group of founders, promoted as being “ .. a group of 36 respected international scientists and related professionals. Mostly we are the authors of ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon,’ .. ” (http://www.gofundme.com/1v39s) has dwindled, not grown. It looks as though Professor Curry was correct when saying on 10th Oct. “ .. Get a clue, your dragonslayers are jumping ship. .. ”.
Moving away from the heavily weighted political side of the CACC coin to look at the science, you said that “ .. Postma and Hans Schreuder have made a useful contribution to the debate. .. ”. On 18th Oct. in the “ ” exchanges with the “Slayers” et al. I quoted some of Hans’s words of wisdom from “Slaying the Sky Dragon” QUOTE: .. Hans makes several interesting observations, such as “ .. Earth does not need a ‘blanket of greenhouse gases’ to keep it warm or protect it from the cold of space. The vacuum of space is the best possible insulator we could wish for .. it is a misconception that the earth’s temperature needs insulation to begin with .. ”(Page 190). He then goes on to apparently confirm that the Greenhouse Effect (as I understand it) does indeed exist (e.g. see Page 196) “ .. Or is it perhaps that a blanket prevents convection and thus your body can not freely dispose of its generated heat as in a real greenhouse with glass panes or plastic sheeting or metal sheeting or even a wooden shed. Stop or hinder convective heat loss and bingo, the cooling process is interrupted. No extra heat is generated, if only. It just takes longer for the same amount of energy to disperse itself. .. ” – although he fails to mention that energy is lost to space from the global system of geo/aqua/cryo/bio/atmo-spheres by radiation, not conduction or convection .. ”.
Hans places great faith in his sixth sense, as indicated in a comment of his on 8th Jan. during the “PSI & Due Dilignce” exchanges “ .. My sixth sense has yet to be proven wrong .. ” but Atmospheric Physicist Professor Petty depends on science rather than intuition and seems less convinced than you are about Hans Schroeder’s contribution. In his response to that first Hans Schroeder quote from Page 190 he said QUOTE: ..
This is a classic example of the common confusion among skeptics who conflate (deliberately or merely ignorantly) the completely different physical phenomena of thermal conductivity and radiative transfer. A vacuum is a perfect insulator when it comes to heat transfer via molecular conduction (collisions between molecules). No molecules, no transfer of thermal kinetic energy.
A vacuum is a perfect conductor with respect to exchanges of EM radiation (emission and absorption of photons). No molecules, no scattering or absorption of radiation.
A bizarre, but too common, variation on this confusion is that “if CO2 traps heat, why don’t they use it to make Thermos bottles?” The ignorance implicit in this kind of question is truly breathtaking.
Anyone who doesn’t understand the vast difference between energy transfer via molecular conduction and energy transfer via radiative exchange really shouldn’t offer themselves as an authority on physics of any kind, period. ..
UNQUOTE.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Peter, where can one find these “PSI & Politics” exchanges with John O’Sullivan you speak of?
BTW, regarding what you say is my challenge to O’Sullivan’s claim of being an attorney who “litigated successfully for over a decade in the New York State and Federal 2nd Circuit Courts.” It is NOT my challenge or my claim. It is a fact — as you or anyone else can easily determine by checking to see if O’Sullivan is a lawyer licensed to practice in NY State — and by Googling for any law suits he may have “litigated.” There’s only one I could find. It’s the one he and his wife filed without an attorney (pro se) in 2009. It was tossed out in part because they submitted it unverified and unsworn — a blunder no lawyer would ever make:
http://vertumnus.courts.state.ny.us/claims/html/OSullivan.2009-039-142.html
Here’s where to search for people licensed to practice in NY courts:
http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/attorney/AttorneySearch
You will find there’s a John F. and a John Patrick, but no John A. O’Sullivan.
Hey Pete, you remember how you tried to defend O’Sullivan’s bogus claim of being a member of the American Bar Association (which would require his being an attorney licensed in the U.S.)? As a result of my complaints to the ABA and the Law Society of British Columbia, he has removed the false claim from his LinkedIn resume. In its place, he now claims to be a member of the “New York County Lawyers Association.” He may shortly hear from them, since I spoke with the membership director of the NYCLA and she says there is no John O’Sullivan in their list of members.
I’m getting a big kick out of O’Sullivan’s fellow Sky Dragon Slayers trying to defend the shameless humbug. Earlier in this discussion, for example, Ken Coffman said he doesn’t “care about his resume,” because he likes “John’s ideas.” He calls my exposure of his colleague’s fraudulent credentials an “appeal-to-authority argument” and “a waste of time.”
Good times.
Pete Ridley.
Thanks for the reply.
I had no idea that there was such colourful backstage banter between the players in the climate science series.
There does seem to be a need to express the views of scientists and others who think that the CO2 driven greenhouse gas effect catastrophe is pseudoscience.
This is at the one end of the sceptics spectrum
However this is the position of for example Gerlich Tscheuschner Piers Corbyn Claes Johnson Hans Schroeder and Joseph Postma and others.
This hard line group come at the problem from fundamental thermodynamics rather than say analyzing the temperature record.
The problem is that they don’t agree on the precise details.
The Joel Shore list of “approved” sceptic positions would include folk like Roy Spencer and would occupy the other end of the sceptic spectrum
Normal science would allow the peer review process to filter the plausible versions through.
But all sceptics agree that this is stacked against them.
I cannot agree that Atmospheric Physicist Professor Petty always depends on science.
Here you give a good example of him as a crude propagandist misquoting others to present a strawman to knock down
….”This is a classic example of the common confusion among skeptics who conflate (deliberately or merely ignorantly) the completely different physical phenomena of thermal conductivity and radiative transfer. A vacuum is a perfect insulator when it comes to heat transfer via molecular conduction (collisions between molecules). No molecules, no transfer of thermal kinetic energy. “….ect,ect
Who from the list of hard line sceptics above would this apply to?
Its just empty grandstanding to impress the bewildered.
Perhaps PSI or something similar could be improved.
However its undeniable that they have produced three papers by Joseph Postma that are a very useful addition to the debate.
A recent post by Joseph Postma at the Jo Nova site said that he had an lengthy exchange of E-Mails with a prominent greenhouse advocate and promised an early release.
All this is to be welcomed.
Pete Ridley posted: “On the contrary, on 8th October in the “PSI & Politics” exchanges John [O’Sullivan, leader of the Sky Dragon Slayers] said to me QUOTE: .. Your appeal to the less qualified authorities of Lord Monckton (a journalist) and Judith Curry (a geographer who admits little training, if any, in thermodynamics) only serves to further weaken your case…”
LOL! I hope you realize that this comes from someone who only has a bachelors degree in art (studied painting and art history) and then received graduate teacher training in order to teach athletics in public school?
I believed he earned his law degree from the University of Imade Itup and later received science journalism training at Humbug U.
Seriously folks, anyone else notice that John O’Sullivan just changed his LinkedIn profile — apparently in response to the British Columbia Law Society’s investigation of his claim to be a lawyer hired by Pearlman Lindholm to help defend fellow humbug Tim Ball?
At the top of his profile, he had until very recently identified himself as “Legal Consultant at Pearlman Lindholm.” While it’s true he was hired by the law firm — and the firm is now trying to explain to the law society why it had hired and unlicensed “attorney.”
So O’Sullivan now has completely deleted all mention of his “legal” work for Pearlman Lindholm and has replaced it with “Legal Consultant at Principia Scientific International” — the floundering disinformation business he’s now trying to establish.
BTW, have you noticed that first Annual PSI Conference in London is still scheduled for October 2011. According to O’Sullivan, delegates from 12 countries will take part in the three-day event. Here it is, the last week of October — anybody see a PSI Conference anywhere?
O’Sullivan also changed the education section of his LinkedIn Profile. He now claims he earned a law degree and art degree at “University of Surrey/WSCAD 1979-1984.”
In earlier resumes, he claimed he attended the West Surrey College of Art and Design from 1980-1983. After I started challenging his claim of having a law degree, he added “University of Surrey 1979-1982” to some of his resumes. But that would mean he had attended two DIFFERENT schools full time at the same time for at least 2 years. Busy, busy fellow.
In his LinkedIn profile, he seems to have solved this apparent problem by making the two separate schools into one.
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=64434874&authType=name&authToken=0rq9&locale=en_US&pvs=pp&trk=ppro_viewmore
One of the great mysteries of the universe — like why polar bears are having a harder and harder time finding any ice to rest on — is why someone would earn a law degree and then an art degree and then get teacher training for 1 or 2 years more, to become a gymnastics school teacher.
Hi Andrew, long time no speak. The last that I heard from you was your “Beware “ comment about me in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Andrew_A._Skolnick).
There is a lot that we could say to/about each other but not here, eh. Let’s show Professor Curry the respect that she deserves and stick to the thread topic, “LETTER TO THE DRAGON SLAYERS”, which I am assuming until she tells me otherwise that “letter” can reasonable be interpreted as “E-mails”.
Professor Petty’s letter was in the form of a final E-mail sent to the “Slayers” and others on 14th Oct. in response to a comment by Joe Postma on the subject of “John O’Sullivan’s specious claims”, a thread initiated by Professor Petty on 8th Oct. which spawned about 150 E-mails in those 7 days.
Postma had quoted Professor Petty’s comment QUOTE: ..
You have all made equally bold unequivocal contentions about the validity of mainstream understanding of radiation and climate, which is a vastly more subtle and complex topic than a glass box, do you agree? .. ”
and responded with “ ..
Yes, it is more complex. This is only a minor reason for why teaching the greenhouse as a glass-box model is fraudulent. The logic is inherently tautologous. And it becomes unnecessary, in point of fact, when you use the instantaneous heat input from the Sun in a proper heat-flow equation, rather than these diluted average values which don’t actually physically correspond to what the system responds to in real-time anyway. We will still have this latter fact and independent area of research to explore even if the glass-box GHE is proven to work….as I have basically mentioned previously.
In a large way, we are driven to do the research we do because of the myriad and countless other fraudulent claims, presumptions, and sophistries related to climate science. It has become apparent to us that the errors extend to the deepest level of the science .. UNQUOTE.
Those 150+ E-mails, involving individuals across the spectrum from Professors to laymen, reflect the situation across the entire blogosphere debate between supporters and sceptics of the CACC hypothesis, with the same mix of science, reason, opinion, speculation, dogma and invective from those on both sides.
I brought your name into the discussions with the “Slayers” on 18th Sept. reminding John of the comments made by you and Gareth Renowden. Eventually John responded on 28th with a comment that supplements what you say in your comment QUOTE: .. As for Andrew Skolnick – I understand he is a pro-green environmental journalist. He began his personal tirade against me around May 2011 on the LinkedIn website when I mentioned, in one of the discussion forums on the site, that I was appointed as a consultant to Canadian Law firm, Pearlman Lindholm. I was appointed to assist Dr. Tim Ball in his defense of two high profile libel suits (the first, versus Dr Andrew Weaver, the second versus Dr. Michael Mann). A heated debate ensued in the ‘LinkedIn’ discussion forum during which I won from Skolnick an apology for erring in his facts. Yet he has since sought to vilify me on other blogs and last week I was advised by Pearlman Lindholm that Skolnick has filed a “complaint” against me via the Canadian Supreme Court.
In none of Skolnick’s slurs does he provide any web links for verification of his claims. Readers are asked to take his invective at face value. I do not see any need to repeatedly deign to reply to such unsubstantiated smears. If you choose to entertain them absent any evidence, then that exposes your own predilictions and biases. (Frankly, this does also seem to be how you approach to the greenhouse gas effect debate).
Among Skolnick’s false allegations is that I have claimed as my own the work of other writers. Also, he says I’ve been fraudulently assuming the identity of another John O’Sullivan, a graduate of law from University College, Cork. I have made no such claims and have repeatedly challenged Skolnick to provide hard evidence proving where and when I am supposed to have said/written any of this. He has yet to comply.
Also, despite Skolnick’s claims to the contrary, I do not conceal my history. Indeed, I openly publish my educational and professional background on my ‘bio’ page on the ‘LinkedIn’ website that we both frequent. Yet he conveniently chooses to ignore this. See LinkedIn web page: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=64434874&trk=tab_pro
Moreover, I openly maintain another ‘bio’ page on the ‘Friends Reunited’ website where I have numerous links to former colleagues and friends (some of whom have reported that Skolnick has been pestering them about me). On their urging I posted on the site an open response to Skolnick:
http://www.friendsreunited.co.uk/blog/read/JohnOSullivan/77846
Not satisfied with the above, Skolnick has gone on to demand that I provide him with a list of cases and former clients to verify that I have litigated for 13 years at all levels of the New York State court system and the Federal Second Circuit. Naturally, I declined to do so because of client confidentiality and the fear that Skolnick intended to misuse such information to inflict injury on my reputation. However, as an indication of the truthfulness of my position one such client, Thomas Neveu, will gladly vouch for me.
I recently achieved for Mr. Neveu the favorable outcome he sought in a vexatious and potentially extremely costly copyright infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court, Nevada. All claims against Mr. Neveu were withdrawn (with prejudice) last week. See here:
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/nevada/nvdce/2:2010cv01674/76457/
For further verification Mr. Neveu can be contacted at this address: tom_neveu@comcast.net and is now added to this c.c. list. ..UNQUOTE.
I leave you to do your own investigation into that particular case and perhaps get back on what you find, then we could compare notes.
You ask “ .. where can one find these “PSI & Politics” exchanges with John O’Sullivan you speak of? .. ”. Have you forgotten our E-mail exchanges from 1st – 7th July to which you decided to call a halt? In my “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mail folder there are some 300 E-mails and while discussing relevant ones with the “Slayers” recently I have been building up a Word document of the most significant ones. I attached this document to several of my recent E-mails with the “Slayers” and other participants like Professors Curry and Petty, Joel Shore, and a recent participant, Californian attorney Roger Sowell (http://www.resowell-law.com/). The most recent version has 55 pages d I’m nowhere near the end yet. If you wish to get access to those “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mails you have my E-mail address. If you ask politely for sight of them then I may consider posting the Word document as a taster.
I have asked Roger Sowell several times about his analysis of Chapter 21 and the “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mails but have heard nothing from him since 12th Oct. when he said “ .. Mr. Ridley, to further answer your question, yes, I am still digesting and investigating the claims made in Chapter 21, Legal Fallout from False Climate Alarm. I will give my analysis on that at some later time .. ”. Maybe he will comment here.
I’m sure that in the folders of one or two “Slayers” there will be some related E-mails that I haven’t been privy to. Since at least two of them appear to reside in the UK maybe a Subject Access Request under the Data Protection Act 1998 is warranted. It and the Freedom of Information Act are wonderful tools for finding out what is being said behind one’s back, as I found out recently after raising FOIs and SARs with the University of Cambridge about the activities of their “The Naked Scientists” project (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/) – but that’s another story.
You said “ .. Hey Pete, you remember how you tried to defend O’Sullivan’s bogus claim of being a member of the American Bar Association (which would require his being an attorney licensed in the U.S.)? .. ”. I refer you to the final clause of my E-mail of Jul 03 2011, 09:23 AM, which I suspect you misunderstood. In my comment here on October 22, 2011 at 2:30 pm I quoted from one of those “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mails that John O’Sullivan sent on 28th December when he was providing more details about the subject he had presented in his Chapter 21 of Slaying the Sky Dragon “Legal Fallout from False Climate Alarm”. I had asked “ .. why start a new organisation when there is already in existence an international structure with the same objectives – The International Climate Science Coalition .. ”.
John started his response with “ .. Peter, Let me ask you this question: why have none of those organizations filed suit already? .. ” and concluded “ .. As the saying goes: you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink. Take the chance while it is offered or it may not be made again .. ”. Do you spot the relevance of that old English proverb (http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/you-can-lead-a-horse-to-water.html)?
On the 29th/30th Sept. there were interesting exchanges with “Slayers” arising from a comment by Tim Ball “ .. I understand Skolnick has also filed a complaint with the BC Law Society against my Canadian attorney.
.. ” and John O’Sullivan’s response “ .. I wasn’t aware of that. Although Skolnick’s unsolicited correspondence to me has made it explicit that he’s been liaising with Michael Mann’s and Andrew Weaver’s lawyer, Roger McConchie. So it would be no stretch of the imagination to infer that McConchie has likely put Skolnick up to these shenanigans. The fact Skolnick also filed a complaint against your attorney, too, suggests to me McConchie is not confident of winnning the Weaver and Mann libel suits against you. Savvy lawyers don’t waste valuable time stooping to such tricks if they believe they are already in a good position – smells of clutching at straws to me. So I’ll take this as a good sign! .. ”.
Are you minded to tell us what your involvement with those libel cases is? As you (and several of the Slayers) know, I don’t intentionally disclose what is said in one-to-one exchanges (I regard them as being Private & Confidential) so if you’d prefer to chat on that basis then please do.
Regarding that PSI Conference that was supposed to be taking place this month, I have tried to get some recent information about it but have drawn a blank. I even was given the OK by my wife to attend on our anniversary (as long as I made it up to her) because I was looking forward to meeting “Slayers” in the flesh and asking some pertinent questions during the Q&A sessions. Has anyone else heard what is going on?
As for those poor polar bears having a hard job finding a slab of ice to relax on, it looks as though they’ll have plenty for the next few decades as it gets colder and colder. “ .. British scientists have produced a new study suggesting that the Sun is coming to the end of a “grand solar maximum” – a long period of intense activity in the Sun – meaning that we in Blighty could be set for a long period of much colder winters, similar to those seen during the “little ice age” of the 17th and 18th centuries. .. ” (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/06/lockwood_solar_minimum/).
Hi Phil, ref. your comment of October 24, 2011 at 9:50 am in response to a comment by Bryan “ .. All in agreement with the laws of thermodynamics and radiation .. ”. The relevance of the laws of radiation seem to be incomprehensible to some of the “Slayers” who seem not to be able to think beyond the Laws of Thermodynamics.
I talked about this during recent exchanges with the “Slayers” on the subject of “E/M Radiation Discussion Runs Hot &Cold” following a comment by former “Slayer” Dr. Matthew Kleespies. I had asked the “Slayers” about how a (colder) satellite could send electromagnetic energy to a (hotter) earth station and Matthew responded with the conclusion “ .. But a colder body emitting “colder” electromagnetic waves, i. e. waves with a frequency BELOW the frequency CORRESPONDING TO any body´s OWN TEMPERATURE, or cut-off frequency, will not be able to lift this latter body´s temperature ALTHOUGH it absorbs (and reemits) ALL FREQUENCIES, i. e., also frequencies BELOW its own cut-off frequency. The latter ones, however, are reemitted WITHOUT adding any heat to the (warmer) body .. ”.
Not being aware that E/M waves can be hot or cold I invited clarification with “ .. I’m sure someone else in this group has a convincing explanation which we can all learn from. Georgia State University’s Department of Physics and Astronomy claims that “ .. Electromagnetic waves carry energy as they travel through empty space .. “ (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html) Apparently the rate of energy transport per unit area is described by the Poynting vector. That site makes no mention of the “cold” and “hot” E/M waves that Matthew talks about. But hey, this is all very technical stuff that I’m sure you consider you have mastered. So, what makes that “colder” absorbed E/M energy escape from the black body if it isn’t an increase in temperature? .. ”.
Matthew’s response was “ .. you have two options:
1) Invest some time and LEARN about blackbody science. Because blackbodies are the very (theoretical) basis of this whole climate discussion. You can search for sources explaining you how a blackbody works on your own or you can begin with the reference I suggested you: Claes´ chapter in SSD.
2.) You can stick to your belief that ANY frequency is added to a blackbody´s energy and thus temperature. .. ”.
I preferred the response from well-known and respected CACC sceptic Dr. Vincent Gray of the New Zealand Climate Coalition (http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=55387187-4d06-446f-9f4f-c2397d155a32) QUOTE: ..
I just sent this to Hans (Schreuder) Dear Hans
Yet another attack on Stefan/Boltzmann. So “visible light” is not thermal. What else could it be? The light from a TV set comes from a phosphor activated by an electron, a liquid crystal display or a light-emitting diode. It does not have any sort of agreed “temperature” and the same goes for the light from a fluorescent tube
I have an interesting paper I was sent by Christopher Essex. who tries to tackle this problem, but not very successfully.
However, the samples you give , the dark side of the moon, and the ice cube, are much better examples, as there is absolutely no doubt that they both emit radiation according to the Stefan/Boltzmann equation, the equivalent of the “back radiation” which you persist in claiming is non existent.
What is so discouraging is that you have your heart in the right place and know instinctively that the greenhouse theory is wrong, yet you get so obsessed with this entirely minor issue which is undoubtedly misguided because it violates the accepted laws of physics.
The greenhouse theory is wrong because the greenhouse model ignores what you have pointed out to me, the outside weather, which is the real controller of the climate. They have grossly exaggerated the possible influence of minor greenhouse gases to boost their claims against the human race. It is sad that some of you are sufficiently bamboozled by the warmers to pursue your non productive sideline .. UNQUOTE.
A couple of days later I asked of Professor Claes Johnson QUOTE: ..
Hi Claes, you may recall me mentioning the Poynting Vector in my E-mail of 17 Oct 2011 19:33 but from what you are saying about radiated energy only flowing from hot to cold bodies some of the Slayers don’t seem to have encountered Poynting’s Theorem “ .. one of the most fundamental and useful relationships of electromagnetic theory .. ”. That quotation is from one of my old text-books that I used when studying radio & electronics engineering all those years ago at Heriot Watt, Edinburg (happy days long before the CACC scare when Professor – then Dr. – Steven Schneider was concerned about a new ice age) to refresh my memory about energy in E/M waves. That text book, “Fields & Waves in Communications Electronics” by Simon Ramo et al. says nothing about any restriction in E/M energy flow arising from the temperature difference between transmitting and receiving bodies.
Come on Claes, what have I forgotten or overlooked? .. UNQUOTE.
The exchanges dried up after that so come on Phil (or some other patient “expert”), what did I say that caused those exchanges to stop all of a sudden? It seems to me that the “Slayers” are reluctant to acknowledge that heat is only one form of energy but maybe that I simply don’t understand their version of science.
Come on Professor Johnson, what have you to say about the Poynting Theory and its relationship with the Stephan-Boltzman Law? Does Poynting have no relevance to the debate about S-B and the Laws of Thermodynamics? On 10th January in your “Correct Interpretation of Stefan-Boltzmann’s Radiation Law” thread (http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2011/01/correct-interpretation-of-stefan.html) – when you were helping to promote “Slaying the Sky Dragon” – someone hiding behind the false name Anders brought Poynting to your attention. It is noticeable that up to that point you had been engaging in discussion about energy flow but after the Anders comment all discussion on that thread ceased.
Was that the point at which you started thinking about dissociating yourself from the “Slayers”? It was only the next day that you asked of John O’Sullivan in the “PSI & Due Diligence” exchanges QUOTE:
“What about these examples of activities not qualifying as CIC:
– The promotion of (or opposition to) changes in the law or changes in the policy of any governmental or public authority in relation to any matter
– The promotion of (or opposition to) any proposed policy of a governmental or public authority in relation to any matter
Since climate science is mixed up with climate politics, how can PSI claim to have no political ambitions? UNQUOTE (see attached file and Jan 11 2011, 08:30 PM) – but we’re back to my favourite topic again, PSI & political motivation.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete Ridley said, “Eventually John [O’Sullivan] responded on [Sept. 28th] with a comment that supplements what you say in your comment QUOTE: .. ‘As for Andrew Skolnick – I understand he is a pro-green environmental journalist. ‘
O’Sullivan is well aware this is a lie. I’ve never done any work for a pro-green group and never worked as an environmental journalist. In my 35 years of science and medical writing, I never published any article on climate science. Nearly all of my work has been in the fields of biology, medicine, and investigating and exposing medical quacks and charlatans.
That’s how O’Sullivan caught my interest last May, when he joined our group of science writers on LinkedIn and attacked us as being part of the global warming hoax conspiracy. He claimed to be a well-published science writer and lawyer. A couple of other members and I did some digging and discovered he is a humbug. And I hate humbugs. I step on them like spiders.
O’Sullivan again: ”He began his personal tirade against me around May 2011 on the LinkedIn website when I mentioned, in one of the discussion forums on the site, that I was appointed as a consultant to Canadian Law firm, Pearlman Lindholm. I was appointed to assist Dr. Tim Ball in his defense of two high profile libel suits (the first, versus Dr Andrew Weaver, the second versus Dr. Michael Mann).”
And thereby got Pearlman Lindholm into trouble with the Law Society of British Columbia since O’Sullivan is not a lawyer licensed to practice in BC courts — or apparently anywhere else.
O’Sullivan again: ”A heated debate ensued in the ‘LinkedIn’ discussion forum during which I won from Skolnick an apology for erring in his facts.Yet he has since sought to vilify me on other blogs and last week I was advised by Pearlman Lindholm that Skolnick has filed a “complaint” against me via the Canadian Supreme Court.”
What a maroon! It utterly amazes me how such an ignoramus thinks he can pass himself off as an attorney when he hasn’t a clue about the legal profession. The Supreme Court of Canada in Ottawa, Ontario is NOT involved in investigating complaints of unlawful practice in British Columbia. My complaint was filed with the Law Society of British Columbia’s Office of Unlawful Practice. And for the umpteenth time, John, you are NOT defending your fellow humbug Tim Ball in the “Vancouver Supreme Court.” There is NO such court. Ball is being sued in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, you twit.
O’Sullivan again: ”In none of Skolnick’s slurs does he provide any web links for verification of his claims. Readers are asked to take his invective at face value.”
Yet another whopper from John. Readers who have followed my comments about this humbug knows, I’ve provided many links for them to verify the information I’ve provided. Just look above at my comments from earlier today.
Sullied O’Sullivan: ”I do not see any need to repeatedly deign to reply to such unsubstantiated smears. If you choose to entertain them absent any evidence, then that exposes your own predilictions and biases. (Frankly, this does also seem to be how you approach to the greenhouse gas effect debate).
“Among Skolnick’s false allegations is that I have claimed as my own the work of other writers. Also, he says I’ve been fraudulently assuming the identity of another John O’Sullivan, a graduate of law from University College, Cork. I have made no such claims and have repeatedly challenged Skolnick to provide hard evidence proving where and when I am supposed to have said/written any of this. He has yet to comply.”
Yet another whopper. I have copies of his posts to LinkedIn where he claimed to have earned his law degree from University College, Cork, and where he claimed to be the author of two articles on climate warming published in the National Review. Those articles turned out to be written by John O’Sullivan, all right – but the well-known John O’Sullivan who is the National Review’s editor-at-large. I would be happy to send these documents to anyone who asks — or else put them up on my web site and post the links here.
O’Sullied again: ”Also, despite Skolnick’s claims to the contrary, I do not conceal my history. Indeed, I openly publish my educational and professional background on my ‘bio’ page on the ‘LinkedIn’ website that we both frequent. Yet he conveniently chooses to ignore this. See LinkedIn web page: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=64434874&trk=tab_pro “
Rather than “ignore” them, I’ve cited them frequently and provided links to them. And I’ve saved the various versions as he keeps rewriting them to hide the contradictions as I expose his lies. Again, I’d be happy to make these documents publicly available.
O’Sullied: ”Moreover, I openly maintain another ‘bio’ page on the ‘Friends Reunited’ website where I have numerous links to former colleagues and friends …”
By “numerous” he means 5 links to colleagues and friends.]
O’Sullied continued: …”the last (some of whom have reported that Skolnick has been pestering them about me). On their urging I posted on the site an open response to Skolnick: http://www.friendsreunited.co.uk/blog/read/JohnOSullivan/77846
“Not satisfied with the above, Skolnick has gone on to demand that I provide him with a list of cases and former clients to verify that I have litigated for 13 years at all levels of the New York State court system and the Federal Second Circuit. Naturally, I declined to do so because of client confidentiality and the fear that Skolnick intended to misuse such information to inflict injury on my reputation.
Considering that court cases are matters of PUBLIC record, it’s hard to understand how O’Sullivan would violate client confidentiality by citing the courts and case numbers he alleges he “litigated successfully for more than a decade in New York and Federal 2nd District Courts.”
The way I’m “inflicting injury on” O’Sullivan’s “reputation” is by posting the link to the NY State web site that clearly shows O’Sullivan is a charlatan. He is NOT a lawyer licensed to practice in NY — or apparently anywhere else. Check for yourselves and you will find a John F., a John Patrick, but NO John A. O’Sullivan: http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/attorney/AttorneySearch .
”However, as an indication of the truthfulness of my position one such client, Thomas Neveu, will gladly vouch for me. I recently achieved for Mr. Neveu the favorable outcome he sought in a vexatious and potentially extremely costly copyright infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court, Nevada. All claims against Mr. Neveu were withdrawn (with prejudice) last week. See here:
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/nevada/nvdce/2:2010cv01674/76457/”
Actually, you should look here, where you will learn just why the suit was dismissed and that John O’Sullivan was NOT Neveu’s attorney. Neveu had represented himself pro se! http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/nevada/nvdce/2:2010cv01674/76457/36/
According to this court ruling, on March 14, 2011, Thomas Neveu, acting on his own without an attorney, requested a court stay in order for him to obtain “a Competency Hearing and Psychiatric Evaluation.” Following that competency hearing and psychiatric evaluation, he and the plaintiff requested that the case be dismissed based on the “condition of Mr. Neveu’s health.” The court ruled, “Whereas, the parties have concluded that the continuation of this action may adversely impact Mr. Neveu’s health and welfare and that it is in the best interests of all parties to resolve this matter.”
So I now think I know what John O’Sullivan is going to do once all his lies and chicanery catches up with him: He’s going to plead an insanity defense.
Pete said: “I leave you to do your own investigation into that particular case and perhaps get back on what you find, then we could compare notes.”
Just did.
Anyone who wants a quick document to see who’s telling the truth, here is the link to John O’Sullivan’s LinkedIn bio. Last week, he deleted all mention of his working for the BC law firm Pearlman Lindholm as a “legal consultant” defending Tim Ball in court. As a result of my complaint to the Law Society of British Columbia, he was compelled to removed his bogus claim that he’s practicing law in British Columbia.
He also removed his false claim of being a member of the American Bar Association — only an attorney licensed to practice law in the U.S. can join the ABA. There are still plenty of false claims in Sky Dragon Slayer leader’s bio. Can you tell which ones?
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=64434874&authType=name&authToken=0rq9&locale=en_US&pvs=pp&trk=ppro_viewmore
Sorry for the wrong name of the office above: It’s the Law Society of British Columbia’s Office of Unauthorized Practice — not “Unlawful Practice.”
Hi Bryan, you asked on October 25, 2011 at 5:55 am “ .. Do you consider that all electromagnetic radiation is thermal radiation? . ”. Short answer – NO! but what do you mean by “thermal radiation”? The Britannica Concise Encyclopedia defines it as “ .. Process by which energy is emitted by a warm surface. The energy is electromagnetic radiation and so travels at the speed of light and does not require a medium to carry it. Thermal radiation ranges in frequency from infrared rays through visible light to ultraviolet rays. .. ” (http://www.answers.com/topic/thermal-radiation). Having trained, qualified and worked as a Chartered Radio & Electronics engineer I recognise E/M radiation as being only a form of energy transfer from one place to another which does not require the presence of any material in order to effect such transfer.
The following definition of electromagnetic radiation is relevant “ .. Energy propagated through free space or through a material medium in the form of electromagnetic waves. Examples include radio waves, infrared radiation, visible light, ultraviolet radiation, X rays, and gamma rays. Electromagnetic radiation exhibits wavelike properties such as reflection, refraction, diffraction, and interference, but also exhibits particle-like properties in that its energy occurs in discrete packets, or quanta. Though all types of electromagnetic radiation travel at the same speed, they vary in frequency and wavelength, and interact with matter differently. A vacuum is the only perfectly transparent medium; all others absorb some frequencies of electromagnetic radiation .. ” (http://www.answers.com/topic/electromagnetic-radiation).
To me there is no heat in E/M radiation that is travelling through free space at the speed of light but there is energy associated with it. When some of that E/M energy is absorbed then the absorbing body enjoys an increase in energy which may or may not manifest itself as heat, causing an increase in temperature that is dependent upon the heat capacity of the body’s material.
You gave two examples of what I understand to be thermal effects of E/M radiation, not thermal radiation.
You say “ .. The Poynting Vector gives the magnitude and direction of the electric and magnetic field strength at a particular point. It points from the direction of propagation. In the case of thermal radiation it will point from the higher temperature source to the lower temperature sink .. ”.
According to Nano/Microscale Heat Transfer “ .. Section 8.1.4 “Energy Flux and Density”.. The Poynting vector is essentially the energy flux, which gives both the direction and the rate of energy flow per unit projected surface area .. ” (http://www.accessengineeringlibrary.com/mghpdf/0071664149_ar008.pdf). So far so good but there does appear to be some disagreement with the rest of what you say.
The introduction to Chapter 8 Fundamentals of Thermal Radiation says “ .. The main features of radiation that are distinct from conduction and convection are as follows:
(a) Radiation can transfer energy with and without an intervening medium;
(b) The radiant heat flux is not proportional to the temperature gradient;
(c) Radiation emission is wavelength dependent, and the radiative properties of materials depend on the wavelength and the temperature; and
(d) The radiant energy exchange and the radiative properties depend on the direction and orientation .. ”.
Two things puzzle me, the first being that item b), the other being that the Poynting Vector derivation in 8.1.4 (see equations 8.18) seems to make no reference to temperature gradient, depending only upon E (the electric field in V/m) and H (the magnetic field in A/m). I must have missed a very important point among all of that mathematics so please Bryan (or even Claes?) give me a hand here.
BTW, Section 8.2.1 “Planck’s Law” in my referenced publication also discusses the Rayleigh-Jeans “ultraviolet catastrophe” (and much more) and includes a pictorial comparison (Fig. 8.5) of Wein, Planck and RJ.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Sorry, posted in the wrong “reply” slot.
Pete Ridley
My take on EM thermal radiation is that the frequency should correspond to an ability to change the translational vibrational or rotational modes of a molecules motion, in other words change its kinetic energy.
If emitted the KE would decrease.
If absorbed the KE would increase
So my previous two examples could not be considered thermal radiation.
The Poynting Vector is a general property of all radiation in the EM spectrum and is not confined to thermal radiation.
On 8a,b,c,d there is a lot of detail in your interesting link and will take some time to read it but at first glance I don’t think it contradicts what I have said.
For instance 8b the temperature relationship is to the power four for a blackbody however for a line or an band emitter the fourth power relationship (or the SB equation) no longer holds.
Pete Ridley
You say
…..”Come on Professor Johnson, what have you to say about the Poynting Theory and its relationship with the Stephan-Boltzman Law? Does Poynting have no relevance to the debate about S-B and the Laws of Thermodynamics? “…….
Claes must have been too busy to reply however the question you asked would not have troubled him.
However I ask you;
Do you consider that all electromagnetic radiation is thermal radiation?
For instance radiation that causes an electron to change its atomic orbital level?
For instance a radio wave signal moving electrons in a conductor?
If so you had better look up the electromagnetic spectrum( from radio waves to gamma rays) and identify the thermal radiation section.
The Poynting Vector gives the magnitude and direction of the electric and magnetic field strength at a particular point.
It points from the direction of propagation.
In the case of thermal radiation it will point from the higher temperature source to the lower temperature sink.
In other words in the direction of heat transfer
It will never point spontaneously in the direction of colder to higher temperature .
The Poynting vector is part of classical electromagnetic physics.
If Claes is successful a future physics text book will carry on from its definition then derive the Rayleigh – Jeans(RJ) formula for thermal radiation.
Claes contribution will be to extend the RJ formula for higher electromagnetic frequencies where the Rayleigh Jeans formula breaks down (the ultraviolet catastrophe).
You are familiar with the hyperphysics site.
There is a page there where the RJ and the Stephan Boltzmann(SB) formulas are both displayed together.
They are identical for all wavelengths >3um.
Claes work would result in them being identical for all wavelengths.
However whether Claes succeeds or not there is nothing in classical physics or quantum mechanics to substantiate the claims of the IPCC that any likely increase in CO2 will result in a significant increase in the Earths surface temperature
Hi Bryan, please see above
Hi Bryan, do others share your definition of E/M thermal radiation (25th October @ 5:25 pm) “ .. that the frequency should correspond to an ability to change the translational vibrational or rotational modes of a molecules motion, in other words change its kinetic energy .. ”. I haven’t been able to find a similar one via Google. (I also wonder if others share the definition of heat that you gave in your comment of 15th at 2:06 PM “ .. The net radiative balance .. ”.) Most sources that I have found define thermal radiation as E/M radiation arising from the heating of a body, like the Sun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png) or a filament lamp (http://www.neon-lighting.com/articles/Types%20of%20Lamps.htm). As I’m sure you know the frequency spectrum of E/M radiation is very wide (e.g. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum) and as the frequency increases so does all of that energy that flies through space as photons, eventually bashing into and increasing the energy of some substances. Sometimes those clever little photons even cause those substances to heat up.
Of course, some of the “Slayers” and other people believe that those photons know instinctively that where they came from is cooler than where they’ve ended up so they don’t bother stopping but look for somewhere that is cooler – really clever. Mind you, lots more people don’t agree that the photons are as intelligent as that. Some of the comments above, e.g. by Claes, Will, Jim D, De Montford, DocMartyn, Peter317 show these differences of opinion. Maybe one day another Einstein will come along and reveal the truth to us all.
(I was rather surprised at Claes’s question on 16th October at 12:47 pm “ .. Which physicist claims thqt that the atmosphere is emitting IR photons? .. ”. Claes has been involved in the discussions with Professor Petty (atmospheric physicist) and Dr. Joe Shore (theoretical physicist) since before 11th October when Professor Petty said “ .. at least the fight wouldn’t be over whether the atmospheric radiative transfer equation is correct . . ”.)
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Here’s a final sentence for the above final paragraph:
That thread had started out discussing atmospjheric radiation graphs in Professor Petty’s book “’Introduction to Atmospheric Radiation” – http://sundogpublishing.com/AtmosRad/Excerpts/AtmosRad212.pdf
Pete Ridley
There will be a number of definitions of thermal radiation more or less saying the same thing.
My definition (and I claim no originality) directly links the radiation to a temperature rise or fall in the emitter/absorber.
Its closely linked to the Kinetic Theory of Gases.
Radiation is exaggerated out of all proportion by IPCC advocates to try to give the greenhouse theory some credibility.
Radiative transfer is a very minor player in the troposphere.
It has importance only at the TOA where it radiates degraded long wave radiation to space roughly matching the input of higher quality solar or short wavelength radiation
IPCC advocates are obsessed by radiation and conveniently ignore the other forms of heat transfer.
Claes too writes about little else these days but he has an excuse in that he is developing a new theory of radiation.
By the way Claes has his own site where a new radiation post is a daily occurrence.
The intellectual poverty of the IPCC greenhouse theory is fairly obvious.
If you read some earlier posts by Nullius in Verba and myself on this thread you would realise that convection in the adiabatic troposphere is responsible most of the 33K so called “greenhouse effect”.
If you want to get a handle or the “atmospheric effect” best start by studying the Carnot Cycle.
I would be interested to find out who Postma was debating with via e-mails.
Joel Shore or Grant Petty?
kuhnkat | October 24, 2011 at 6:00 pm |
Phil,
“Who said that radiation was dominant?”
Indeed, you have me there. You simply stated that the temperature differential was due to radiation while not saying anything about how the convection would change anything.
This still means that you need EMPIRICAL proof, instead of the video games, to show the net effect of the radiation increased by the change!!! You have not provided this and the paper I referenced concluded that it is the convective change that causes the temperature change.
I think you need to learn to read!
You referenced a paper from the group that authored the reference I posted here which agrees with my description, misrepresent there conclusion and claim victory!
“The shield is heated/cooled to a temperature which is intermediate between Tg and Ts and due to the strong dependence of radiation on temperature, significantly reduces the effects of radiation at the junction.”
Which is exactly what I said.
The difference in temperature between the gas(g) and the Th/C (j) is given by Tg-Tj = K(Tj^4-Ts^4) for an unshielded thermocouple where Ts is the temperature of the surroundings.
and by Tg-Tj = K(Tj^4-Tsh^4) for a shielded thermocouple
Since Tsh is much greater than Ts when making measurements in a flame and much closer to Tj the error is much smaller and therefore Tj is closer to Tg.
This adequately demonstrates an answer to the question posed here:
“Ken Coffman | October 16, 2011 at 12:02 pm |
The point is, can radiation be emitted from a surface, absorbed, then re-emitted to come back to the surface and make it warmer than it was?”
Clearly the answer is yes, even the reference that you cited says so!
In other words, you misrepresented the situation with the assistance of models and witheld data like any good little climate scientist!!
Clearly I did not and you are lying
Phil,
speaking about needing to learn to read. I QUOTED a sentence where they explicitly stated the difference was due to the changes in convection. Go call someone who will play games with you.
By.
You referred to it you didn’t quote it, I quoted it for you, here it is again:
“The shield is heated/cooled to a temperature which is intermediate between Tg and Ts and due to the strong dependence of radiation on temperature, significantly reduces the effects of radiation at the junction.”
Unfortunately you misinterpreted their statement, perhaps that’s why you didn’t actually quote it?
For anyone else who has been following the Phil challenge to sceptics that a cooler shield warms a hotter thermocouple by radiation I would like to add to what has been said so far.
Here is the link again:
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire99/art149.html
From Page 1 equation 2:
“This expression demonstrates that the difference between a thermocouple reading and the actual gas temperature (i.e., the error in the gas temperature measurement) increases for the larger diameter thermocouples, while it is reduced by increasing the gas flow velocity over the junction.”
My interpretation of this is that the larger TC will have a larger radiative area and will therefor stay at a cooler temp with the same gas flow speed as the smaller TC.
From the discussion on page 3:
“The largest relative temperature errors are found for cool gases in the presence of strong radiation fields. Errors associated with the measurements for a hot gas with the thermocouple radiating to cooler surroundings are significant, but, relatively smaller.
The use of aspirated thermocouples can significantly reduce temperature measurement error as compared to bare-beaded thermocouples. However, it has been found that aspirated thermocouples are not 100% effective, and that significant differences between actual and measured temperatures can still be present. This finding contradicts the suggestion of Newman and Croce [7] and the assertion by the ASTM [8] that such uncertainties are insignificantly small. It should be mentioned that many researchers, e.g. see [9], have recommended that aspirated thermocouples be operated with the highest aspiration of velocities possible (on the order of 100 m/s) as opposed to values of less 10m/s commonly recommended for fire tests. It is clear that the use of higher velocities should reduce the errors associated with the aspirated thermocouple measurements in fire environments. It should be remembered that there are potential penalties associated with the aspirated thermocouple use including increased volume and temporal averaging as well as the environmental perturbations associated with the high pumping speeds and large probe sizes.”
Funny, not one suggestion of changing the shield(s) composition or shape to change its radiative properties to increase or decrease the amount of radiative heating to increase the accuracy of the measurement!
A cool gas in a high radiative environment I would think is referring to a fire that is not close to the TC, and that the actual gas is not at the same temperature. While I don’t think Phil was being purposefully misleading with the gas heat/radiation source heat, I wonder how many people understood this issue until they read the paper. My misunderstandings were primarily around the idea that the thermocouple was in a Gas heater or furnace of some type where it would have been exposed to the primary source with little difference between the radiation heat source and the actual temp of the gas against the TC. My bad.
Basically the LARGE errors are caused when the radiation from a fire directly affects the TC junction while the gas passing the TC is cooler than the source of the radiation. The shield prevents direct heating by distant sources and the increased convective speed helps reduce the delta due to the TC radiating. Two separate issues.
What Phil misrepresented, or I misunderstood, is that the TC runs too HIGH in the cool gas, hot IR situation and the shield LOWERS the temp of the TC. The gas itself must then be run past the TC faster to bring it close to the actual temp of the gas.
This still doesn’t change the previous quote I posted from the second page of the paper where they flat state the increased flow increases convection for both the shield and the TC. In the cool gas hot IR scenario the shield is HOTTER than the TC NOT COOLER!!! Increased convective cooling by the gas cools the shield and warms the TC! Phil’s claim was wrong from the beginning that a cooler shield caused a higher temp of the TC by radiation.
Don’t believe me, read the paper. If I got it wrong, please let me know.
Of course Kumquat is lying. That’s what I’ve been trying to tell you. There is NO way on Earth you can carry on an honest exchange with him, Bryan, Ken Coffman, or any of the Sky Dragon Dissemblers. Not only is it a waste of time, it plays into their game of creating the appearance of a scientific disagreement.
I’ve been battling pseudoscientific charlatans like them for three decades. Trying to nail them down is like trying to nail Jello to the wall. No matter how good your hammer, how good your nails, and how good your carpenter skills, you can’t do it, since they will lie and deny themselves out of everything.
Hi Andrew, you say “ .. I’ve never done any work for a pro-green group and never worked as an environmental journalist .. ” and I have found nothing that contradicts what you say about your “ .. 35 years of science and medical writing .. ”. Your claim that you “ .. hate humbugs. I step on them like spiders .. ” suggests that you do not support the views of those who believe that “Insects and spiders have rights too” (http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=83283#p1002241) or perhaps even Polly Higgins and her “Trees have rights too” movement and 2010 proposal to the UN for an internationally agreed 5th Crime Against Peace AKA “Crime of Ecocide” (http://treeshaverightstoo.com/?page_id=159).
I too hate humbugs – but I try to avoid inflicting pain unnecessarily on other forms of life, including spiders.
You say of John O’Sullivan “ .. he claimed to be the author of two articles on climate warming published in the National Review. Those articles turned out to be written by John O’Sullivan, all right – but the well-known John O’Sullivan who is the National Review’s editor-at-large. I would be happy to send these documents to anyone who asks — or else put them up on my web site and post the links here .. ”. If you can get your hands on a copy of the US version of “Slaying the Sky Dragon” you’ll see a reference to this in the “Author Biographies and Acknowledgements” section of the book on Page 356 under “John O’Sullivan (United Kingdom & United States)”.
In my comment of October 24, 2011 at 5:17 PM I mentioned that QUOTE: .. On the 29th/30th Sept. there were interesting exchanges with “Slayers” .. UNQUOTE. In those exchanges I said to John QUOTE: ..
“Slaying the Sky Dragon” says about you that “ .. In the U.S. his work is featured in the National Review .. Among other internationally-esteemed publications he has appeared in both the China Daily .. as well as India Times .. ”. Andrew Skolnick claims that you haven’t featured in the National Review and correctly pointed out that there is another John O’Sullivan featured there, the National Review’s well-known editor-at-large (http://old.nationalreview.com/jos/jos.asp).
On 4th July Gareth Renowden said of you (http://sciblogs.co.nz/hot-topic/tag/osullivan/) QUOTE: ..
John O’Sullivan has never had any article, major or otherwise, published in National Review or Forbes. National Review does have a writer called John O’Sullivan – .. their Editor-at-Large. Pressed to confirm his status as a writer for National Review .. O’Sullivan posted links to two articles written by the other John. Tasked with this apparent theft of another’s reputation, he resorted to bluster and attempts to change the subject.
.. China Daily .. and The India Times .. For O’Sullivan, “featuring” in China Daily means having someone post one of your articles in a discussion forum. The same is true for The India Times ..
his legal background .. He claims to have a law degree (LLB) and to have litigated in New York State courts and the US Federal 2nd Circuit. .. Does O’Sullivan really have any kind of legal training or background? .. Research by Andrew Skolnick discovered that a John O’Sullivan does appear to have obtained a law degree .. but it’s not Sky Dragon O’Sullivan.
What about his experience in the US courts? .. O’Sullivan had been involved in bringing a sexual harassment case against a former employer of his wife. This suit appears to have been a failure. .. He has recently joined the American Bar Association as an associate — but is not, and should not be claiming to be, a full member .. UNQUOTE (please read the complete article as I have cherry-picked in an effort to reduce turgidity)..
John, please can you once and for all shut up Andrew, Gareth and any other vile detractors by providing links to irrefutable evidence of your educational, academic and professional claims and telling us precisely which articles of yours featured in the National Review and which appeared in China Daily and The India Times. It is common practice for accredited academics to give full details of their achievements so why don’t you? In my opinion the information provided in Friend Re-united and Linked In doesn’t really adequately support the claims that you make elsewhere .. UNQUOTE.
As I had expected, in his response to that E-mail John ignored what I had said and moved on to other matters “ .. Peter, Forgive me, but your emails are becoming rambling and repetitive and I am frustrated at the time they are taking up. All your questions have already been asked and answered. By repeating them over again in slightly difference guise suggests to me you are seeking to coerce others into conforming with your own sensibilities on these issues. Rather than nitpick around the edges, I suggest you address the ‘meat’ of this debate which is the validity or otherwise of the science supporting the GHE.
In particular, I urge you and others to debate about Slayer science. I say this because currently on another thread many leading skeptics are currently in discussion with us on important matters in dispute regarding the GHE. Indeed, one very useful new development is that the Slayers have identified a major error in the understanding of adiabatic lapse rate by one of the most prominent skeptics. Keeping up to date with that thread is taking up a considerable amount of my time so you will understand that I will have to address my priorities accordingly .. ”.
As I have mentioned previously (October 23, 2011 at 6:10 pm) the CACC debate is a two-sided coin, the science and the politics. I’m sure that John has his reasons for wanting to steer clear of debating the political aspects, which were outlined in his Chapter 21 of “Slaying the Sky Dragon” then discussed in detail during the “PSI & Due Diligence” exchanges in Dec./Jan. and in more recent exchanges. On the other hand I would love to have more discussions, particularly with potential “Slayer” Roger Sowell, about whom John said on 29th September “ .. Californian attorney Roger Sowell .. is in discussion with us as a potential new recruit, but his decision is pending because he is currently reviewing our Sky Dragon book.
In my comment of October 22, 2011 at 2:30 PM I talked about “Slaying the Sky Dragon” and Professor Curry’s comment that “ .. I am hoping that Johnson learns from this that if he wants his scientific arguments to be taken seriously, that publishing them in a politically motivated book does not help his credibility and does not motivate people to take his arguments seriously .. ”. I also quoted John’s strong objection to me suggesting a political motivation in the book. I subsequently gave my opinion of some of “Slaying the Sky Dragon”, including QUOTE: ..
Chapters 1 & 10 by Dr. Tim Ball were a big disappointment. It is declared in the “Author Biographies” that Dr. Ball “.. has an extensive science background in climatology .. ” yet I could find nothing of scientific significance in all of the 17,000+ words that he contributed. Of course, not being a scientist it is possible that I simply didn’t appreciate what scientific treasures he was revealing. If anyone can point out what I have missed then I’d appreciate it. One thing that I did notice is that the word “politics” or its derivatives appears 67 times.
Although John’s Chapter 21 hardly mentions politics it mentions “government” 28 times and that is in only 4000 words, which end with “ .. We offer this volume as evidence both to the U.S. government and other nations so they may act on the incontrovertible facts presented herein and conspicuously discard that mythical Sky Dragon once and for all from all policy considerations .. ” (see Page 352). That’s “politic” and “government” appearing 95 times in a book that ends with an appeal to national governments to change their policies yet is claimed not to be politically motivated. Please can someone (other than a “Slayer”) explain how Professor Curry and I are misleading ourselves .. UNQUOTE.
John’s response, to ignore the point and divert attention elsewhere (I think he might refer to it as “ .. stooping to ham-fisted bait and switch antics ..” – by first challenging Professor Curry with QUOTE: .. Pete, You made Dr. Curry your chosen thermodynamics expert and we have shown that is a poor choice by you. Indeed, somewhat inflamed, Dr Curry has rushed to counter our rebuttal that she is not well schooled in thermo by citing HER textbook “Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans.” .. UNQUOTE then turning the spotlight onto Professor Petty and Dr. Shore.
Regarding that case involving Thomas Neveu, I found similar to you elsewhere:
– Dec. 15, 2010 “Thomas Neveu of Dorchester, Mass., filed the counterclaim .. Neveu, who is representing himself in the litigation, charged in his 160-paragraph counterclaim that the Righthaven lawsuit against him was caused by a strategy by Stephens Media .. ” (http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/dec/15/third-defendant-countersues-righthaven-stephens-me/) ,
– 1 October 2011 “ .. Neveu, representing himself .. ” (http://www.vegasinc.com/news/2011/oct/01/righthaven-stephens-media-eating-more-legal-costs-/).
None of those articles mentions any John O’Sullivan, however, you seem not to have contacted Mr Neveu at tom_neveu@comcast.net (http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/nevada/nvdce/2:2010cv01674/76457/42/)? I had a reply early this month from Mr Neveu which presented a glowing picture of the kind assistance that John had given him, for free. You commented QUOTE: .. Pete said: “I leave you to do your own investigation into that particular case and perhaps get back on what you find, then we could compare notes.” Just did UNQUOTE but maybe you should take your investigation a little further
For anyone engaged in the debate around the CACC hypothesis because they wish to learn something rather than just win an argument this must be one of the most educational debates that there are. We can lean not only about science, politics and finance but even the English language. What a lovely word Andrew used by as an alternative to “hypocrite, phony, phoney, pretender” (dictionary.die.net/dissembler). I must try hard to remember that one.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Here you are Pete: screen captures of 2 LinkedIn posts from Gareth Renowden challenging O’Sullivan to finally cite the articles he claims to have written for Forbes and National Review:
http://www.aaskolnick.com/humbugs/screencapture_Garreth_5.26_7.43.jpg
http://www.aaskolnick.com/humbugs/screencapture_Garreth_5.26_7.11.jpg
And here are screen captures of the humbug’s 2 posts in reply, where he provided links to two climate articles written by John O’Sullivan — but not John “The Humbug” O’Sullivan. They were written by National Review’s well-known editor-at-large.
http://www.aaskolnick.com/humbugs/OSullivan_NationalReview_claim_email_screen_capture.jpg
http://www.aaskolnick.com/humbugs/OSullivan_NationalReview_claim_email_screen_capture2.jpg
As for my reference to “stepping on spiders” it was strictly metaphorical. I was once stopped by a rather odd old man as I was about to enter church where friends were getting married. The old codger said to me, “He prayeth best who loveth best all things both great and small.” I never forgot that lesson.
I don’t bother with little spiders who share my home. With the big ones, it’s strictly “catch and release.” Or sometimes I capture them and set them up in a comfy home for a while to be photographed. Like this guy (gal, actually):
ftp://aaskolni@www.aaskolnick.com/public_html/crabspider.jpg
I’d like to see that happen to Mr. O’Sullivan someday — you know captured, photographed holding a card with his name and numbers below his chin, and housed in a small but comfy cell.
Pete says I should take my investigation of O’Sullivan’s claim to have successfully represented Tom Neveu in a Nevada Federal Court further. There is no need, nor would it be the charitable thing to do.
The suit against Mr. Neveu was recently dismissed because a competency hearing and psychiatric examination found that he was too ill for the case to continue and the plaintiff agreed to withdraw the suit. I don’t think asking him needless questions at this time would be appropriate. It’s clear enough from the court record that O’Sullivan did not represent him.
Pete said, “I had a reply early this month from Mr Neveu which presented a glowing picture of the kind assistance that John had given him, for free.”
Oh, I’m sure, Just as sure as I am of the adage, you get what you pay for.
Funny thing about this great country Pete. You can give people all the legal advice you want if you’re not licensed to practice law — just as long as you don’t charge for it or claim to be an attorney. For example, I can advise Mr. O’Sullivan to turn himself in for making fraudulent claims. If I did that for a fee holding myself out to be an attorney, that would be illegal.
The bottom line is this: Despite his claims, John O’Sullivan does NOT appear to have a law degree. He claims he earned his law degree from the University of Surrey (back in June, he claimed it was from University College, Cork*) as the SAME time he was earning his art degree at another college! He is not licensed to practice law in New York State. He is not licensed to defend Tim Ball in Canadian courts. And he did not provide legal services to Mr. Neveu any more than I now provided O’Sullivan by suggesting he turn himself in.
*http://www.aaskolnick.com/humbugs/universitycollege_cork.jpg
Hi again Andrew, thanks for the links. Those screen captures do suggest that someone using the name John O’Sullivan claimed on the LinkedIn group page to have written those articles in National Review, which I understand were actually written by this John O’Sullivan (http://old.nationalreview.com/jos/jos.asp). Is there any doubt about whether or not is was “Slayer” John who placed those comments on LinkedIN. Someone could have been playing tricks.
I recall that you claimed several years ago that someone posted a comment allegedly from you and I too have been impersonated. If not then, in the spirit of transparency claimed to be so important to PSI, John really should clear this up once and for all. Until he does so and makes available the “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mails on the PSI web-site for review and discussion I find it hard to understand how anyone can feel comfortable about what motivated the “Slayers” to set up PSI.
I couldn’t get into the ftp://aaskolni@www.aaskolnick.com/public_html/crabspider.jpg page because a log-in was required.
As for the spiders, I was teasing just a little there, but what about trees having rights too?
On a more serious note, from where on earth did you get “ .. Pete says I should take my investigation of O’Sullivan’s claim to have successfully represented Tom Neveu in a Nevada Federal Court further .. ”? What I said was “ . maybe you should take your investigation a little further .. ”, by which I meant talking to Thomas Neveu direct, like I did. Please don’t start twisting my words again as I hate that sort of thing as much as I hate humbugs and dissemblers.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete asks, “Is there any doubt about whether or not it was “Slayer” John who placed those comments on LinkedIN. Someone could have been playing tricks.”
Nope. None at all. It was confirmed in a great many ways.
Not to mention that the real live Truth Slayer John is still falsely claiming to be the author of one or more articles published in the National Review — even though no one named John O’Sullivan authored any article in that magazine other than its well-known editor-at-large.
Talk about grasping at straws.
Pete, since I suspect you are very reluctant to part with any straw in your grasp, I offer you this incontrovertible proof — an email reply to my inquiry I sent May 26 to the publisher of Slaying the Sky Dragon which confirms that the LinkedIn humbug and the lead author of their book is one and the same:
——– Original Message ——–
From: – Fri May 27 14:05:20 2011
X-Account-Key: account2
X-UIDL:
X-Mozilla-Status: 1011
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-Mozilla-Keys:
Return-Path:
Received: from cdptpa-mxlb.mail.rr.com ([10.127.255.87]) by cdptpa-imta02.mail.rr.com with ESMTP id for ; Fri, 27 May 2011 18:04:29 +0000
Return-Path:
X-Cloudmark-Score: 0
X-RR-Connecting-IP: 64.202.165.38
X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=wMWP+9yGWI8SxWidGk8YkcNXIs7tBAMdDllADV/4H28= c=1 sm=0 a=XjX0z0Gl-dIA:10 a=Gd_2Y-tQO5cA:10 a=BLceEmwcHowA:10 a=2LetxjsOAAAA:8 a=doupyKFmAAAA:8 a=jU4qhlNgAAAA:8 a=-hf-FUzSMoQeWJGISXQA:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=g6et6YSafgcA:10 a=0vUscowIxtUA:10 a=uv2cuKxk2_JrO0mbMSwA:9 a=Khd2bE3rWu63kpXvQKMA:7 a=tXsnliwV7b4A:10 a=ykObytPMbe7RR6iS227/0Q==:117
Received: from [64.202.165.38] ([64.202.165.38:45386] helo=smtpauth21.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net) by cdptpa-iedge06.mail.rr.com (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.3.46 r()) with ESMTP id 70/D3-07790-AA7EFDD4; Fri, 27 May 2011 18:04:27 +0000
Received: (qmail 22542 invoked from network); 27 May 2011 18:04:24 -0000
Received: from unknown (209.85.161.42) by smtpauth21.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (64.202.165.38) with ESMTP; 27 May 2011 18:04:24 -0000
Received: by fxm1 with SMTP id 1so3487373fxm.1 for ; Fri, 27 May 2011 11:04:21 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.29.132 with SMTP id q4mr2651946fac.17.1306519461942; Fri, 27 May 2011 11:04:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.223.86.6 with HTTP; Fri, 27 May 2011 11:04:21 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To:
References:
Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 11:04:21 -0700
Message-ID:
Subject: Re: SLAYING THE SKY DRAGON: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory
From: Ian Larsen
To: Andrew Skolnick
Cc: ken@stairwaypress.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001517478f046bd4e904a445c45f
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Mr. Skolnick,
That is indeed one of the co-authors of Slaying the Sky Dragon.
Thanks for confirming.
Ian Larsen
StairwayPress
ian@stairwaypress.com
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Andrew Skolnick wrote:
Dear Ian Larsen,
Can you please confirm that the person who is claiming to be the John O’Sullivan, who coauthored your publication, Slaying the Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory, in a LinkedIn discussion group is indeed the author?
http://www.linkedin.com/e/-aycv3q-go601a7p-6a/vaq/52438422/74415/40403117/view_disc/
If by chance he isn’t, I thought you and the book’s real co-author would like to know.
Thank you for your reply.
Andrew Skolnick
Andrew, I think that one of the many big differences between us is that I am not prepared to make accusations without knowing the facts. Thanks for quoting from what you claim to be an E-mail from Ian Larsen of Stairways Press (your comment of 25th October @t 10:21 PM). Please would you be kind enough to forward to me the originals of your E-mail to Stairways Press and Ian Larson’s response to me for my records and future reference. (BTW, I tried the link that you gave in your E-mail of 26th May but only get the message “This discussion is no longer available”.)
You say of “ .. the National Review — .. no one named John O’Sullivan authored any article in that magazine other than its well-known editor-at-large .. ”. I have tried to find irrefutable evidence to support your statement but have been unsuccessful. In order to make that statement you must be aware of such evidence so would you be good enough to provide me with it so that I can present it to the “Slayers” group along with the E-mail from Ian Larson and invite a definitive response from John. That way we can see who is “ .. grasping at straws .. ”.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
I’m not sure what relevance this has to anything, but Ian is working fulltime on his Soup Bowl business and is no longer on the payroll with Stairway Press. I had lunch with him yesterday and he’s doing well. If anyone wants a lovely bowl of soup or a espresso, he is doing a great job and I recommend stopping in for lunch. He passed the reins to a young man named Chris Benson…but, as always, the Stairway Press buck stops here with me at our international headquarters.
Pete Ridley,
if any of the allegations were against one of the technical Slayers about the scientific issues, someone around here might care.
Cumquat, such a weasel excuse is not going to convince anyone who expects honesty from the experts they turn to for information and opinions they can trust. But I’m hardly surprised you would offer such a lame excuse.
John O’Sullivan is not the only humbug among his team of Sky Dragon Slayers. At least two others have been caught lying about their professional and academic credentials. And the publisher of Slaying the Sky Dragon is on record claiming he doesn’t care whether O’Sullivan is lying about his academic and professional credentials because he “likes his ideas.” What a bunch.
Hi kuhnkat, your “ .. if any of the allegations were against one of the technical Slayers about the scientific issues, someone around here might care. .. ” suggests that you might be a “Slayer” sock-puppet. I’d pay more attention to your comments if you weren’t hiding behind a false name, so are you Vernon and if not would you like to let us know who are you?
Have you heard the saying “ .. tarred with the same brush .. ”? As I pointed out to the “Slayers” on several occasions during the “PSI & Due Diligence” exchanges, the actions of each and every one of them reflected on the group as a whole and all would need to be squeaky clean.
The first indications that I had of what were John O’Sullivan’s original plans for PSI were in his E-mail of 28th Dec to the core “Slayers”/PSI members (see Note) in which he said QUOTE: ..
we have enough evidence to force NOAA to either substantiate their claim or retract .. in my opinion, we would succeed if we compile our evidence and file a mandamus petition to challenge NOAA .. I am happy to work with one of my contacts in the DC area to file a mandamus in the federal court in D.C. on behalf of PSI. To do this we need to pay filing and court fees, paralegal costs land office expenses. A typical mandamus petition will ordinarily cost a client $3,000. If we can raise $3,000 I can set the legal wheels in motion. The legal skills and resources are at the ready so now the ball is in our court and that of our supporters to raise the $3,000.There is no fear of a counter suit so we cannot be sued for frivolous or malicious filing. This is as cheap a way to score a legal victory as I can suggest .. UNQUOTE.
Oliver Manuel and Tim Ball quickly jumped in with offers to contribute and Miso commented “ .. I am really glad that this is moving on, with a good chance that something may actually result from this legal action .. ”. Perhaps it was Miso’s comment that prompted John to issue his 30th Dec. E-mail declaration on “ .. Advancing Principia Scientific International as a Community Interest Company .. ” in which he said QUOTE ..
A Proposal for the Foundation of a Community Interest Company to Fund Legal Challenges Against Fraudulent Climate Science ..
After further deliberations among trusted legal and business advisers we have come up with the following additional proposals to ensure the integrity of our fledgling organization, Principia Scientific International (PSI) .. PSI’s function is to apply the law (in common law nations e.g. US, UK, Canada etc.) to defeat junk science e.g. by exposing fraudulent government funded temperature records in the courts (this has been achieved already in New Zealand .. by the application of a legal strategy I proposed last year ..
The legal strategy, applied so superbly applied by NZ barrister, Barry Brill to force NIWA to capitulate on its bogus “official” climate record has thus proven itself in one common law jurisdiction. We now need to apply it again around the globe. My legal associates and I are asking your support to help raise funds for our next objective: defeating NASA GISS, GHCN and NOAA in the federal court in Washington D.C.
As already agreed by many of us involved in this email discussion, what is needed is an effective fund raising strategy ..
UNQUOTE.
A few hours after that E-mail of John’s I started the exchanges about “PSI & Due Diligence” and expressed my reservations about what John had been proposing.
On 3rd Jan. I said “ .. Rather than funding, the far more important issue at this stage is how PSI can be best structured to achieve what John refers to as the “noble” objectives of this group. This must be done in a manner that provides minimal ammunition to supporters of “the doctrine” who will pull out all of the stops to cast suspicion on the integrity of each and every individual involved .. ”.
John came back with the suggestion that “ .. it is perhaps advisable that you now withdraw from further participation” to which I responded QUOTE: .. I think it might be more advisable from a personal point of view for me to continue participating in one way or another. I did not impose myself on this group. I was invited in and have only recently been made aware of PSI and what is planned for it. What concerns me (and may be of concern to others in this group) is the significance of the term “culpable by association” .. UNQUOTE.
The point that I was making there and continued to make to the “Slayers” during those “PSI & Due Diligence” exchanges was that everyone involved with the “Slayers”/PSI would be affected by questionable activities by any one individual member. As the sayings go “You are judged by the company you keep” and “Mud sticks” (http://www.jackiekcooper.com/BIYTB/2008/BIYTB491.htm).
As for John’s fund-raising strategy to get PSI started, I never did get a response from the “Slayers” to my question on 25th January of why QUOTE: .. a group of 36 respected international scientists and related professionals. Mostly .. the authors of ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon,’ the world’s first full volume refutation of the greenhouse gas theory that was “the talk of the Cancun Climate Conference” .. UNQUOTE needed to beg for what amounts to a mere £417 each in order to set up “ .. the creation of the world’s first open to all, politics-free, generalist science association. .. ”.
(see my comment on the page where PSI made its appeal for charitable donations at http://www.gofundme.com/1v39s)
Regarding your suggestion that no-one cares about what really motivated the “Slayers” to form PSI, I’m sure that we can safely leave it to Professor Curry to tell me if she wants me to stop commenting about it.
NOTE:
Miso Alkalaj, Oliver Manuel, Martin Hertzberg, Tim Ball, Hans Schreuder, Joe Olson, Alan Siddons, Charles Anderson, Geraldo Lino, Ken Coffman and Phil Foster (I have no record of ever receiving any comment from Phil during those many “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mails, which is surprising considering that he is the PSI Compliance Officer – compliance with what I wonder)
– plus Claes Johnson, Kent Clizbe, Cliff Saunders and me (I do not believe that any of these ever considered themselves to be core members of the “Slayers” or PSI.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
There have been numerous efforts to estimate SARF [Surface Aerosol Radiative Forcing]. Most recently Schafer et al showed that, by use of the sunphotometer to retrieve aerosol optical depths, ta, along with observed surface flux data from field campaigns in Brazil and south central Africa, aerosol radiative forcing efficiencies due to smoke particulates were determined to be -145 Wm^2/ta and -210 Wm^2/ta, respectively, for the range of instantaneous solar zenith angles o between 25° and 35°. Maximum reductions in surface flux of the order of 337 Wm^2 a, for o 31° were observed for the heaviest smoke conditions (ta=3.0) in Brazil.
–Surface aerosol radiative forcing derived from collocated ground-based radiometric observations during PRIDE, SAFARI, and ACE-Asia
http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~liougst/Group_Papers/Hansell_AO_42_2003.pdf
What is my point? Small errors in the really big things more than accounts for the tiny effects attributed to “back radiation” from cold, rarefied gases. There is no need to calculate a small “forcing” then invent some human-influenced modulator. But, if you want to, go ahead. You don’t need my permission, but you have it.
kuhnkat | October 24, 2011 at 9:29 pm | Reply
For anyone else who has been following the Phil challenge to sceptics that a cooler shield warms a hotter thermocouple by radiation I would like to add to what has been said so far.
Here is the link again:
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire99/art149.html
From Page 1 equation 2:
“This expression demonstrates that the difference between a thermocouple reading and the actual gas temperature (i.e., the error in the gas temperature measurement) increases for the larger diameter thermocouples, while it is reduced by increasing the gas flow velocity over the junction.”
My interpretation of this is that the larger TC will have a larger radiative area and will therefor stay at a cooler temp with the same gas flow speed as the smaller TC.
Actually you have that wrong, it is the dependence of the convective heat transfer coefficient on diameter that leads to the size dependence of the measured temperature.
A cool gas in a high radiative environment I would think is referring to a fire that is not close to the TC, and that the actual gas is not at the same temperature. While I don’t think Phil was being purposefully misleading with the gas heat/radiation source heat, I wonder how many people understood this issue until they read the paper. My misunderstandings were primarily around the idea that the thermocouple was in a Gas heater or furnace of some type where it would have been exposed to the primary source with little difference between the radiation heat source and the actual temp of the gas against the TC. My bad.
Andrew apparently had no difficulty, I was quite clear that the radiation source was at a much lower temperature than the flame..
Basically the LARGE errors are caused when the radiation from a fire directly affects the TC junction while the gas passing the TC is cooler than the source of the radiation. The shield prevents direct heating by distant sources and the increased convective speed helps reduce the delta due to the TC radiating. Two separate issues.
What Phil misrepresented, or I misunderstood, is that the TC runs too HIGH in the cool gas, hot IR situation and the shield LOWERS the temp of the TC. The gas itself must then be run past the TC faster to bring it close to the actual temp of the gas.
Interesting strategy, you find a paper that talks about the scenario I described i.e. a thermocouple immersed in a flame and also a scenario I did not describe that of a thermocouple near a flame and claim I misled you because I didn’t tell you about the second case!
This still doesn’t change the previous quote I posted from the second page of the paper where they flat state the increased flow increases convection for both the shield and the TC. In the cool gas hot IR scenario the shield is HOTTER than the TC NOT COOLER!!! Increased convective cooling by the gas cools the shield and warms the TC! Phil’s claim was wrong from the beginning that a cooler shield caused a higher temp of the TC by radiation.
No it is correct and confirmed by the paper you quote, a Th/C immersed in a flame is cooler than the flame temperature by virtue of radiational cooling to the surroundings. If a shield is placed around the Th/C then the hot shield is now in radiational exchange with the Th/C and its temperature is increased by virtue of cooling to the shield which is at an intermediate temperature between the Th/C and the surroundings.
As the NIST reference said:
“The shield is heated/cooled to a temperature which is intermediate between Tg and Ts and due to the strong dependence of radiation on temperature, significantly reduces the effects of radiation at the junction.”
Which is what I have said all along, the red herring you brought in about a Th/C that was outside a flame was never part of my posting.
Don’t believe me, read the paper. If I got it wrong, please let me know.
Yes you got it wrong, see above.
As a proxy for an intelligence test, let’s look at how different scientists might choose to increase the temperature of a gallon of water by 33C.
The chemist would think of whipping out a Bunsen burner and applying a heating flame to to a flask.
A mechanical engineer might rotate an impeller and get some direct mechanical-friction heating going like heating soup in my Vitamix.
An electrical engineer might apply current to a resistive heater and heat up a thermally conductive container.
The climate scientist would apply weak, diffuse IR radiation to a cold, rarefied gas and use an imaginary re-radiation effect to heat the water.
Let’s describe one of these methods as a giant, moronic FAIL.
Which one, my friends?
Well let’s have a proper scientific test, you know the sort of real world test that scientists use. So we’d have the water contained in the same design container, ideally a Dewar with the same surface area exposed to the air, thereby equalizing the heat losses. Let’s fix the heat input to be used by each method, since the measured IR incident on the Earth’s surface (say the Arctic in summer) is about 300W/m^2. So for a quarter of a m^2 that would be 75W, assuming it’s ice the mechanical method is out. As for the bunsen burner, at ~50MJ/kg for natural gas that’s 50J/mg, or 1.5mg/second, that’s a microburner!
Ken,
that may be the basis of a joke in a few years!! A chemist, an electrical engineer, a mechanical engineer, and a Climate Scientist are in a bar…
How about this Phil. We will let you use a powered infrared source that emits in the far infrared. The only stipulation is that it must heat the water directly and not through heating some other item!! 8>) You know,similar to the OCEANS!!
Fine I’ll use a 75W CO2 laser beam.
That’s an excellent choice for a heater, Phil.
Phil,
Sounds good, Now explain how the atmosphere simulates a laser beam.
When you tell me how the atmosphere represents a Bunsen burner! Or where the electrical current that Coffman’s electrical engineer would use comes from. Do try to keep up.
Phil,
how silly you are. The bunsen burner is the ground heated by the sun!! As you suggest, we can reduce the flame to appropriate amounts if you wish. Of course, the w/m2 of the laser then becomes a problem.
Wrong! Only an idiot would believe your scenario. The chemist, the mechanical engineer, the electrical engineer, and the climate scientist would all fill a pot with the water, place it on the stove, and turn on the heat.
Got another stupid statement you want to run by us Ken? Like telling us it doesn’t bother you that your Sky Dragon Slayer partner John O’Sullivan is a fraud, because you “like his ideas”?
There is indeed one “giant, moronic FAIL.” It’s the pseudoscience work of fiction you’re trying to pass off as “science” called Slaying the Sky Dragon.
As stupid as I am, you never hear me say things like this…
As a result of the greenhouse effect of the earth’s atmosphere and its convective nature, the present surface temperature is about 288 K. Thus, the surface temperature is 33 K warmer than the equilibrium temperature.
–K. N. Liou, An Introduction to Atmospheric Radiation, Chapter 8
Why not it’s true?
That’s why you’ll never hear him say it. Duh!
Ken,
have you noticed that there has been less and less talk about the Hot Spot?? My understanding is the Hot Spot is the necessary outcome of the water vapor feedback which causes a bottleneck in emitted radiation in the emission level of the atmosphere. We all know thet even the modellers have admitted that the basic Radiative Transfer of the GHG’s will give a minimal temperature rise. Only the FEEDBACKS, whose evidence is STILL MISSING, can make the GHG’s any kind of real problem.
I wonder when they will actually try and discuss this reality??? What excuse will they make to to get around this major issue?? If anything the Berkeley Reports CONFIRM that there is no problem from GoreBall Warming. The other part of the Hot Spot is that the temperature TRENDS in the atmosphere are the lowest at the ground and the highest in the upper troposphere. We see the REVERSE of this situation. No only is there no Hot Spot but there is absolutely no atmospheric gradient that is in the same universe as the output of the models. The final bit is that for the last 17 years the Strat temps have been flat when they need to be falling for a warming scenarion.
Basically the models are wrong. Until the Andrew S. and his sock puppets decide to address the physical realities of the atmosphere and admit the models have no skill in telling us what is happening any other discussion is pointless. Of course, to do that and maintain their agenda they would have to come up with new lies, er, explanations about the physics and how the earth environment reacts to it. I am not holding my breath.
Kuhmquat says, “I am not holding my breath.”
Won’t you please reconsider? Holding onto all that hot air and CO2 won’t solve the global warming problem, but it would be a nice gesture.
Well said, Kuhnkat. I’ve often said that activists like Skolnick should stop trying to convince me of the GHE and let me be, but they are not bright enough to figure this out. If I believed in CO2 modulated GHE, then I would take it as my duty to mankind and our children’s future to generate as much as humanly possible. I think I could create surprising amounts of it. Our species could use a few more degrees of warming and I’m deathly afraid of the cold. It could be that 5/6s or more of our fellow humans will not survive the next ice age unless we make a breakthrough in cheap, clean energy production. That’s where we should be applying our aptitude and productivity.
Coffman says to Kumquat, “I’ve often said that activists like Skolnick should stop trying to convince me of the GHE and let me be, but they are not bright enough to figure this out.”
Man, you two twits really do believe you live in your own reality — one where you get to push your rightwing-driven crack-pottery without interference from others.
Dream on.
Okay, how about another joke…this one about unintended consequences?
Why did KLC declare CO2 Appreciation Day and urge all of his friends to create as much as humanly possible?
Because a progressive activist told him not to.
Oooh, oooh, I got a joke.
Ken Coffman.
Funnier than a barrel of monkeys.
Actually they’d probably all put it in a microwave. What, use longwave radiation to heat water! ;-)
Are you saying the “GHE” is driven by the same physical process that heats water in a microwave oven? Are you saying that cold, rarefied gases are microwaving the Earth’s surface?
I guess you don’t know how the MSU temperature measuring system developed by Christy & Spencer (UAH) works? Think Microwave Sounding.
Think radiation from OXYGEN MOLECULES!!!
Ken Coffman | October 26, 2011 at 9:55 am | Reply
As a proxy for an intelligence test, let’s look at how different scientists might choose to increase the temperature of a gallon of water by 33C.
……………
Let’s describe one of these methods as a giant, moronic FAIL.
Which one, my friends?
Given that it’s an extremely biased, unscientific test, but as an apparent analogy to the Earth’s GHE obviously the ME, but it’s hardly his fault since you forgot to tell him that the water was ice at -18ºC
I don’t see that as relevant except that it proves my point even more…to unfreeze the earth, it would take a huge source of energy. Something like a giant, very hot celestial body nearby. If only there was one to be found.
Only a real knucklehead would believe that measurable energy comes from outgoing IR blocked or stored in a cold, rarefied atmosphere then re-radiated back toward the earth’s surface. To be clear, I don’t believe the earth’s surface would be -18C if there were no “GHE”. Sun heats water. Water heats air. Want to know how much the sun heats the earth? That’s easy. Use the average temperature of the earth as the thermometer. The average surface temperature of the tropical ocean is greater than 20C. That drives our climate with plenty of variability and complexity of surface albedo, tilt, wobble, cloud cover, aerosols, variability of incoming UV and water phase changes to factor into the equation. You don’t need to create–out of thin air–a human-controlled radiation modulator to make your math work out. But, if you want to? Go ahead. Want to know why I despise academics? That’s why. They don’t have to live in the real world.
Perhaps this will help. Let’s imagine radiation (which is the only significant method of transporting energy from the Earth’s surface to space) is proportional to the fourth power of the temperature difference between two places. Let’s assume for a moment that space is very cold. Now we see a large motivating force for radiation to escape to space. Now, what difference does it make what is in between? Is that how S-B works? You have to throw out or modify S-B if there is something between two things? Really?
Let’s imagine radiation (which is the only significant method of transporting energy from the Earth’s surface to space) is proportional to the fourth power of the temperature difference between two places.
Rather than the real world where it’s proportional to the difference of the fourth power of the temperatures?
You’re right Phil, my error. The difference of the quads, not the quad of the difference.
Like Stephen Colbert so cleverly quipped, “reality has a well-known liberal bias.” That’s why the rightwing nuts insist on creating their own reality.
I’ll go even further than Colbert: Reality is conspiring with the Communists to destroy us. Right Ken?
Coffman says, “Want to know why I despise academics? That’s why. They don’t have to live in the real world.”
Talk about not living in the real world, that’s got to be one of the most ridiculously stupid statements posted in this discussion.
Apparently the only academics Ken likes are those who make up their credentials like his Sky Dragon Slayer partners John O’Sullivan and Tim Ball.
Hi Bryan, ref. your comment of 26th October at 12:35 PM, you seem to be saying that absorption of E/M energy always results in an increase in the average kinetic energy of the molecules of the absorbing material. If you are not saying that then you seem to be distinguishing between E/M energy that causes such an increase (and calling it thermal radiation) and radiation that does not. As a retired Radio & Electronics Engineer I see no reason to distinguish one form of E/M radiation from another other than by its frequency.
I do not agree that “ .. Radiation is exaggerated out of all proportion by IPCC advocates .. ” but would say that the effects on the different global climates of gases that absorb IR radiation from the earth and hinder its escape to outer space are grossly exaggerated by the CACC supporters.
Your statement that “ .. radiative transfer is a very minor player in the troposphere .. ” is in my opinion incorrect, but I’m not an atmospheric physicist so please correct me if I’m mistaken. My understanding is that a significant proportion of the earth’s emitted IR radiation transfers unhindered to outer space through the troposphere (thank goodness, otherwise we wouldn’t be here). Looking at the spectra presented in Professor Petty’s book book “Introduction to Atmospheric Radiation” (http://sundogpublishing.com/AtmosRad/Excerpts/AtmosRad217.pdf) over the Sahara, I was under the impression that most of that escaping IR E/M energy was coming from the ground (via the troposhere and all of the rest of the atmosphere).
Here is what Roger Taguchi (who understands the science far better than do I, John O’Sullivan, or Ken Coffman, or Andrew Skolnick and I suspect many more contributing to the debate) said during discussions in September involving the “Slayers”, Professor Petty, Professor Curry and others on the subject of “The Greenhouse Effect” and “Back Radiation” QUOTE: ..
Chris Colose’s two short articles introducing the Greenhouse Effect to beginners .. is clear and accurate, because (1) the greenhouse effect is real and (2) his explanation in terms of a blanket is pretty good .. However, it is a blanket with very large holes in it [infrared (IR) emitted from the Earth’s surface travels unimpeded through the entire atmosphere at windows, e.g. between 800-1200 cm^-1 except for the 1000-1050 cm^-1 band due to ozone absorption]. ..
The IR that escapes to outer space is emitted from the Earth’s SURFACE (and a small amount from the tops of cool clouds). Increasing CO2 is comparable to decreasing the size of the holes in the blanket slightly (because further throttling occurs at the wings of the absorption curve, since the central frequencies have reached saturation, the equivalent of a very good thermal blanket which allows only a tiny trickle of heat to escape through the material itself). UNQUOTE.
He followed that in another thread of exchanges with the “Slayers” and others with QUOTE: ..
So here’s my explanation for the OLR: except at absorption bands due to greenhouse gases (which appear in the satellite spectra looking down on the Earth), the atmosphere is TRANSPARENT to IR photons emitted from the SURFACE of the Earth. This is most apparent between 800-1200 cm^-1 except for he ozone absorption between 1000-1080 cm^-1. The Barrow, Alaska spectrum looking UP from the ground shows essentially ZERO IR emission from the atmosphere at these frequencies: the atmosphere does NOT emit a black body spectrum. In spectra looking down on the Earth, the best-fitted black body curve measures the temperature of the emitting solid or liquid SURFACE of the Earth, not some atmospheric layer high in the troposphere.
Greenhouse gases absorb SOME of the IR emitted from the SURFACE of the Earth, and act as a blanket WITH VERY LARGE HOLES IN IT. Increasing CO2 makes the area of the holes somewhat smaller (but not linearly), so at energy balance with incoming Solar radiation, the surface temperature must rise to drive the same number of W/m^2 through the diminished windows .. UNQUOTE.
In the “PSI & Politics” E-mails Postma was exchanging opinions directly with Professor Petty, Dr. Shore, Dr. Matthias Kleespies (ex-slayer), John O’Sullivan, Ken Coffman, Chris Colose, and me, but all of the other “Slayers” were in the circulation, plus another 17 that included Professor Johnson, Professor Curry, Dr. Vincent Gray, Dr. John Nicol, Roger Taguchi, Pierce Morgan.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete Ridley
We seem to be failing to communicate properly.
Perhaps its my fault so I will try once again.
….”you seem to be saying that absorption of E/M energy always results in an increase in the average kinetic energy of the molecules of the absorbing material.”…….
No, in a previous post I gave two examples of where this does not happen.
……” you seem to be distinguishing between E/M energy that causes such an increase (and calling it thermal radiation) and radiation that does not. As a retired Radio & Electronics Engineer I see no reason to distinguish one form of E/M radiation from another other than by its frequency.”………
Well you will need to read up some Quantum Mechanics particularly ‘the photoelectric effect
……”I do not agree that “ .. Radiation is exaggerated out of all proportion by IPCC advocates .. ” but would say that the effects on the different global climates of gases that absorb IR radiation from the earth and hinder its escape to outer space are grossly exaggerated by the CACC supporters.”……
Well thats a matter of opinion I guess.
…..”Your statement that “ .. radiative transfer is a very minor player in the troposphere .. ” is in my opinion incorrect, but I’m not an atmospheric physicist so please correct me if I’m mistaken.”………
Well perhaps scienceofdoom might convince you when he says just that.
The dry adiabatic lapse rate is derived without reference to radiation.
……”My understanding is that a significant proportion of the earth’s emitted IR radiation transfers unhindered to outer space through the troposphere (thank goodness, otherwise we wouldn’t be here).”………
Agreed
……”Looking at the spectra presented in Professor Petty’s book book “Introduction to Atmospheric Radiation” (http://sundogpublishing.com/AtmosRad/Excerpts/AtmosRad217.pdf) over the Sahara, I was under the impression that most of that escaping IR E/M energy was coming from the ground (via the troposphere and all of the rest of the atmosphere).”……..
The bite at 15um is caused by thermalisation of that particular wavelength of CO2 absorption(assuming dry atmosphere).
The effect is to raise the temperature of the 99.97% of the atmospheres non radiative gases(N2,O2) who carry the small amount of heat off up by convection
Chris Colose and Joel Shore are on record as saying heat can travel spontaneously from a cold surface to a hot surface.
Clausius might as well never been born.
Joel to his credit now admits this was a mistake.
However neither can be trusted if it involves thermodynamics
………”In the “PSI & Politics” E-mails Postma was exchanging opinions directly with Professor Petty, Dr. Shore, Dr. Matthias Kleespies (ex-slayer), John O’Sullivan, Ken Coffman, Chris Colose, and me, but all of the other “Slayers” were in the circulation, plus another 17 that included Professor Johnson, Professor Curry, Dr. Vincent Gray, Dr. John Nicol, Roger Taguchi, Pierce Morgan.”…….
I look forward to the correspondence being released.
Postma was quite confident in his Jo Novo post.
I think that the adiabatic conditions of heat transfer of the troposphere will become the next ‘hot topic’.
So get up to speed by reading about the Carnot Cycle
I will be printing off and reading the excellent link to the radiative heat transfer chapter that you linked.
Best wishes
Bryan
I do not agree that “ .. Radiation is exaggerated out of all proportion by IPCC advocates .. ” but would say that the effects on the different global climates of gases that absorb IR radiation from the earth and hinder its escape to outer space are grossly exaggerated by the CACC supporters.
Your statement that “ .. radiative transfer is a very minor player in the troposphere .. ” is in my opinion incorrect, but I’m not an atmospheric physicist so please correct me if I’m mistaken. My understanding is that a significant proportion of the earth’s emitted IR radiation transfers unhindered to outer space through the troposphere (thank goodness, otherwise we wouldn’t be here). Looking at the spectra presented in Professor Petty’s book book “Introduction to Atmospheric Radiation” (http://sundogpublishing.com/AtmosRad/Excerpts/AtmosRad217.pdf) over the Sahara, I was under the impression that most of that escaping IR E/M energy was coming from the ground (via the troposhere and all of the rest of the atmosphere).
Here is what Roger Taguchi (who understands the science far better than do I, John O’Sullivan, or Ken Coffman, or Andrew Skolnick and I suspect many more contributing to the debate) said during discussions in September involving the “Slayers”, Professor Petty, Professor Curry and others on the subject of “The Greenhouse Effect” and “Back Radiation” QUOTE: ..
Chris Colose’s two short articles introducing the Greenhouse Effect to beginners .. is clear and accurate, because (1) the greenhouse effect is real and (2) his explanation in terms of a blanket is pretty good .. However, it is a blanket with very large holes in it [infrared (IR) emitted from the Earth’s surface travels unimpeded through the entire atmosphere at windows, e.g. between 800-1200 cm^-1 except for the 1000-1050 cm^-1 band due to ozone absorption]. ..
The IR that escapes to outer space is emitted from the Earth’s SURFACE (and a small amount from the tops of cool clouds). Increasing CO2 is comparable to decreasing the size of the holes in the blanket slightly (because further throttling occurs at the wings of the absorption curve, since the central frequencies have reached saturation, the equivalent of a very good thermal blanket which allows only a tiny trickle of heat to escape through the material itself). UNQUOTE.
He followed that in another thread of exchanges with the “Slayers” and others with QUOTE: ..
So here’s my explanation for the OLR: except at absorption bands due to greenhouse gases (which appear in the satellite spectra looking down on the Earth), the atmosphere is TRANSPARENT to IR photons emitted from the SURFACE of the Earth. This is most apparent between 800-1200 cm^-1 except for he ozone absorption between 1000-1080 cm^-1. The Barrow, Alaska spectrum looking UP from the ground shows essentially ZERO IR emission from the atmosphere at these frequencies: the atmosphere does NOT emit a black body spectrum. In spectra looking down on the Earth, the best-fitted black body curve measures the temperature of the emitting solid or liquid SURFACE of the Earth, not some atmospheric layer high in the troposphere.
Greenhouse gases absorb SOME of the IR emitted from the SURFACE of the Earth, and act as a blanket WITH VERY LARGE HOLES IN IT. Increasing CO2 makes the area of the holes somewhat smaller (but not linearly), so at energy balance with incoming Solar radiation, the surface temperature must rise to drive the same number of W/m^2 through the diminished windows .. UNQUOTE.
In the “PSI & Politics” E-mails Postma was exchanging opinions directly with Professor Petty, Dr. Shore, Dr. Matthias Kleespies (ex-slayer), John O’Sullivan, Ken Coffman, Chris Colose, and me, but all of the other “Slayers” were in the circulation, plus another 17 that included Professor Johnson, Professor Curry, Dr. Vincent Gray, Dr. John Nicol, Roger Taguchi, Pierce Morgan.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Reply See all comments in this post
Bryan,
Pete R. appears to communicate primarily by cut and paste. Not going to get too far there. May even be a sock puppet as it accused me of being.
kuhnkat | October 26, 2011 at 7:01 pm |
Think radiation from OXYGEN MOLECULES!!!
Yes Microwave radiation from cold, rarified O2 molecules at about 60GHz.
Phil,
You sure have a sense of humor.
What is the amount of energy from even the dense warm Oxygen at sea level and about 20c?
Remember how y’all tell us only the GHG’s emit in a substantive amount? Please do the calc for us!! Either the number is magnitudes too small or you just found some of Trenberth’s MISSING HEAT!!!
Any honest reader interested in who’s actually trying to censor scientific debate should read these reports about how Canada’s Conservative government under Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been using a variety of tactics to gag climate scientists receiving government funding from speaking to the news media.
http://www.care2.com/causes/muzzled-scientists-80-reduction-in-media-coverage-of-climate-change.html
http://www.care2.com/causes/from-government-to-campaign-trail.html
Meanwhile down south in the Banana Republic of Texas, President Wannabe Rich Perry’s rightwing government has been censoring the reports of federally funded environmental scientists.
Stephen Colbert was making an understatement when he said, “Reality has a well-known liberal bias.” Liberal bias, of course meaning any fact or opinion opposed by right wing ideologues and major corporate interests.
Back radiation did not show up in a model of the atmosphere based on chicken gauze.
But the results of the model indeed were coherent .
http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/IRabsW27102011.pdf
Of course not, because that model explicitly excluded back radiation and used a non-physical fudge to make the numbers work out. It’s rubbish!
Where is the non-physical “fudge”
I gave you all the equations.
In equation 1 what is the source of Tj^4?
For Ti >Tj : q(i==>j) = s(Ti^4 – Tj^4) and q(j==>i) = 0 (1
Phil,eq 1 is the generic equation for the exchange of heat between two surface with temperatures Ti and Tj.
Eq 1 is the Stefan Boltzmann law.
The paper has 26 pages, and around the equationsI explained a lot.
But you are on a good way.
Continue to read, and if you do not understand something, go back an alinea and read it again.
“Back radiation did not show up in a model of the atmosphere based on chicken gauze.”
It seems that from earth the radiation from the Moon is pretty weak,
but it should be able to work. These guys may have measured energy from the moon:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roLWoFIjkrI
and there is Joule’s Thermoscope:
http://www.globalwarmingsolutions.co.uk/joules_thermoscope.htm
In other words moonlight should heat the ground on earth by a very, very small amount, whereas I would say back radiation heats it less than Moonlight
Well gebaike, if you say so, then who are >95 percent of scientists now and in the past century to disagree? LOL!
I don’t understand your problem with the moon.
Read the paper, I took the flux on the top of the atmosphere from K&T and others, let the SW be absorbed by the K&T number, it touches the surface and is converted to LW. From that point on, I take care not to do a crime against the secon law.
Read the paper.
“I don’t understand your problem with the moon.”
It seems the moon radiates a small amount energy to earth,
yet one should able to make the Moon’s energy do work.
Does anyone claim back radiation can do any work- can you get
any power from it. If so, is it more than power one can get from the Moon.
STOP THE PRESSES! “Sky Dragon Slayers Self-Published Another Kook Report” — Yes, yet again we see figures don’t lie, just that liars and self-publishing kooks know how to figure.
JR, why are you endorsing a group of kooks, led by a shameless humbug, who has fabricated most of his professional and academic credentials? Don’t you realize that doing so reflects on your own integrity — or lack thereof?
You’ve based your self-published “research” paper on the self-published “research” and crackpot opinions of the Sky Dragon Slayers, some of whom lie about their academic and professional credentials. This is not science. It’s chicanery.
Thank you all for giving names.
But did you read the paper.
Yess Phil, deliberately I took out back radiation out of my balances of net heat flow.
Back radiation is a crime against the Second Law.
The problem is with thecomputer programs which use the Prevost-Fourier type of sources,that it is not done correctly.
Read the paper in detail, andhave shown you where things went wrong by the IPCC authors .
JWR
Nonsense, ‘back radiation’ is a fundamental principle of radiation heat transfer, read any text on the subject, Hottel would be a good place to start.
In your fantasy world an emitting object knows the temperature of the object it’s emitting to and adjusts its emission accordingly! We know that back radiation occurs in radiation heat transfer because we can measure it in laboratory experiments, this is not a GHE issue. The example I’ve referred to above of a thermocouple in a flame is a good illustration:
in real physics you have a Th/C in the flame at a temperature of,say, 1500K emitting proportional to 1500^4 in equilibrium with its surroundings at 300K and receiving 300^4 back. Put a radiation shield (at 1490K) around it and according to you it magically decides to only emit proportional to (1500^4-1490^4), despite still glowing bright yellow! That is voodoo physics.
Again Phil, try to read the paper.
In the paper you also find the references on discussions between IR-thermometer manufactures and distinguished university professors.
As concerns the way how in nature a “colder” surface knows that it has to behave according to the second law.people are thinking about that.
Read the posts I indicated from prof Claes Johnson, a distiguished professor in Stockholm.
But read the paper, in particular where I try to finf back radiation in my equations, which I included in the paper.
So do not say that “back radiation of heat from cold to warm” is a wll known established fact in radiation theory,the father of that theory Eddington warned already back in 1905 that people might misinterpret his theory of light.: It is the last sentence of my conclusion
Phil,
TCH TCH TCH, there you go again promoting a MODEL over their paper that used empirical observations. Just like a Climate Scientist.
No promoting real physics over nonsense. They didn’t use empirical observations they just pretended that a real physical effect wasn’t happening. The empirical result is that ‘back radiation’ exists and is the source of the Tj^4 term, pretending that it doesn’t exist isn’t science! Speaking of nonsense I noticed that you ran away and hid when your errors here kuhnkat | October 24, 2011 at 9:29 pm were pointed out.
Phil,
Present the paper where the model is validated or where you have done the experiment to validate it. Until then you are blowing more hot air than the model paper.
JWR | October 28, 2011 at 5:19 pm |
For Ti >Tj : q(i==>j) = s(Ti^4 – Tj^4) and q(j==>i) = 0 (1
Phil,eq 1 is the generic equation for the exchange of heat between two surface with temperatures Ti and Tj.
Eq 1 is the Stefan Boltzmann law.
No it isn’t because you have those two nonsensical conditions added!
The heat exchange between two surfaces involves a flux in both directions:
sTi^4 in one direction and sTj^4 in the other resulting in a net flux of:
s(Ti^4i-Tj^4)
The conditions you have added are completely non-physical.
sTj^4 is what is referred to in some contexts as ‘back radiation’ and is real and measurable. I notice you don’t address my example where the radiation is in the visible.
The paper has 26 pages, and around the equationsI explained a lot.
But you are on a good way.
Continue to read, and if you do not understand something, go back an alinea and read it again.
I’ve read it, equation 1 is wrong and your whole argument is based on defining back radiation away so there’s no point in proceeding further. Try going to your local university’s mechanical engineering department and presenting your paper! I suggest that you read this page on the subject (class notes from MIT).
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/SPRING/propulsion/notes/node136.html
Phil
I see a certain agressivity in your answers.
In fact the wires of my chicken gauze are black, and they have eps=1.
the factor “f” is just a ratio of surfaces.
The eps which is introduced gives the possibility that not only the wires emit but also the holes with O2 and N2.That effect is very small and in the runs eps is always taken as eps=1.
But Phill, why are you that agressivity, do you want that there is back radiation. There is not, as you can read in the paper.
Stefan BOltzmann is to be applied on pairs.
Let me take an example of daily live.
You love you wive very much, say infinitely much.
Her mother loves her also very much, say infinitely much.
But those two facts do not say anything about the relation between you and your mother in law.
And that is exactly what you do, calculating the flux from T1 to zeroK, and calculating the flux from T2 to zeroK, and you claim to have found the relation between T1 and T2.
No, there is the 2nd law saying that heat is going from warm to cold, and I put in my balances only the net flow. As simple as that. I get equations and I solve them. And the results are coherent.
Cut the crappy analogies and read the MIT reference I posted. Your paper is worthless regarding the existence or otherwise of backradiation because, as you agree you have defined there to be none but Included the Tj^4 term anyway. You can’t then turn around and say ‘see it doesn’t exist’, that’s a logical fallacy known as a circular argument, you’ve assumed the very thing you’re attempting to prove! Do yourself a favor and read the MIT piece and find out how real scientists and engineers handle radiation heat transfer. You say you put in net flux and talk about exchange, don’t you realize that you’re saying the flux goes both ways, there’s no reason to invent a non-physical magic property.
I read thelecture notes, and they are exactly the same as the one I had 55 years ago.
But why do you not accept that I write down balances of net heat flow?
On the very first page of the aticle , Ihad already foreseen people like you.
Read it.
And as one of the other bloggers said, read what is coming out, how the K&T type of balances with the huge back radiation is not what happens in reality.
I have a model of chicken gauze, and at the bottom I put a flux.
Write down your equations, with the Prevost-Fourier source terms.
And I might even make it easier for youshow me the results for four layers!
My equations for four layers are in the paper.
And solve them.
Why don’t you accept that you can’t neglect the second law of thermodynamics.And do not come with the argument that the net flow is from warm to cold, when you said I can not use the balance of net heat flow.
Who is making circle reasoning?
I read thelecture notes, and they are exactly the same as the one I had 55 years ago.
But why do you not accept that I write down balances of net heat flow?
I do, why don’t you? Net heat flow requires that there be a forward and reverse flux, your equations show this with a positive and negative flux term! Where does the Tj^4 come from if not the cooler body? Your equations contain a negative flux term related to the temperature of the cooler body (Tj), give a physical source for it or otherwise accept that your model includes ‘back radiation’. The ‘null hypothesis’, which some on here like to talk about, is in this case that the Tj^4 term is incoming radiation from the cooler body. To overturn that you must propose a convincing physical mechanism for that term which does not involve ‘backradiation’. So far you and your cohorts have failed to do this.
As far as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is concerned, it is not violated when radiation is exchanged between two bodies as long as the net flow is towards the hotter one. By the way you shouldn’t use the term ‘exchange’ in your paper since that also indicates flux in both directions and, therefore the existence of ‘backradiation’.
As it stands your paper is self-contradictory, non-physical nonsense.
Your scattering equations are wrong too, elastic scattering of visible light by water droplets will be predominantly forwards i.e. towards the surface!
All the questions and the arguments you make have been foreseen in my paper.
Look at page 18, where I try to findthe non existing back radiation.
On that page eq (2) is the correct way of interpolating physically SB.
In equation (2a) , which is the same equation as (2), but re-arranged algebraically, you say , hura, there is my back radiation.
But it is a wrong physical interpretation of the individual terms!
Think about the comparison between the fact that you love your wife very much, and her mother loves her very much too, it does not say anything about the relation between you and your mother in law.
So read page 18, read it again, discuss it with your friends if you have any,
ask Judi Curry, ask whoever you want, and come with your equations for 3 layers.
If you are not coming with equations, you are what we called in my DC time as scientific counselor, a saloon scientist.
Phil
Just read your MIT link.
Its in accordance with orthodox physics.
Plates can (and will ) radiate to each other.
The net flux is what we call Heat and it always moves from higher temperature to lower temperature (never spontaneously the reverse).
Clausius second law.
However the notes could be written more carefully.
In 19.3.1 the material between the walls is not stated and yet it is then compared to cork.
Are are meant to conclude that it is a vacuum?
I remember a school experiment where two thermos flasks were filled with water at 90C and then compared compared.
One with seal intact – a vacuum between the walls.
One with a broken seal – air between walls.
The broken seal flask lost heat very quickly in spite of air being a very poor conductor of heat.
It would not have lost any more heat by radiation.
The reason for the heat loss would be mainly due to convection.
Convection as you know is by far the major method of heat transfer in the atmosphere.
Why is there such a fixation on radiation?
JWR
The reason is that we have to get rid of the claims that the admosphere absorbs with a coefficiet around 9,8( IPCC authors but also Ferenc Miskolsczi)
In the chicken gauze model which I developed, and of which the results are coherent, it is shown that it is not the case.
Back radiation, whether claimed to be the result of computer programs, or claimed to have been measured, is not a physical phenomenon.
Now every body can calculate it on his own computer, the equations are given in the paper.
And I agree with you, convection is the main mechanism that heat is transported to the tropopauze, and from there radiated into outer space.
Just read your MIT link.
It’s not mine
Its in accordance with orthodox physics.
Plates can (and will ) radiate to each other.
The net flux is what we call Heat and it always moves from higher temperature to lower temperature (never spontaneously the reverse).
Clausius second law.
Indeed, but as I pointed out above, net flux is the result of flux in both directions, use of net flux means that there is ‘backradiation’.
However the notes could be written more carefully.
In 19.3.1 the material between the walls is not stated and yet it is then compared to cork.
Are are meant to conclude that it is a vacuum?
It’s termed a Thermos so that is normally a vacuum.
Convection as you know is by far the major method of heat transfer in the atmosphere.
Why is there such a fixation on radiation?
I don’t accept your premise, but the reason there is a ‘fixation on radiation’ is that it’s the only mechanism by which heat leaves the planet.
Sorry, should be 0.8 for the absorption coefficient of IPCC.
While Nasif Nahle has measured 0.2
JWR | October 29, 2011 at 5:24 pm |
All the questions and the arguments you make have been foreseen in my paper.
But not answered! Tell us what the source of Tj^4 is, you haven’t addressed that anywhere. It’s a term in your equation, surely you know what the physical origin of it is? Most scientists and engineers attribute it to back radiation. I suggest you read Hottel and Sarofim, “Radiative Heat Transfer”
Phil
Try to understand, there is no source for Tj!
A surface “i” urface “j”with Ti>Tj is sending to surface “j” a quuantity of heat
sigma*(Ti^4-Tj^4)
Forget about the source of Tj.!
The Second Law of Thermodynamics, from the information that Tj<Ti sends from surface "i": sigma(*Ti^4-Tj^4)and not sijma*Ti^4.
Capisch,?
You have to accept that nature sends information, in order that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is satisfied.
I ask you again read the discussion on page 18, concerning equation (2) and (2a)
And don't forget, come up with your equartions for 3 layers!
All the people following this blog are waiting for it, and the solution.!
I can tell you, you will lose, back radiation is a crime against the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
If it were a federal law, you would be in jail!
Phil I said
….”I Just read your MIT link”….
You replied
….”It’s not mine”…..
Are you a total pratt as well as being a plonker?
I realise you are not MIT
You gave a link to an MIT paper which I referred to.
Is your only purpose here to provoke pointless disputes?
Its a waste of time responding to people who argue for the sake of an argument.
A psychiatrist could perhaps be of more assistance to you.
No I was pointing out that it was not from my class which your remark might have meant, I didn’t want someone later suggesting that I claimed that, just trying to be clear. Perhaps you could have said ” the MIT link that you posted”, why so touchy?
Bryan,
I think Phil’s goal in life is to qualify for a job at the Monthy Python Argument Clinic.
Moderator, why is it that Kuhnkat is allowed to make contentless posts such as this one but replies are snipped?
Phil
Try to understand, there is no source for Tj!
A surface “i” urface “j”with Ti>Tj is sending to surface “j” a quuantity of heat
sigma*(Ti^4-Tj^4)
Forget about the source of Tj.!
The Second Law of Thermodynamics, from the information that Tj<Ti sends from surface "i": sigma(*Ti^4-Tj^4)and not sijma*Ti^4.
Capisch,?
This is physics not black magic, of course there is a source for Tj^4!
You have to accept that nature sends information, in order that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is satisfied.M
No I don’t, it’s an absurd proposition, transmission of ‘information’ at the speed of light so that the hotter body knows how much flux to emit. What nature sends is energy flux from the cooler to the hotter, cancelling out part of the flux from the hotter body (the meaning of ‘net’). The Second law is perfectly satisfied by the net flow of radiation being from the hotter to the cooler.
And why do you object when Imake balances of net flow of heat.
Everything you say, I did foresse it.
Read my introduction.
I make balances of net flow of heat, and I get n equations for n unknowns.
Let us say that it are real unknowns.
In the introduction I left you the possibility of putting at each level two imaginary fluxes, one imaginiary up, and one down, as you claim.
If somebody wants to make a balance of those imaginary fluxes, you are free, but it does not give any information. Because at each station the two imaginary fluxes drop against each other.
Are you working on the equations for 3 layers?
I have given my equations. See also my appendix 1 where I apply the general expression to one slab, and as I said in the introduction in the case of a single slab the results are the same, as for a formulation where you put at level 2 two equal fluxes in opposite direction.
We are waiting for yours.
The “two fluid” advocates like Phil don’t trouble me, but they have to be very careful not to double-count the influences. For example, if you calculate outgoing radiation based on surface temperature, you should know the temperature reading already includes any possible effect of “back radiation” so you don’t get to add more in later. It amuses me that the “warmists” think of “back radiation” as an agent of coherency rather than an agent of chaos–a dissipative effect–like conduction and convection. Really? “Back radiation” can act against conduction and convection…it can act in an opposite, contrary manner? That’s lovely.
To detect the effect of “back radiation” which will have a feedback time delay in the range of zero up to a few milliseconds, you’d need a very fast method of measuring temperature and then not integrate or average the readings. Think this has ever been done?
I’m sure many of the denizens will not have the vaguest idea what I’m talking about. Keep clinging to the idea that outgoing energy is absorbed into cold, rarefied air, gets thermalized, then returns to the Earth’s surface to make it warmer than it already was. I’d have some sympathy for an argument that outgoing radiation is reflected back to the Earth’s surface, but that’s not what anyone is claiming. I suppose its because that tiny amount of energy is too easily measured and doesn’t come anywhere near solving Trenberth’s missing heat problem. So it goes.
I don’t object to you modelling with net flux, what I object to is your pretending that there isn’t a real flux in each direction. Your calling them ‘imaginary’ doesn’t make it so, when you model with net flow you can’t make any determination about the flow in either direction, so your declaration that there is no backradiation is nonsense.
Phil
I tell you what I do.
I make balances of net heat flow.
I get equations, and I solve them.
The results are coherent.
What else do you want?
Why do you not look into the applications, and you will find out that the coherent approach gives coherent answers.
And why do you not show the equations fore three layers?
Every body is waiting, Brian, Ken Koff, Judy Curry and many others.man
With all due respect, Phil, I have said over and over that I do not know anyone who disputes the fact that all things with mass and temperature radiate. I don’t consider that controversial or worth discussing. My observation is that we have huge masses directly heated by the sun…and there are people who think these huge masses are measurably heated (33C!!!) by rarefied gases suspended in a cold, thin atmosphere.I know the net effect of conduction, convection and yes, radiation, is to dissipate…they all are agents of cooling, of entropy, of chaos. Outgoing energy is what? Blocked? Blocked by what? Trapped? Really? Trapped by what? Stored? Stored in what that has significant thermal mass and thermal storage capability compared to ocean water? What do you think can be done with radiation? The only thing you can do is delay its escape to space by a few milliseconds. From that, mankind is going to destroy the ecosystem? Give me a break.
With kindness, JWR is gently illuminating your foolishness. Pay attention.
I don’t know anything about Venus, so I don’t feel qualified to say anything about it.
You have to Ken, otherwise you are part of a scientific cult. Venus is what we call a limiting case for CO2 as a greenhouse gas. If you can’t explain the runaway heating effects on Venus with your theory then you will be marginalized. This is what Feynman said about Cargo Cult theories in science:
“When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.”
In other words, your theory has to come out right for Venus. And since Venus is a limiting and almost extreme case, it should be a snap for you to explain.
Ken,
speaking about what isn’t included… I was trying to educate myself and looked up SB and its assumptions. It seems that one of the assumptions is that the geometry of the object or surface is that it is not allowed to irradiate itself. That got me thinking about the work with solar cookers where they are exposed to open air at night and can freeze water with an air temp as high as 40F. It won’t freeze if something like a tree or house etc. is irradiating the water!! So, we are told that the DLR from GHG’s slow heating. Wouldn’t the direct radiation from other surfaces have an even larger effect as it is a wider spectrum and more energy?? Wouldn’t the ROUGHNESS of the surface possibly have apart of the effect being assigned to GHG’s???
Are they really that sloppy or have I missed something??
Weby,
John Ackerman probably has the best explanation of Venus, although it is difficult with the lack of data. Other scientists have hinted at some of what he states, but, won’t buck the consensus.
You are wasting my time with references to John Ackerman and to other loons debating QM. I missed the sky dragon threads in the past but this hole is like an endless Art Bell radio show. I think it is just as challenging to build on currently accepted physics to explain something rather than jumping to bizarre new notions of how nature operates.
Weby,
since most of your analyses and posts are based on insufficient, poor, and inappropriate data and models I thought he would be perfect for you!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Kuhnkat, I don’t think you are barking at the wrong tree. You should be wary anytime someone claims natural processes act as agents of coherence…for example, when a warmista claims that outgoing energy goes into the air, then part of it comes back to make the surface warmer than it was. Of course, there are exothermic chemical reactions, heating due to focused and tuned microwaves and heating due to reflecting and focusing lenses (this reminds me of the experiment where it appears that cold gets focused, but nevermind that for now). I keep waiting for one of the brilliant climate gurus to claim the atmosphere works in one of those manners, but they prefer handwaving and skirting the central issues. This is a good call on their part…it’s carried them a long way.
How funny, Ken. This hasn’t stopped you from talking about thermodynamics, climatology, and other subjects you don’t know anything about.
From long years of study and experience, I am qualified to talk about the practical aspects of conduction, convection, radiation as it applies to climate science. I am pleased and happy to learn from people more expert on these topics than me, but I’m sad to report, Andrew, you aren’t one of them.
Good to know, Ken. Now that we know it’s not from ignorance that you continue to misrepresent the laws of thermodynamics to deny the warming effects of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we’re left with only a deliberate desire to deceive.
Excellent comment, Andrew. Shall I tell you what you think?
You think doubling CO2 concentration restricts outgoing LWR by stimulating resonant CO2 molecules which increases the air temperature by 1C which allows more WV to be suspended which via positive feedback increases the Earth’s surface temperature by 3-4C. You think that without “greenhouse” gases, the Earth’s surface temperature would be 33C colder.
Then you say I’m the one who does not understand thermomechanics.
Ken says, “Then you say I’m the one who does not understand thermomechanics.”
Well, for a start Ken, you don’t seem to even know what it’s called. It’s called “thermodynamics.”
But my real issue is not what you know about the laws of thermodynamics, it’s with your persistent attempt to misrepresent those laws, not out of ignorance, but for the purpose of pushing a right-wing, anti-science agenda — much as the right-wing Creationists have been doing for decades, pushing their shamelessly false definition of the 2nd Law of thermodynamics in their dishonest war on modern science,
For decades, the world-wide science community has seen kooks, crackpots, and political opportunists misrepresent thermodynamics to confuse the public about science. So your tactics are hardly new.
Andrew, you’ve never heard of thermomechanics? You’re not an engineer, so I guess that’s to be expected. If you like, you can add the word to your vocabulary. You’re welcome.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/thermomechanics
Oh, I know the meaning of “thermomechanics” as well as I know the difference between “thermomechanics” and “thermodynamics.” Apparently you don’t, which is why you’re using these different words interchangeably.
You ought to look at the definition that YOU provided yourself and compare it with the definition of the subject we are actually discussing: thermodynamics
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/thermomechanics
Thermomechanics: “The study of the effects of heat upon the
mechanical properties of materials.“
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/thermodynamics
Thermodynamics: “The science of the conversions between
heat and other forms of energy.“
When you and the other Sky Dragon Slayers try so hard to twist and confuse subjects in order to deceive people, you usually wind up twisted and confused yourself — as your latest blunder demonstrates.
As I draw ever closer to the million words Jerry Pournelle says I need write to become an expert writer, I don’t feel any need for you, Andrew, to help me pick my words. I’m an engineer. I tend to think in terms of mechanics…even with regard to heat transfer. How about if you surprise me and say something intelligent about thermodynamics, thermomechanics or thermo-anything instead of harassing me and cementing your reputation as a tedious nit.
Thanks again Ken for further proving my point that — like the rest of the Sky Dragon Slayers — you think you are entitled to make up your own reality and force it down everyone else’s throat, without anyone yelling foul.
You must be deluded to believe you can use the word “thermomechanics” incorrectly, then post a link to the definition that proves you had misused the word, yet continue to falsely claim that “thermomechanics” and “thermodynamics” have the same meaning.
Besides death and taxes, Ken, you can count on the certainty of having your sophistry exposed by people fed up with your cabal of charlatans and big oil cronies who are working hard to deceive the public.
When you enter a public forum like this to play pseudosceintific word games, you should expect to be mocked.
Still waiting…
“We are waiting for yours.
JWR and Ken Coffman please explain the planet Venus.”
Apparently no one can explain Venus.
But what is important about Venus is it is closer to the Sun.
One has the obvious condition of receiving twice the solar flux as compared to earth.
Less considered is it’s orbital speed, which on average is 35 km/sec.
Compared to Earth’s 29.8 km/sec.
This might seem fairly insignificant.
Maybe it’s converted to kph or mph it could change someone’s
perception, but maybe not.
The orbital speed of a planet such as earth or venus, is significant in terms of impact velocity of space rocks. And the gravity of either body is relatively insignificant.
Kinetic energy equal 1/2 mass times velocity squared.
At 29.8 km/sec a 1 kg object has 28900 times 28900 divide by 2
KE. At 35 km/sec it’s 35000 times 35000 divide by 2
417.6 million joules and
612.5 million joules
So the same rock to killed the dinosaur would have about 50% more energy if instead it hit venus.
The rock that killed the dinosaur made a huge crater in Mexico,
if it had hit Venus, I am not certain it would impact the surface- I suppose it would, but a lot it’s energy would imparted to it’s atmosphere.
It’s common knowledge that if you were blow up a dinosaur killing rock but it’s pieces still hit earth- the result could/would be more people would die. Due to most the energy would be imparted on Earth atmosphere instead of being localized- it would incinerate everyone, globally.
So with space rocks with venus, incinerating globally would the normal result from any large rock.
For Earth or Venus to be hit by a dinosaur rock is fairly rare- once every 100 to 200 million year. Chance occuring in last couple million year fairly low- about 1 %.
A smaller rock would higher chance, say instead 10 kilometer in diameter it’s 1 km in diameter?
“Asteroids with a 1 km (0.62 mi) diameter strike the Earth every 500,000 years on average”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_event
With such a size rock, likely 1 or 2 hit venus within last couple million years. I think it couldn’t hit the Venus surface and all the energy would go into heating the atmosphere.
Suppose without a rock hitting Venus, Venus atmosphere is 100 to 300 C cooler. And a 1 km diameter rock Venus, hit Venus 100,000 years ago. So somewhere are 20% chance.
Could that affect the planet’s temperature today?
Someone would have to do the math, as wild guess say one has a venus “ocean” of CO2 at 100 C, it might heat up to around 1000 C. And within days or weeks, month lower to around 800 C, and maybe years to lower below 700 C, and centuries to get below 600 to 500 C.
Instead it’s 100 meter diameter rock and added only 50-100 C.
Maybe Venus baseline is 200 to 300 C
But it’s very unlikely [or impossible] that a rock 100 meter or larger did not impact Venus in last million years. Or even a thousand centuries.
The only question is what was the biggest rock that could a significant effect on Venus atmospheric temperature and how many years ago was it?
But main thing is venus is close to the Sun and if at earth distance even with it’s huge CO2 atmosphere it would far cooler.
gbaikie, what a tool. You can fill in what kind.
Webhubtelescope,
I am a retired mechanical engineer, was looking to all those discussions, was astonished that people come up with ideas that colder clouds are sending heat to the surface, and I started on the back of an envelop to write down equations for one single slab.(see my appendix 1, then I took a bigger piece of paper did it for two, three layers, and finally I generated equations for ‘n’ layers.
I call it a chicken wire model,because people were saying that you can’t apply SB to gases.
Then I was looking for a temperature distribution in the atmosphere.
I took the lapse rates as has been measured:ELM environmental lapse rates
Then I applied my chicken wire model to the K&T data, taking surface temperature Ts=15 C and the lapse rate ELM=-6.5 K/km
And I get coherent results.
That is all.
My little program of 2 pages on MATLAB showed me that K&T and all the others are exagerating the absorption, they take ftot=0.8.
With a name as you.probably you know al ot more of VENUS than I, because I only know that there is a high concentration of CO2, that the amount of gases is nearly 100 times more than on earth that the gravity constant g is about equal to that of earth, and that cp of CO2 is about equal to that of earth.
But you have my equations, why do not you apply them yourself, with such a name there are certainly colleagues who can help you.
To raise the temperature of 1 kg of CO2 from 400K to 600K requires
about 1 kJ per degree, so 200 kJ.
Venus atmosphere is ~4.8 x 10^20 kg.
So require 960 x 10^20 kJ. Or 9.6 x 10^25 joules.
A 1 km diameter spherical rock with density of 2 has
1.0 x 10^9 tonnes or 1.0 x 10^12 kg
Average velocity of Earth is about 20 km/sec
For Venus we use 30 km/sec [though it could be twice fast].
So 9.0 x 10^8 times 1.0 x 10^12 divided by 2
So 4.5 x 10^20 joules
Wow. Doesn’t warm it by 1 C.
Try it at 40 km/sec [and re-check].
Nope still not a 1 C.
So far less likely then I thought.
So bigger rock, 10 km- the dinosaur rock size.
So 1.0 x 10^12 tonnes. And 4.5 x 10^23 joules.
And that warms by about 1 C
So it require a rock so big that it an extinction level
rock- if such rock hit earth it kill all life- something
we haven’t had for 1/2 billion to 3.8 billion years,
but less than 100 km in diameter- 100 km would be 10^26 joules.
So space rock is very unlikely.
And probably if space rock, then probably
a comet [80+ km/sec]. Something like Halley’s comet:
“The 1910 passage was at a relative velocity of 70.56 km/s”
Dimensions 15×8 km,[3] 11 km (mean)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halley%27s_Comet
And at Venus distance it would be faster.
NEOs cross earth’s path more often, but not many big NEOs
the biggest NEO is 1036 Ganymed which 32 miles in diameter
which would work, but the chance that size range rock is probably lower than chance of impact from a comet.
Anyhow do Ganymed like asteroid: 40 km diameter at 40 km/sec.
3.3 x 10^13 tonnes and 3.3 x 10^16 kg
equals 2.6 x 10^25 joules or adds around 60 C.
and same size comet at 80 km/sec
Is 1.0 x 10^26 joules which would add more than 200 C
.
mass of earth ocean is 1.4×10^21 kg less than 3 times venus atmosphere but water has twice the heat capacity so Earth ocean would cool or warm 5 times slower.
Now remember reading somewhere, ah:
Earth radiate same energy it receives- 1.54 x 10^17 joules
“Effective Temperature, K 220 255 212”
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2002Q4/211/notes_greenhouse.html
Venus effective temperature 220 K
If venus radiates same energy [it says above it radiate less] at 1.54 x 10^17 joules lost per second how many second to lose 9.6 x 10^25 joules?
623 million seconds and 31 million second in a year- 19 years.
But say you increase Venus temperature so instead of effective temperature being 220 K it’s 255 K. Without any sunlight it would cool back to 220 K in few years: The difference of 200 C is 9.6 x 10^25 joules to lose 35 C takes about 3 years- without any solar energy added. And with sunlight- obviously longer.
Of course some rock bigger than 10 km will add some dust.
But anyhow- it far less likely than I thought- far less than 1 % chance.
Ken Coffman | October 30, 2011 at 7:54 am |
The “two fluid” advocates like Phil don’t trouble me, but they have to be very careful not to double-count the influences.
Good, it’s standard physics after all.
To detect the effect of “back radiation” which will have a feedback time delay in the range of zero up to a few milliseconds, you’d need a very fast method of measuring temperature and then not integrate or average the readings. Think this has ever been done?
Why do you imply that it has not?
For example, put a fine wire thermocouple in a steady hot flame measuring ~1300ºC open to the room (i.e. no hot walls), it should have a nice orange glow. Now put a thin plate in the flame parallel to the Th/C, you will see the temperature of the Th/C rise to a new steady state, remove the plate and you’ll see the temperature drop. If you do it right and look at the Th/C with the plate in the background you’ll see that the Th/C is slightly brighter than the plate because it is hotter.
I don’t care anything about the thermocouple until you tell me it is hotter than than the source of the applied heat. I know you can regulate the rate of cooling. Turn off the flame and heat your thermocouple with all that “back radiation” that is flying around. Does the thermocouple get hotter? Regardless of how much you love Trenberth energy balance diagrams, “back radiation” in a system like this is not a source of energy.
And, I know how a microwave oven works, but that mechanism is irrelevant to the topic of global warming unless you think the “GHE” or the thermocouple in or near a flame is heated with focused and tuned microwaves.
I don’t care anything about the thermocouple until you tell me it is hotter than than the source of the applied heat. I know you can regulate the rate of cooling.
Yes by increasing the rate of incoming radiation from the plate as opposed to the surroundings at 300K. The loss from the Th/C also increases because its temperature increases.
Well Phil,
since you are determined to bring in solid objects irradiating each other as a mechanism to slow cooling, please tell me what happens when something is projecting from the surface of the earth. Don’t these projections, be they plants, trees, walls, mountains… irradiate each other? Don’t they slow each others cooling?? Isn’t this why SB has a limitation, that an object can’t have a configuration where it irradiates itself for the calculation to be accurate?? (meaning the modelled temp of the tubular shield is not accurate unless there is an adjustment for self irradiation)
The solid object will have radiation closer to a black body than the atmosphere so should be more effective also!!
What does that tell you about the Trenberth diagram and other Climate computations? Doesn’t that mean that part of the effect of GHGs are actually surface roughness irradiating itself???
You get worse! I take from this post that you are unaware of Kirchoff’s poposal of cavity radiation as a means of generating bb radiation for experimental study. Also that this was the method by which the S-B law was verified! Over a century ago.
Phil,
you did not address the issue but ran off on a tangent accusing me of not understanding prior science.
The limitations of SB are clearly stated as requiring that the geometry not allow self irradiation. This would distort the computation, not make it totally useless.
Answer the question. Wouldn’t the surface of the earth, due to its roughness, cause it to irradiate itself changing the actual energy flows in a way that would decrease the assumed influence GHG’s.
You cannot deny this and even kid about your claims of the cooler shield slowing the cooling of the TC.
Phil,
is this based on your unverified model paper again or is this your calibrated eyeball giving us the readings?? You do realize there are things called optical illusions don’t you??
Based on many verified papers and standard texts such as Hottel and Sarofim. I suggest you google sodium line reversal.
Phil,
Where is the hard data backing up your claim? When you present that we can continue.
Asked and answered many times, read the material.
Yup,
I asked and you referredme to the paper that used an unvalidated model. I guess that we are finished with that one again until you try to use it on someone else
Referring me to RT equations or SB just doesn’t quite cover the situation.
And he’s going to keep asking many times more while denying you provided hard data to back up your claim. Phil, that’s just what Kumquat and the other Sky Dragon Deniers do. They just deny and deny. You can no more convince such intellectually dishonest people with fact and reason than you can succeed in shoveling water up hill.
Their purpose is to make a lot of noise in order to fool the public into thinking there’s a scientific debate still going on. Polls have shown these fakers have been extraordinarily successful in pulling the scam off — in large part because too many scientists naively believe they can carry on an honest debate with deniers.
Whether it’s Holocaust deniers, tobacco is carcinogenic deniers, evolution deniers, HIV causing AIDS deniers, or anti-vaccine deniers, their methods are the same: to keep engaging authorities in endless, unwinnable debates so they can claim falsely that most of the world’s scientists have not reached a consensus.
Ken Coffman | October 30, 2011 at 9:57 am |
With all due respect, Phil, I have said over and over that I do not know anyone who disputes the fact that all things with mass and temperature radiate. I don’t consider that controversial or worth discussing.
Really, then you haven’t been reading carefully, that’s exactly what JWR is saying! He says explicitly that there is no radiation from the cooler of the two objects in radiative equilibrium but that the hotter of the two ‘knows’ by some undefined mechanism that it should send a reduced flux towards the second body (but a different amount elsewhere)!
It’s his foolishness that needs illuminating, why don’t you pitch in given the views you’ve expressed above?
(but a different amount elsewhere)!
Should be ‘everywhere else’
JWR | October 30, 2011 at 10:27 am |
Phil
I tell you what I do.
I make balances of net heat flow.
I get equations, and I solve them.
The results are coherent.
What else do you want?
Because according to you there is no net heat flow there is only heat flow from the hotter body, however you use equations that explicitly include a negative heat flux term! You then say that it’s not a negative flux but some voodoo physics whereby the hotter body ‘knows’ to emit the appropriately reduced amount of light. Your equation is OK, it’s the ridiculous interpretation of it that’s the problem. If there’s no reverse flow then it’s not ‘net flow’ but something else, the hot body is not ‘exchanging’ with the cooler body either it’s sending it. Your language is at odds with your message, according to you there’s no ‘net flow’ or ‘exchange’ but you use those words to describe your equations.
Your position is a logical absurdity, as an example consider the following:
The sun is illuminating the earth, photons from all over the near surface of the sun are reaching the earth transporting energy corresponding to (5800^4-255^4), however photons from the same locations are also travelling into outer space and they must transport energy corresponding to (5800^4-4^4). How do the photons know what their ultimate destination is and make the appropriate adjustment?
Good, Phil. I understand why the “two fluid” analysis appeals to you because it gets you away from the “spooky, instantaneous action at a distance” effects. It’s perfectly fine. However, when using two fluid analysis you have to be very careful not to add energy to to the system by double-counting. Every measurement of surface temperature already includes whatever small effect there might be from “back radiation”. You can’t move energy into the atmosphere, store it, then sum it back in as fresh, new energy adding to the Earth’s surface temperature.
Actually de Broglie tried to move us in a direction that could have answered the question of how radiation could KNOW where it was going, or not!! It would have probably have helped to explain entanglement and other recent issues!!
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0609/0609184v2.pdf
JWR is one of those kooks who choose magical thinking over science. It’s a fool’s errand to try to educate them. You see a lot of magical thinking among the deniers of evolution — who wrote the playbook many global warming deniers are now using.
Creationists were the first to rewrite and misrepresent the Laws of Thermodynamics in their effort to fool the uneducated into believing scientists don’t know what they’re talking about.
JWR, Ken Coffman, Bryan, Kuhnkat, Claes Johnson, John The Humbug O’Sullivan, and the rest of these Sky Dragon Slayers similarly misrepresent the Laws of Thermodynamics in their persistent and noisy effort to deceive the public.
That’s why arguing about thermodynamics with them is a waste of breath and finger tips. They know their statements are false and misleading — just as Creations “Scientists” know they’re deliberately omitting the vitally important phrase “in a closed system” from the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
I have no doubt the Sky Dragon Slayers know they’re deliberately trying to mislead people by falsely claiming the laws of thermodynamics prevent radiation from a cooler surface being adsorbed by a warmer surface. An ignorant person might believe this, but an ignorant person can be educated. These are not ignorant people. These are people who are deliberately trying to fool others.
I’ve said over and over you can be a “two fluid” physicist and I won’t argue with you. I understand the attraction of summing of outgoing and incoming radiation and as long as you do your accounting carefully, you won’t run into a problem. However, if you’re not careful with your data and your assumptions, you can double-count energy and get more out of a system than you put into it. That path leads to perpetual motion machines.
For myself, I prefer to think of radiation arising from a flux compelled by the universe constantly trying to maximize entropy. I understand this takes a person into spooky territory, but we don’t know what motivates forces like magnetism, gravity and heat flow. We can measure and quantify the effects, but we are far from understanding the underlying mechanics.
Michael Faraday was a “one-fluid” analyst. I’m happy to stand or fall with him. There are lots of “two fluid” analysts. That’s fine. Do your accounting with care and you have no problem with me.
Thanks Andrew, I haven’t been following the Sky Dragon discussion too closely so I find it helpful to name the crackpots. Otherwise they tend to be evasive when you try to pin them down on their scientific beliefs. Does Harry Hoffman also belong to this cult?
JWR, gbaike, khunkat, Bryan and many others. This thread is a good index of those who should be ignored. Unfortunately Judith has not figured that out yet…
Hi Rattus, what made you crawl over to this thread? I had a couple of unwelcome visitors from next door. The Deadfast soon sorted that problem out (http://www.capitalgardens.co.uk/deadfast-rat-killer-p-24390.html). Perhaps the blog administrator can use his equivalent virtual pest eradicator on the cowards here who hide behind false names when hurling their insults at others. At least Andrew Skolnick, who shows no respect for anyone with whom he disagrees, and all of the “Slayers” that he insults incessantly (especially lead-slayer John O’Sullvan) has the courage of his convictions and makes it easy for anyone to track him down.
I see that you are a devout follower of the CACC religion (attacking anyone who challenges it) and fully support the infamous “Hockey Team” even when it has been thoroughly discredited. You consider Professor Curry to QUOTE: .. Make unsupportable claims and when they are shown to be false walk them back by claiming “I never said that” .. UNQUOTE and consider Steve McIntyre to be a “chronic dissembler” (that lovely word again Andrew – see 25th October at 9:27 am). Having read quite a lot of your comments “ .. makes me wonder at your qualifications .. ”. You certainly aren’t a physicist but have a keen interest in (and some understanding of) plant biology (thanks to your father decades ago). A career in computer programming hardly makes you an expert in the processes and drivers of those different global climates, does it! Perhaps your more of a prat than a rat, which is why you are so reluctant to expose yourself to scrutiny. As Shub Niggurath said of you “ .. It is comments such as yours that spoil the discussion .. ”.
Come on, stop hiding behind that ridiculous false name and admit who you are. Don’t be frightened. We won’t eat you, but your friends and family may change their opinions about you.
One thing that I must thank you for was leading me to Josh Halpern’s “It Must Be The Neighborhood” thread (http://rabett.blogspot.com/2011/10/ethon-flew-in-from-colorado-with-news.html) which comments on “Slayer” Martin Hertzberg’s article in the Vail Valley Daily. That article seems to have upset Michael Mann, who said of it “ .. Mr. Hertzberg’s lies are pernicious. .. ” so Martin may be receiving a letter similar to the one that Tim Ball received. Does anyone have a copy of that original letter of Hertzberg’s to the Vail Valley Daily?
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Harry Dale Hoffman is not one of the current Sky Dragon Slayer authors, although he appears to be a “satellite” of this bizarre bunch.
The Sky Dragon Slayer’s leader and humbug John O’Sullivan cites Harry Dale Huffman as an authority on why Venus is so hellishly hot. “Huffman is a highly-respected physicist who has worked in both in academe and high-tech industry,” O’Sullivan claimed.
As with almost everything this humbug says, truth is something else. Huffman is a crank who self-publishes bizarre alternative theories on subjects like plate tectonics, the building of the pyramids, and why Australia looks like a sheep dog if you hold a map upside down! (I’m not kidding.)
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. Hoffman complains that most science journal editors won’t even reply to his letters. So naturally, this “highly respected physicist” must publish his revolutionary discoveries himself.
Among those revolutionary discoveries is Huffman’s revelation how the earth was actually shaped — not by natural forces taking billions of years — but by “gods” who came to earth aboard flying saucers to reshape its land masses just 15,000 to 20,000 years ago. And after that, they taught the Egyptians how to build the pyramids.
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 less than 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.” While they were at it, the alien visitors rearranged the stars in the heavens to leave a “message stored for mankind” that he alone has been able to decipher.
Huffman complains that scientists are too closed minded to see how he has unraveled many of the great mysteries that continue to baffle science. He alone has been able to tease out the messages left by the gods. For example, he has discovered the Lost Continent of Atlantis has been hiding under everyone’s nose. The gods from outer space 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” for 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.
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 “physicist” authority on Venus is, see if you can see the “sheep dog” in an upside map of Australia:
http://aaskolnick.com/hold/australia.jpg
Thanks, that’s a funny mini-bio. The plate tectonics attack is ironic because that theory alone was challenged for a long time by the geo-establishment, from my read of Murray Gell-Mann’s account in his book.
Quite true.
And it’s additionally ironic that the guy who first published a wide range of scientific evidence for continental drift was a meteorologist — Alfred Wegener, around 1912. While all the circumstantial evidence he compiled was impressive, his theory of how the continents move unfortunately was quite ridiculous and he was criticized unmercifully by geologists and other scientists. His theory of how the continents plow through the ocean floor like a ship through water
Over the next 40+ years, further evidence was accumulated — especially from sea floor mapping and the new science of paleomagnetism — plus scientists developed a better understanding of the structure of our planet, from which they developed the theory of plate tectonics. This theory is now established as strongly as is the heliocentric theory of our solar system. Today, the only people who deny continental drift is proven are mad men, the grossly uneducated, and people who crave attention from others whether good or bad. In which group Harry Dale Huffman belongs, I’ll leave up to you.
Also ironic is that the American Association of Petroleum Geologists had organized a symposium in the 1920s specifically to oppose Wegener’s continental drift theory. It seems that like money in the past, petroleum is at the root of all modern evil.
Phil says….
“Because according to you there is no net heat flow there is only heat flow from the hotter body, however you use equations that explicitly include a negative heat flux term”
Phil its becoming clear to me that you have forgotten any thermodynamics you ever knew.
The higher and lower temperature bodies radiate to one another.
The net flux is always spontaneously from higher to lower temperature.
The net flux is called heat it can be transformed into work by a suitable transducer.
There is no such a thing as negative heat.
When will the penny drop?
Phil says….
“Because according to you there is no net heat flow there is only heat flow from the hotter body, however you use equations that explicitly include a negative heat flux term”
The higher and lower temperature bodies radiate to one another.
Exactly my point, that’s exactly what I’ve been trying to tell JWR!
The net flux is always spontaneously from higher to lower temperature.
The net flux is called heat it can be transformed into work by a suitable transducer.
There is no such a thing as negative heat.
Quite but there is a flux in the opposite direction which shows up in JWR’s equation as a negative term in heat flux, it is of course less than the positive term in heat flux which of represents the flux from the hotter body. JWR disagrees with you and me because he says that there is no radiation from the cooler body, but somehow the hotter body knows that it must emit less heat to compensate for the cooler body’s temperature, he calls this ‘net’ heat flow.
When will the penny drop?
With JWR, goodness knows!
Phil and all others
I am back from the weekend, it is Monday morning now in Europe.
Phil has difficulties with the fact that I do not interpret the splitted up terms in the SB equation as source terms, and that I look to the total picture.
But I will try Phil, to show yoy that the way I have presented things is the correct one.
How?
In the paper I only have applied the matrix equation in the reversed way.
There is a temperature distribution in the atmosphere, defined by the the temperature for z=0 and the lapse rate (And please Phil and others, do not start now to say tharsuch a temperature distribution is not exactly true.I hope tthat you too, want the things to be cleared,)
Theground floor, level 1, has a temperature higher than all other levels (And again, donot start to say that there is on a clear morning an inversion, every body knows, but tat are peanuts)
The level 1 looks up and the sigt is hindered by IR-sensitive molecules which are colder. So a flux from warm to cold is established. And level 1 is doing that for all molecules and with a total ftot=sum(fi) only (1-sum(fi))*sigma*T1^4 is going un hindered to outer space,
You should agree with that.
All molecules are warmer, and I just make the sum of all net heat fluxes.
Tat is the first line of the matrix equation,
I repeat it from level 2, which is warmer than all levels higher thanlevel2.
That is line 2 of the matrix equatioand so on for all layers.
What have I done?
I only have established the sum of all net heat flow.
I have explained to you equation (%) of the paper.
q=FM*THETA (5)
The result is that I now know what how strong is the radiation nmechanism for a measured temperature distibution.
Phil and others, try to understand what I do.
For a given temperature distribution,and representing the atmosphere with IR-sensitive molecules as a stack of chiken gauzes where the wires represent the absorbing IR-sensitive molecules.
I get results, and I see that they are coherent.
I can look for thepoint of 235 Watt/m^2 from K&T (and the same you can do for VD and for Ferenc Miscolczi) and I see that they have used an absorption coefficient of about ftot=o.8.
K&T and VD don’t have given the absoorption coefficient, Ferenc Miskolzc gave the optical depth which in the paper has been converted to ftot=0.81…i
Phil, when you are so clever to repeat again and again that your thermocouple is showing different results when you put a screen around it, well look to the atmosphere as a screen, accept that the temperature distribution can more or less be decribed by the various lapse rates which I have given in the paper, accept that I looked into small variations which I gave in the computer runs, and you have to admit that this way of looking to the problem of the atmosphere , to determine the capabilities of the atmosphere to evacuate by radiation the heat the planet receives from the earth opened your eyes.
At least I hope so.
.
JWR | October 31, 2011 at 2:17 am | Reply
Phil and all others
I am back from the weekend, it is Monday morning now in Europe.
Phil has difficulties with the fact that I do not interpret the splitted up terms in the SB equation as source terms, and that I look to the total picture.
But I will try Phil, to show yoy that the way I have presented things is the correct one.
Well it’s Halloween here and I’ve just seen off the first onslaught of trick or treaters.
I have difficulty not with your equations but your obstinate refusal to recognize that you have included negative terms in your equation which are flux from the cooler body. This has nothing to do with the atmosphere or lapse rates but fundamental errors on your part in radiative heat transfer, used by engineers and scientists the world over. You make demands that I construct a 3-layer model when that has nothing to do with my objections but refuse to address any of the points I’ve raised. Your guru, Johnson, did the same, I suspect because neither of you have a clue how to address them.
Phil I said
…..”There is no such a thing as negative heat.”…..
Because in a post you implied that there was.
State clearly do you agree with me that there is no such thing as negative heat.
I think you are mistaken. I have always said that as far as radiation concerned there is flux in both directions, the resultant net flow being from hot to cold. The temperature of the hotter body is changed by the magnitude of the flux from the cooler. This is basic thermodynamics/heat transfer. What I object to is someone like JWR using the net equation but claiming that there is no flux from the cooler body, that’s not physics! In the equation the flux from the cooler body is a negative term, the negative sign is indicative of direction only. Just like in chemical thermodynamics where the sign indicates whether the reaction is exothermic or endothermic.
kuhnkat | October 31, 2011 at 12:48 pm |
Phil,
you did not address the issue but ran off on a tangent accusing me of not understanding prior science.
The limitations of SB are clearly stated as requiring that the geometry not allow self irradiation. This would distort the computation, not make it totally useless.
It was not a tangent, cavity radiation gives a source of Black body radiation, it is realized by having a oven with a small hole in its wall which acts as a source of BB radiation. The inside of the oven is experiencing ‘self irradiation’ and yet what emerges through the hole is BB radiation consistent with the temperature of the walls. You should try to understand something before you post about it.
Phil,
whether cavity radiation is applicable to the question or not is something you can explain when you answer the question.
Or do I accept that I am right and you are running away form yet ANOTHER example of how you will not accept the same Physics that you claim to believe in??
Does the roughness of the earth irradiating itself, like the internal surface of the tubular radiation shield, cause a similar effect on itself as does the GHG’s radiation?? Does this then REDUCE the amount of warming attributed to GHG’s?
We can set aside the fact that it would distort the results of SB calculations for the moment. Besides, Trenberth uses an emissivity of 1 for his silly work which causes an error larger than his missing .9w/m2!!
Kumkwat, Have you taken a class in statistical mechanics or statistical physics? I personally find it impossible to carry on a conversation on this type of topic, if say the person had no idea what Bose-Einstein statistics is all about.
Weby,
don’t worry about it. I have no intention of trying to converse with anyone when I know so little on the subject!!! it would be ludicrous. You may have seen a couple of my sorry posts a while back which I won’t repeat.
Really, turned over a new leaf?
No more than you and your data?? 8>)
whether cavity radiation is applicable to the question or not is something you can explain when you answer the question.
I have already above, why don’t you adopt your normal tactic of reading about it on Wikipedia, like you did with SB. Try to understand what you read this time.
Or do I accept that I am right and you are running away form yet ANOTHER example of how you will not accept the same Physics that you claim to believe in??
I don ‘t know what you’re referring to here but you’re wrong as usual.
Does the roughness of the earth irradiating itself, like the internal surface of the tubular radiation shield, cause a similar effect on itself as does the GHG’s radiation??
Yes, locally of course, have you not walked past a wall, which has been exposed to the afternoon sun, after sunset and felt the warmth radiating from it?
Does this then REDUCE the amount of warming attributed to GHG’s?
No when we’re talking about the GWE we’re talking about the view from space. The Earth isn’t rough from that perspective, the radius is ~3960 miles compared with the largest mountain ~5 miles, 2/3rds of the surface is water, not much roughness there, ~ppm?
We can set aside the fact that it would distort the results of SB calculations for the moment.
It wouldn’t, you have mistaken the conditions for which a particular derivation of SB applies, for the limitations of the law itself (essentially the difficulty of calculating the effective area of a body with concavities).
Besides, Trenberth uses an emissivity of 1 for his silly work which causes an error larger than his missing .9w/m2!!
Really, what value do you think he should have used for the Earth between 5 and 30 μm? Or should I look it up on Wikipedia and cut out the middle man?
Another non-response with insults tossed in. You are getting better Phil.
The earth isn’t rough??
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Apparently you are confusing Planck and SB.
Oh, and I didn’t look it up on Wikipedia.
You really don’t know the science you think you can teach me do you? Not that I don’t need a lot of teaching.
Another non-response with insults tossed in. You are getting better Phil.
Non response? I addressed your comment about the ‘roughness’ of the earth, your misconception regarding the use of the SB equation and asked you to justify your statement regarding the emissivity used by Trenberth.
The earth isn’t rough??
Your reading comprehension not too good, try again!
Apparently you are confusing Planck and SB.
No I am not.
You really don’t know the science you think you can teach me do you? Not that I don’t need a lot of teaching.
Actually I do and have taught it at the graduate level, however even my teaching skills might prove unable to pry open such a closed mind as yours. I only hope that third parties might realize that you know very little about the subject. You’re right about one thing, you do need a lot of teaching!
Phil, Vernon Kuhns never finished college and is apparently having fun acting as a poseur. What can I say but out of several billion people on this planet a few will get their jollies out of doing this kind of stuff.
Phil,
the surface gets almost no radiation from 1 km up. The major interactions are local to the first maybe 10m. In this environment ROUGHNESS like plants, buildings etc. WILL have an effect. Will it be more than the hypothesized CO2 GHG effect? I wouldn’t think so, but, I can’t do the math so am only guessing what the magnitude would be.
Now, please give me references where the SB equations that Trenberth and others commonly use to compute 390/333 have been derived with changing temperatures and self irradiation as allowed conditions.
Oh yeah, could you give me a reference as to why you suggest 5-30 microns for the range that Trenberth used, or is this a reference to some other paper??
Well 5-30 seems a reasonable range, you could extend it up to 40 but it would make little difference to the emissivity. The tail at the high wavelength end is fairly long and skinny. I think you’ll find the relevant data on fig 1.
OK, you weren’t implying that is what Trenberth used. I agree that above 20 wouldn’t mean much anyway.
“No when we’re talking about the GWE we’re talking about the view from space. The Earth isn’t rough from that perspective, the radius is ~3960 miles compared with the largest mountain ~5 miles”
What does the radius of the earth have to do with view from space.
Would the international Space Station provide a view from space?
About 150 miles from earth’s surface flying at about 17000 mph, orbiting
every 90 mins.
The roughness of the Earth as a fraction of the radius is hardly significant, as I said the largest ‘bump’ on the surface is 5/3960, ~0.1%.
For the ocean let’s say an average roughness of 1m, that corresponds to ~1 part in 6,000,000, that’s not very rough!
“The roughness of the Earth as a fraction of the radius is hardly significant, as I said the largest ‘bump’ on the surface is 5/3960, ~0.1%.
For the ocean let’s say an average roughness of 1m, that corresponds to ~1 part in 6,000,000, that’s not very rough!”
I would think you use circumference rather radius- or area of the sphere if wanted to be precise.
But none of this has anything to greenhouse affect or radiation. It doesn’t seem to have any importance, other than describing scale. On the scale of this planet on surface topography is no more significant than peach fuzz.
But the purpose of the analogy is try to convey how large planet earth is.
another analogy is earth’s orbit- it looks like a perfect circle- but as we know it’s somewhat elliptical- it couple million kilometer further from the sun in winter- it’s precession, in 26000 years will flip the other way [and part of what explains ice ages].
But in terms if the sun radiation [wavelengths from 250 to 2500 nanometer] earth is quite rough. The earth [or earth size object] could be rougher or smoother than it is. If earth was rougher- generally it would be cooler. If smoother it would be warmer.
How much warmer or cooler is unknown to be. It could be insignificant.
I think one could simply ignore earth’s topography. Though I also think you ignore the entire surface and simply look at the atmosphere. If you did that you might focus of the “topography” of the atmosphere itself.
The troposphere is said to be: “The average depth of the troposphere is approximately 17 km (11 mi) in the middle latitudes.It is deeper in the tropics, up to 20 km (12 mi), and shallower near the polar regions, at 7 km (4.3 mi) in summer, and indistinct in winter.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troposphere
A range 7 to 20 km is bumpier than land [and obviously more so than ocean].
gebaikie shows us the imprecision of his denialist thinking process:
“I would think you use circumference rather radius- or area of the sphere if wanted to be precise.”
Psssst! No one tell the maroon that the radius, circumference, and area of a sphere are EQUALLY precise since they are related to each other precisely:
Circumference of sphere = 2 x pi x radius
Area of sphere = 4 x pi x radius x radius
In fact, using the circumference or area, as gebaikie suggests, may lead to less precision by having to round off pi, which is an irrational number.
By coincidence, so is gebaikie.
While we’re probing the depth of gbaikie’s marooness, he says:
“as we know… [earth is] couple million kilometer further from the sun in winter.
No they don’t. At lest not the people who didn’t get their science education from reading comic books.
Most humans (those who live on the northern hemisphere of earth) spend their winters approximately 5 million kms. CLOSER to the sun — not farther!
People who get their science education from comic books believe summer is caused by the earth moving closer to the sun and winter by the earth moving further away. By their reckoning, the southern and northern halves of our planet must travel around the sun separately, joining together only during spring and autumn. LOL!
Such people make the most devout global warming deniers.
“No when we’re talking about the GWE we’re talking about the view from space. The Earth isn’t rough from that perspective, the radius is ~3960 miles”
Andrew Skolnick has clarified:
“Area of sphere = 4 x pi x radius x radius ”
So it’s 4 x pi x ~3960 x ~3960 distance above earth.
Very useful.
Gbalkie,
the discussion started due to my asking if artifacts on the earth would irradiate the surface and each other adding to the GHG effect. In this respect, the comparison to the circumference doesn’t make much difference, only how large the effect is and how much of the surface is affected. I would think there would be a range where there would be a significant local effect, but, too small, maybe a few inches, would be too small to make a measurable difference.
If nothing else this roughness increases the area that can radiate, or cool, the surface like fins on a heat sink. This comparison would mean that with wind there would be extra cooling effect, but, without wind there would not as the surfaces simply exchange energy.
Hi Bryan, ref. your comment of 26th October at 5:26 PM. thanks for trying to clarify what you have been trying to say. I get the feeling that it will be a long time before you and I agree that as far as the transfer of energy through a medium by E/M radiation is concerned it is misleading and unnecessary to make reference to something that you have called “thermal radiation”. In my opinion you, like several of the “Slayers”, have difficulty thinking beyond the “heat energy” aspect of thermodynamics. Correct me if I am wrong but is not the heating effect only a part of that discipline. I understand thermodynamics to deal with the relationship between heat and other forms of energy and the heating of a substance to be a consequence of its atoms/ions/molecules gaining energy from some source, i.e. the source of the energy is the cause of a thermal effect. I tried in my comment of 26th Oct. to get you to recognise this but you seem reluctant to do so.
You suggest that the Carnot Cycle is relevant to what I say about radiated energy but what does the efficiency of a heat engine have to do with the absorption by a substance of the energy in a photon? Surely the Carnot Cycle has relevance to the consequences of such absorption of energy, not to the source of the energy. It seems to me that this reluctance of some of the “Slayers” to acknowledge this is the reason that they have mislead themselves into believing that they “ .. have comprehensively refuted the GHE .. ” as John O’Sullivan has repeatedly claimed they have done (“PSI & Due Diligence” – mail of 20th Jan. http://principia-scientific.org/about-us/principles-of-association, http://funds.gofundme.com/1v39s,
We seem to have a different understanding of the impact on a substance of absorbing the energy present in a photon. You may find this page helpful (http://www.pveducation.org/pvcdrom/properties-of-sunlight/energy-of-photon) as well as the one I gave you a link to on 26th October at 11:21 am (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum).
This issue of the effects of energy absorption by atmospheric greenhouse gases was discussed extensively in recent E-mail exchanges on “Back Radiation” involving Professor Petty, Professor Curry, Dr. John Nicol, Dr. Robert Knuteson, Chris Colose, Roger Taguchi, Colin Davidson and “Slayers”. In one of those exchanges Professor Petty made a pertinent comment “ , an absorbed photon is ..destroyed and contributes to a microscopic warming of the medium. The medium then independently emits new photons according to Planck’s law .. ”.
You said that “ .. Colose and Joel Shore are on record as saying heat can travel spontaneously from a cold surface to a hot surface .. ” but from the recent E-mail exchanges with the “Slayers” and others I find that hard to believe. Please would you provide a link to where they said precisely what you claim and to where “ .. Joel to his credit now admits this was a mistake .. ”. My guess would be that what they said was that energy not heat, can travel spontaneously from a colder to a hotter body.
You say disparagingly that “ .. neither can be trusted if it involves thermodynamics .. ” but coming from someone who appears not to have progressed beyond degree level perhaps they are entitled to an apology from you. BTW, can you be trusted where thermodynamics is concerned?
I saw nothing in your comment that “ .. radiative transfer is a very minor player in the troposphere .. ” to suggest that you were talking about the cause of the lapse rate in the troposphere. I was under the impression that we were exchanging opinions on your definition of “thermal radiation”. As you agree with me that “ .. a significant proportion of the earth’s emitted IR radiation transfers unhindered to outer space through the troposphere .. ” I’m inclined to agree that we are not communicating clearly enough. You say “ .. perhaps scienceofdoom might convince you when he says just that .. ” again, please provide a link to the relevant thread, although I suspect that once again you missed the point of my comment. My understanding of the term “thermal radiation” is the radiation of E/M waves resulting from increasing the inter and intra-molecular energy of the molecules within a body, i.e. “ .. the type of electromagnetic radiation emitted by objects because of their temperature .. (http://physics.about.com/od/quantumphysics/a/blackbody.htm).
As a matter of interest the “Back Radiation” thread included some interesting exchanges about the lapse rate involving “Slayers” Alan Siddons and Martin Hertzberg, Professor Petty, Roger Taguchi and Chris Colose. If you’d like to learn from them then Professor Curry may be prepared to make them available on her blog. Meanwhile you may find Roger Taguchi’s comment on the “Physics of the Greenhouse Effect” (http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/30/physics-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect/#comment-108941) helpful.
As for your “..I look forward to the correspondence being released .. ” with regard to the “PSI & Politics” E-mail exchanges, all will be revealed in the fullness of time.
BTW, in my comment of 26th October at 2:52 PM I incorrectly referred to Pierce Morgan but should have said Pierce Corbyn, the Weather forecaster associate with the “Slayers” (http://www.weatheraction.com/). You can see Pierce performing alongside the PSI’s “silent” Compliance Officer Philip Foster during the Climate Fools Day flop on 26th October (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGVzZvX4J6U).
You suggested that I read up on Quantum Mechanics but I suspect that I am not the only one here who would benefit from a better understanding of Quantum Physics. You and “ .. Smart Aleck, humorous, know-it-all .. ” IT-guy Vernon Kuhns (AKA kuhnkat – http://www.myspace.com/kuhnkat) might benefit from a refresher but pay particular attention to the relationship between electromagnetic radiation and energy. You may find “Foundations of quantum physics” by Charles Edward Burkhardt, Jacob Joseph Leventhal helpful (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Foundations-Quantum-Physics-Charles-Burkhardt/dp/0387776516#reader_0387776516) “ .. All matter is immersed in it and it penetrates everywhere. No doors are closed to ether .. Albert Einstein, The Evolution of Physics 1 .. ”.
Both Hans Schreder and Professor Claes Johnson (who has dissociated himself from the “Slayers” and PSI) used the same (mistaken?) terminology of “radiative heat” in “Slaying the Sky Dragon” Chapters 15 & 18. For example in Chapter 18 “Climate Thermodynamics” Professor Johnson says “ . The atmosphere transports heat energy absorbed by the Earth surface from the Sun to the Top Of Atmosphere (TOA) from where it is radiated to outer space ..”. In my opinion that would more correctly have been stated as “The Earth absorbs energy radiated by the Sun and converts it to heat energy, some of which is radiated direct to space as IR, some of which is transferred by gases to the TOA and radiated to space as IR .. and some of which is returned to the Earth, including by IR radiation from some atmospheric gases”.
During recent exchanges with the “Slayers” I had mentioned how the group of “Slayers”, which on January 17th was claimed to be “ .. a group of 36 respected international scientists and related professionals .. ” (http://www.gofundme.com/1v39s) appeared to be dwindling. On 8th October during the “PSI & Politics” exchanges John proudly announced that “ … I can further advise that last week, adding to our growing list of highly-accredited supporters is Professor Jef Reynen originally with ECN (Energie Centrum Nederland). Reynen’s area of expertise is mathematical and computer modeling. He spent 22 years at The Institute for Environmental Protection and Research, ISPRA, Italy, and then was a EU Science Advisor in Washington D.C. liaising with the US federal govt .. ”.
I tried to find a Professor Jef Reynen but could only find a J Reynen who is involved in modelling mechanical structures (concrete, pressure vessels, etc). None of the “Slayers” responded to my question on 9th Oct. about “ .. I doubt if that is the one you have recruited so please can you provide a link to the biography of your Professor Reyden and some of his papers on climate-related science .. ”. John simply said on 10th Oct. in the “John O’Sullivan’s specious claims” thread “ .. The Slayers are currently reviewing a new paper submitted by Professor Jef Reynen that further disproves the fiction of ‘back radiation’ and once it has been checked it will be published as further proof of the collapse of the GHE and the rise of Slayer science .. ”. Well, I suppose that finding the “Slayers” group dwindling away John had to try to shore it up with somebody – anybody – who might have some credentials vaguely related to one of the many disciplines involved in trying to improve our poor understanding of the processes and drivers of the different global climates.
As Professor Michael Mann demonstrated when producing his “hockey stick” graph of global temperatures during the past 1000 years, mathematics can be used to good effect to produce an analysis which, on the surface, proves clearly what you started out intending to prove. Also, a clever mathematician is an asset to any team of individuals wishing to start up a business using other people’s money. Losing Professor Claes Johnson from the group must have been a blow for John so finding a replacement was perhaps considered essential to the success of his venture, Principia Scientific International.
Along came Joseph Reynen with his article “Atmospheric absorption by IR-sensitive molecules” posted on the tech-know page (http://www.tech-know.eu/) some time ago. John’s not someone to let an opportunity slip by. It’s now on Hans Schreuder’s blog (http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/IRabsW27102011.pdf) as an updated (17th Oct.) version. Checking up on “Professor Joseph Reynen” took me to “Joseph Reynen, Independent Education Management Professional – Nice, France; ingenieur – Euratom, Education Management .. ” (http://www.yatedo.com/p/Joseph+Reynen/normal/32d569a672666a0c2afdeaa061b856a4). I wonder if he is John’s Professor Jef Reynen. It is quite remarkable how John appears able to turn into “ .. international climate experts .. ” (http://principia-scientific.org/about-us/principles-of-association) individuals who, in terms of scientific research relating to global climate change, appear to have been little more than bloggers posting opinions on the Internet.
JWR, if you are the Professor Jef Reynen who John boasted about having added “ .. to our growing list of highly-accredited supporters .. ” would you be good enough to provide a link to your bio and peer-reviewed papers that you have written. John O’Sullivan was apparently unwilling to do that. If you aren’t he then does anyone here have any more information on John’s Professor Jef Reynen? Also, information about http://www.tech-know.eu would be interesting. It appears to be a very new domain, earning $1.43 per day, ranked a lowly 8,027,798th and has some relationship with “i love my carbon” and “Slayer”/PSI CFO Hans Schreuder (surprise surprise).
If that link provided by JWR (28th October at 6:28 am) to Hans’s blog was intended to be a response to my request then it is disappointing because (mathematician?) Joseph Reynen’s article awaits proper peer-review and publication in a recognised scientific journal or at least an independent science blog. When it has been properly reviewed and is supported by knowledgeable individuals outside of the “Slayers” clique then I’ll be more inclined to accept its conclusions. A quick read gives me the impression that he has simply picked up on Professor Johnson’s ideas.
Having said that, some of what is said in his article fits with my own understanding of the GHE as an obstruction to the flow of radiated energy from the Earth’s system of aqua/geo/cryo/bio/atmo-spheres to space, hence restricting the extent of cooling of that system, AKA the Greenhouse Effect. This is what Roger Taguchi refers to as a “throttling” effect (http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/30/physics-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect/#comment-108941 and in “Back Radiation” and “The Greenhouse Effect” exchanges with the “Slayers”, Professor Petty, Professor Curry and Chris Colose last month).
I also get the impression that Joseph Reynen (mathematician not physicist?) sees E/M radiation as a heat transfer mechanism, considering for example his repeated comment that “ .. Back radiation is a crime against the Second Law .. ” and his mention in Appendix 4 of “ .. The model as presented in this paper is a fast tool to determine the amount of heat which can be evacuated by the mechanism of radiation .. ”.
In his comment of 29th October at 9:52 am JWR (Professor Jef/Joseph Reynen?) said “ .. I agree with you, convection is the main mechanism that heat is transported to the tropopauze, and from there radiated into outer space .. ” but didn’t explain how that convected heat energy is converted to radiant energy. I’d appreciate a clear explanation from him. I also would appreciate him pointing out where in his article he accounts for the energy that is radiated directly by the earth through a transparent atmosphere to space because I didn’t spot it.
I quote from a relevant comment from Roger Taguchi in Nov. 2009 following discussions on the Physicsforums blog (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=154378&page=2) involving one Sylas * “ .. three possibilities for a CO2 molecule which has absorbed some IR energy: spontaneous emission, stimulated emission (in lasers, for example), or quenching on collision with another molecule (e.g. N2 or O2 in the atmosphere). All the discussions by climate experts seem to show they are blissfully unaware of this third and important possibility (for it alone explains how the lower atmosphere can get warm from the energy absorbed by CO2 .. ”.
* AKA Chris Ho-Stuart, co-author with Chris Colose, Josh Halpern (AKA EliRabett), Joel Shore, AP Smith and J Zimmermann.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete Ridley
Thanks for your post.
Communication is still difficult with you.
Now why is that?
Perhaps it is that I read your links and you on the other hand come up with reasons why you did not read the links that I gave you.
If you remember I asked you to get to grips with the Carnot Cycle as it will answer many of the problems you have with thermodynamics.
You don’t appear to have done so, so its difficult for me to know where to start..
Read page 302 of the thermal radiation link you gave me.
The notes are written for people who are familiar with the Carnot Cycle.
So what use they were to you goodness only knows.
The problem defined heat as the net flux.
It went on to talk about exergy as the part of heat that can be turned into maximum work or in other words.
The exergy or work can be converted directly into other energy forms by a suitable transducer.
exergy = heat extracted from higher temperature – heat rejected to lower temperature sink.
It then leads to an interesting discussion on laser radiation.
If and when you reply please master the Carnot Cycle.
You implied that I was mistaken about the dreadful mistake that JoelShore and Cris Colose made when they said heat can travel spontaneously from a cold to a hotter surface.
On page 1316 they make this statement.
Further they say if heat did not go from cold to hot it means that the cold object had stopped radiating.
They then went on to say that G&T were saying that cold objects did not radiate to warmer objects.
This despite several diagrams and equations in the G&T paper showing a two way radiative interaction.
Not only that on pages 1316 => 1320 they develop the now discarded slab model which purports to prove the 33K “greenhouse effect”.
I will give a link to all the papers involved in the disagreement.
See paper [4]
Its an embarrassing episode which Colose and Shore would like to forget.
However if you choose to hold them up as experts in climate science then what does that say about your judgement.
You seem to be very impressed by Professors and post graduate level degrees.
Well out of the assembled characters Gerhard Gerlich should fit the bill/
However I have found that the level of thermodynamics required to understand clearly the issued involved is covered inthe first two years of four year Scottish University degree.
] “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.
This must be the most embarrassing paper in history as it attacks G&T for things they didn’t say.
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/upload/2010/05/halpern_etal_2010.pdf
[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]
Pete Ridley
You are now asking me to check through your posts to find where you make favourable comments about Chris Colose and Joel Shore (members of the Josh Halpern group).
They are in several places but I’m a little fed up acting as your memory prompt.
Both were very prominent in trying to pick holes in Postmas first two papers in Judith’s thread.
Indeed here is your comment
……”At the same time I mentioned how Posma’s article “The Model Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect” has been thoroughly refuted on Professor Curry’s thread “…….
And here is my as yet unanswered question to you!
…..”Which aspects of his paper have been thoroughly refuted?
Pick say three major mistakes that render the paper next to useless?”….
I get the impression that Joseph Postma is looking forward to addressing any reasonable criticism of his paper.
From JWR to Pete Ridley,
As a retired engineer I am often away from your computer.
I only saw your invitation to present myself to you 5 minutes ago, Saturday nov 5th, 14h15 GWT-1.
I am Joseph Reynen, which in the Netherlands is abreviated as Jef, living in France near Nice,
I am a retired mechanical engineer, indeed having worked for ECN, 50 years ago, next for 25 years at ISPRA, research establishment of the EU concerning nuclear reactor safety, indeed also for 3 years as counselor at the Delegation of the EU at Washington DC, and next for 10 years I was involved in teaching Applied and Theorlcal Mechanics TU DElft University, not as a full professor but as Scientific Docent 1st class, which in US universities would be called Associate Professor.
My papers concern Fracture Mechanic , Presure Vessel Analysis and Finite Elements applications in flow and heat problems.
Google Reynen, finite elements, fracture mechanics, space-time finite elements.
I have now reached the age of 75 years and I live in France.
That is all that I can tell you about myself.
In a parallel answer which I sent you this morning, I said that some months ago I started on the back of an envelop to make a model of the one layer slab representing the atmosphere, without back radiation, or to say it more precisely without the Prevost-Fourier type of source terms.
The results were the same as the model where such source terms are introduced.
Then I took a bigger piece of paper and I derived equations for a multi layer atmosphere applying SB from warm to cold.
Indeed as is suggested by Claes Johnson, another European who is thinking about things.
People said but “you cannot apply SB to gases”.
So I invented the chiken wire stack, where “1-f” represents the holes and “f” tthe chicken wire.
The holes are completely transparant, the wires are fully absorbent.
I developed equations for that stack of chicken wire.
I am not a climate specialist, but I can make models of systems, and the stack of chicken gauzes is a real structure.
I did not pretend more, a model of a stack of chicken wires.
Then I applied it to the atmosphere. Coherent results!
As an engineer I said, well Jef, you made a model of the atmosphere.
And Pete do you agree when I show you the equations, derived by making balances of heat flow from warm to cold on pairs of surfaces which I can define in the chicken gauze structure, and the results are coherent with what you can expect from the atmosphere you have to say “Well Jef, you make a point”
Next I apply the model in a special way to the atmosphere, where I suppose the temperature distribution is defined by the surface temperature Ts and the measured environmental lapse rate ELR = -6.5 K/km.
My equations applied in a reversed way give me the capabilty of the atmosphere, with the measured temperature distribution, the amount of heat which is radiated to outerspace as function of the absorption coefficiet ftot.
I also try to find in my equations what is meant by back radiation.
I give you the amount of heat which is absorbed by the atmospghere and re-emitted to higher colder layers.
Read the paper and you only can agree with my conclusions:
1)The model of a stack of chicken wire represents the atmosphere.
2)The absorption coefficient by IPCC authors and even Ferenc Miskolczi
is a factor 4 too high due to the fact
a)The software with the Prevost-Fourier type of source terms is not
implemented correctly. The derivation of the equations by making a
balances of heat between warm and cold is much easier to establish
b) Manufactures of pyrometers for the steel industry and for foundries
did a good job for many years,: the object was warmer than the
meter.
They became salesmen when they found a new market,
renaming the instrument pyrgeometer, and selling it to the climate
community as an instrument that could measure back radiation.
And in small letters “after calibration”!
In fact they added a micro processorersion which by means of SB
converted the signal with information on the temperature to Watt/m^2.
But as the simple chicken wire model indicated they need also to know
!the the absorption coefficient.
3)Political decisions based on IPCC reports have to be reconsidered.
Best Regards, Jef Reynen
So apply your model to the Venus CO2-rich atmosphere and see what you come up with. Should be simple to do as all the data is there. These theories have to be self-consistent and explain everything, otherwise they go in the vault of failed ideas.
Hi (Dr?) Reynen (5th November at 4:46 am) you said “ .. To circumferent those who say that you cannot apply SB to gases, I called my model chicken wire stack model. I do not pretend more. The equations are correct, and I put in the numbers of the atmosphere .. ”. Calling your model chicken wire stack model or changing it to any other kind of model does not change the fact that S-B applies to black bodies. As I understand it atmospheric gases are not even grey bodies let alone black ones?
You say that you have been an engineer so here’s an extract from The Engineering ToolBox “ .. The radiation energy per unit time from a blackbody is proportional to the fourth power of the absolute temperature and can be expressed with Stefan-Boltzmann Law .. ” (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html).
Regarding your comment on 5th November at 10:49 am, I guess that you are responding to my comment of October 31, 2011 at 5:13 pm. Yes, I agree that “ .. you make a point .. ” and I also agree that “ .. Political decisions based on IPCC reports have to be reconsidered. .. ” but I do not agree that your model is a valid representation of the atmosphere, for the reason given above.
I conclude from what you have said about yourself that you have not had any papers on the science of climate processes published anywhere other than on “Slayer” Hans Schreuder’s blog “IlovemyCarbon”. For that reason I trust that you understand why I, as a retired Radio & Electronics Engineer am disinclined to accept the “back of an envelope” model of a mechanical engineer in preference to the models of others who are demonstrably knowledgeable about the absorption and emission of E/M radiation by gases.
I did as you suggested and Googled – Reynen, finite elements, fracture mechanics, space-time finite elements – but couldn’t find out much about you other than numerous references to “ .. H. Nguyen, J. Reynen, “A space-time finite element approach to Burgers … ”.
BTW, Andrew’s comparison of Engineers and Scientists (5th November at 10:00 am) overlooks the fact that it is engineering that has often driven science, not the other way around. Engineers were applying their skills to provide practical solutions to real problems long before the scientific disciplines (and the mathematical tools used to describe the laws) had been developed. “A History of Engineering in Classical and Medieval Times” by Donald Hill (http://www.amazon.co.uk/History-Engineering-Classical-Medieval-Times/dp/0415152917) is an interesting read.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete Ridley says, “BTW, Andrew’s comparison of Engineers and Scientists (5th November at 10:00 am) overlooks the fact that it is engineering that has often driven science, not the other way around. ”
Thanks Pete for perfectly illustrating my point that some engineers are still among the knuckledraggers. Pray tell us how engineers drove the science of cosmology. Also, which engineers helped Charles Darwin work out his theory of evolution? And tell us what engineer or engineering problem inspired Einstein’s special and general theories of relativity. Then tell us who was the engineer behind Stephen Hawking’s work on black holes or Brian Green’s work on string theories.
I have to say Peter, you really must dig talking out of your hat.
“Pray tell us how engineers drove the science of cosmology. ”
Telescopes
“Also, which engineers helped Charles Darwin work out his theory of evolution?”
Ship building enabled exploration- exploration enabled Darwin
” And tell us what engineer or engineering problem inspired Einstein’s special and general theories of relativity.”
Clocks. And other instruments.
I’m not too sure that I care for this “engineers v scientists” conflict. In fact there is no dispute. Every scientific and every engineering organisation worldwide are in agreement. AGW is happening and is a problem to be taken seriously.
gbaikie, please look up the words “drive” and “driven.” Then you can resume the discussion after you actually know what these words mean.
Claiming that ship builders were more responsible for the discovery of evolution than the great scientist Charles Darwin is as moronic as claiming ship builders are more responsible for slavery than were slave traders.
Tempterrain is absolutely right that there is no dispute between engineers and scientists over global warming. This was just another red herring Sky Dragon Sleazer Ken Coffman threw in here, in his campaign to disparage and vilify the great majority of the world’s scientists — with whom he and his fellow deniers are waging a no-holds-barred war.
Coffman has made it clear he has absolutely no use for scientific peer review, no use for the scientific process, and nothing use for scientists who work at universities, government agencies, government-supported institutions, or for just about any other scientist who doesn’t self-publish his “research” — like the humbugs Tim Ball and John O’Sullivan and kooks like Harry Dale Huffman and Cleas Johnson.
Temp,
that is like claiming the American Medical Association’s pronouncements have anything to do with excellent clinical research and medical care. Many of the best Physicians and researchers do NOT consider the AMA their “voice.”
I believe you have read the articles of the scientists who have publically broken with their organizations.
Cumquat says, “Temp, that is like claiming the American Medical Association’s pronouncements have anything to do with excellent clinical research and medical care. Many of the best Physicians and researchers do NOT consider the AMA their ‘voice.’”
Tempterrain had made a rather clear-headed and well-supported statement, so it’s hard to understand what Cumquat is talking about. Other than officials and spokespersons for the American Medical Association, I don’t know ANYONE who claims the AMA’s pronouncements always represent the best clinical research or clinical care. Sometimes they do. Often they do not.
Neither Tempterrain nor I — a former associate editor at the Journal of the American Medical Association — ever said anything even remotely like Cumquat’s comment.
Membership in the AMA has been significantly declining for decades and now only about 1 in 6 practicing physicians in the U.S. are members of the AMA. http://www.cmaj.ca/content/183/11/E713.short?rss=1 So no one other than AMA officials and PR still claims with a straight face that the AMA is “the voice of American physicians.”
However, the research studies, columns, commentaries, and editorials published in the Journal of the American Medical Association are certainly a different matter. The editorially independent journal is one of the world’s most prestigious and credible peer-reviewed publications on clinical research and medical practice.
Unfortunately Ken Coffman and his fellow deniers have much more contempt than respect for peer-reviewed science journals. They prefer the self-published nonsense of kooks like Tim Ball, Claes Johnson, Joe Olson, Alan Siddons, Harry Dale Huffman, and my favorite humbug, John O’Sullivan. “I despise academics,” Coffman says.
Which leads me to wonder, whenever Ken Coffman falls ill, does he really chose the help of a “non-academic engineer” over the help of a clinical professor at a medical school?
“Take 2 squirts from an oil can, Ken, and call me in the morning.” LOL!
I’m fine with peer review. I’m not fine with climate activist pal review. You should crack open the Climategate emails, Andrew. You’re such a proponent of guilt by association, why don’t you take a sober look at the nature of the people you so rabidly defend.
Although I know how factually-challenged you are Ken, I’ll still challenge you to show where I have “defended” any climate scientist. I never felt a need to defend any of them, because the accusations against them are coming from attack dogs like you and your fellow Sky Dragon Slayers, who promote themselves and their writings with bogus and fraudulent academic and professional credentials.
When you catch so-called authorities lying about their credentials, you can rest assured that they’re likely lying about everything else.
And here we see their publisher “rabidly defending” these frauds — who promote themselves and their writings with bogus credentials — now trying to call the kettle black. Too, too funny.
I understood from your answer that you are inclined to accept my point that the chiken wire model gives coherent results, but since it has not been invented by a climate person at the end you donot believe in it.
No worry, Peter, it will find its way without you.
But what is important that it has shown that IPCC authors exagerrated the absorbtion of IR by the atmosphere with a factor of 4.
That socalled pyrgeometers do not give accurate results, it all depends on the micro processor to convert the temperature signal by means of an algoritm based on SB into Watts/m^2.
The paper has given the equations to do such a conversion, and the microprocessor alsoneeds the absorption coefficient “f”, and its distribution.
If you have anymore questions you know how to find me.
Best regards
Jef
JWR,
your comments on pyrgeometers are similar to what I have concluded based on some of the same sources.
Here is an interesting article I ran across while looking for information on emissivity and the earth’s atmosphere. It is observations from a Mars probe, on the way there, taken of the earth and used to compute emissivity and temps!!!
http://www.xylenepower.com/Emissivity.htm
Emissivity is about .76 and instead of 33c they computed 18c!! I think we know why interesting exercises like this never seem to gain any attention in the Science Community!!
Everyone uses a number close to one which is obviously WRONG!! Even water isn’t 1. Not a big error until taken to the 4th power, multiplied by the area of the earth and the number years you are projecting…!!
Let’s get back to my other favourite CACC topic, “PSI & Politics” and the plans that lead “Slayer” John O’Sullivan originally had for PSI.
The “ .. ASSOCIATION OF PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL (A PRIVATE CONSORTIUM) .. ” boasts the motto “AD VERITAS AD VICTORIAM” (http://principia-scientific.org/about-us/principles-of-association), roughly translated as “transparency leads to success”. That word “transparency” appears frequently in the PSI promotional pages but PSI’s “Slayers” seem very reluctant to be transparent about the original plans for PSI.
That page also makes unsubstantiated claims about “Slaying the Sky Dragon” then talks kindly of “ .. Prominent climate skeptic, Lord Monckton .. ” but Lord Monckton didn’t fare so well in the recent “PSI & Politics” exchanges.
On 8th Oct. during those E-mail exchanges with the “Slayers” and others I drew attention to an E-mail from Lord Monckton to Professor Curry in which he said “ .. It is exasperating that results easily demonstrable by simple laboratory experiment continue to be challenged by some members of this group. However superficially ingenious their arguments, they fly in the face of experiments that even children can perform with readily-available materials, as well as contradicting proven results in astrophysical theory. I do not propose to contribute further to this group: it is not a sensible deployment of my time .. ” (http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/04/slaying-a-greenhouse-dragon-part-iii-discussion/).
At the same time I mentioned how Posma’s article “The Model Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect” has been thoroughly refuted on Professor Curry’s thread (http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/16/postma-on-the-greenhouse-effect/) and on three threads by Chris Colose http://www.skepticalscience.com/postma-disproved-the-greenhouse-effect.htm, http://www.skepticalscience.com/Postma1.html & http://www.skepticalscience.com/Postma2.html).
I also said that QUOTE: .. Professor Curry correctly referred to “Slaying the Sky Dragon” as a “ .. politically motivated book .. ”, which is substantiated by John’s Chapter 21 and his original plans for PSI as described in the “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mails. John’s Chapter 21 provides a useful starting point. Let me know if anyone else wishes to follow that chapter through with me in conjunction with the “PSI & Due Diligence E-mails”. If not I’ll take the discussion elsewhere because in my opinion there will be others who wish to talk about it .. UNQUOTE.
John O’Sullivan responded by including Professor Curry, Professor Petty, Dr. Shore, Chris Colose (“ .. a mere STUDENT! .. who has already waved the white flag in this debate by putting his own blog into “retirement” .. ” as John put it in his imaginative style) and Lord Monckton in his disparaging comment “ .. Now you have also added professors Petty and Shore to your motley array of experts .. Like the others, Petty and Shore appear just as patently less skilled in those ‘hard’ sciences (e.g. .. Colose: a student). .. Your appeal to the less qualified authorities of Lord Monckton (a journalist) and Judith Curry (a geographer who admits little training, if any, in thermodynamics) only serves to further weaken your case (simply an unscientific appeal to authority rather than science) when laid alongside the scientific, engineering and mathematical credentials of the authors and supporters of the Slayers ( 23 with PhD’s) .. ”.
John also took exception to my agreeing with Professor Curry’s comment about the book being politically motivated but distorted what I had said with his QUOTE: .. You call our book “politically motivated” – please elucidate as to what politics it supports .. So what do you guess “politically motivated” us then Peter, being that you’ve not even read the book? .. UNQUOTE.
(It was at this point that Professor Petty started his “John O’Sullivan’s specious claims” thread)
The PSI promotional material now insists that “ .. PSI is not formed for political purposes, and shall not engage in political activities .. ” but prior to that does say “ .. PSI aims to restore the image of the vast majority of scientists by proactively applying viable strategies (e.g. .. and pursuing legal remedies as a last resort) .. ”. In my opinion John O’Sullivan’s Chapter 21 of “Slaying the Sky Dragon” and the “PSI & Due Diligence” exchanges in Dec./Jan paint a completely different picture to a “last resort” use of “legal remedies”. As I told you earlier (October 22nd at 2:30 PM & 23rd at 6:10 PM NOT TO BE SENT) John had declared (on 28th December @ 9:38 PM NOT TO BE SENT) “ .. I’ve staked my reputation, sweat and own money on beating the AGW fraud in the courts-its the ONLY SERIOUS GAME IN TOWN .. ” (my emphasis added).
I wonder if we will ever hear anything on this from US attorney Roger Sowell, of whom John said on 29th September “ .. is in discussion with us as a potential new recruit, but his decision is pending because he is currently reviewing our Sky Dragon book .. ”.
As far as I am aware Roger (an engineer as well as an attorney) has been silent on this issue since rejecting the argument of the “Slayers” about a colder body being unable to radiate energy to a warmer body. In that 12th October E-mail in the “John O’Sullivan’s specious claims” thread Roger said QUOTE: .. Now, to Mr. Ridley, to further answer your question, yes, I am still digesting and investigating the claims made in Chapter 21, Legal Fallout from False Climate Alarm. I will give my analysis on that at some later time. I am not familiar with the other issue, “PSI U & Due Diligence emails”. Perhaps I’ve missed them in the incredible volume of emails that was generated by the simple question of thermal radiation .. UNQUOTE.
I immediately forwarded to Roger and the rest of those involved in the thread an updated version of my Word document with 55 pages of those “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mails but haven’t heard from him since. Maybe after reading through those E-mails he too, like Professor Johnson (and others?) has decided to dissociate himself from the “Slayers” and their (unorthodox?)-science association PSI.
I heard a beautiful expression today when a BBC news presenter said of the “rent-a-crowd” demonstrators outside St. Paul’s Cathedral in London “ .. with their disparate agenda they have come together behind a common cause .. ”. This could describe the “Slayers”, who are claiming to have the common cause of “ .. to bring into being a new general international science association to uphold the interests of all scientists around the world supportive of the traditional scientific method and opposed to the pervasive rise of what is widely termed ‘post-normal’ science .. PSI promotes scientists who steadfastly adhere to the Scientific Method as well as individuals seeking to expose corruption in science. To better stem the rise of perceived mendaciousness in the profession PSI commits itself to advancing the formal creation of a new concept: open online peer-to-peer review. We believe such real time transparent assessment of the latest scientific findings will become the new ‘gold standard’ of peer review to replace the secretive ‘buddy review’ system identified as being at the root of the malaise within modern science .. ” – a noble cause indeed, as declared by John on 2nd Jan. when saying of the “Slayers” “ .. we explicitly agree to serve a noble cause- to uphold the English Scientific Method and expose junk science and fraud .. ”!
I think that it would be interesting to take a look at what might be the real agenda motivating each of the original “Slayers” to support John’s proposals for setting up PSI rather than joining more established sceptical organisations and what might motivate others to join an insignificant organisation like PSI.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete Ridley
You say
……”At the same time I mentioned how Posma’s article “The Model Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect” has been thoroughly refuted on Professor Curry’s thread “…….
Which aspects of his paper have been thoroughly refuted?
Pick say three major mistakes that render the paper next to useless?
I get the impression that Joseph Postma is looking forward to addressing any reasonable criticism of his paper.
The amplitude of the received [IR optical] stop signal varies over a wide range depending on the measurement distance and the reflectivity and angle of the target. The dynamic range of the signal depends on the application, and may be 1:1000 or even more.
http://catalog.osram-os.com/media/_en/Graphics/00018297_0.pdf
This is an example of IR emission where the goal is to get energy back via reflection…note how the best case is something like 0.1% signal reflection. I can assure you that any “back radiation” from diffuse, low-density outgoing radiation from the Earth’s surface will be less than this and probably orders of magnitude less. Honestly, the very idea of adding any measurable heat to the Earth’s surface via “back radiation” is moronic…and that’s without taking into account conservation of energy.
I suppose I could have mentioned a common wavelength of the laser diodes used for these applications…905nm.
This is an example of IR emission where the goal is to get energy back via reflection…note how the best case is something like 0.1% signal reflection. I can assure you that any “back radiation” from diffuse, low-density outgoing radiation from the Earth’s surface will be less than this and probably orders of magnitude less.
Really, on what basis do you make that assurance?
Here’s my thought and if you have some contrary data, I’d love to see it. If you are bouncing an IR signal off something physical (like a car) and all you can get back in the best case is 1/1000 of the emission (0.1%), then certainly you can expect a lot less to return when you’re talking about getting a signal back from something that won’t reflect much and you have to rely on absorption, thermalization, and re-emission to return your signal. At the magnitude of outgoing LWR from the Earth’s surface, the return signal will not be measurable. As a philosophical-religious tenet, I don’t believe in things that are immeasurable. There are many reasons that the theory of man-made global warming is absurd. This is one of them.
Good luck, Phil.
Well there’s very little in common between the two situations so your ToF situation has no bearing on the GHE.
The example you gave has a near point source of light emitting a “highly divergent light beam” so not all the light will hit the target (unlike the atmosphere, it’s hard to miss that). Secondly the light scattered from the target will mostly miss the collecting optics back at base (unlike the CO2 molecules in the atmosphere which will emit half of their light back towards the surface, which again is hard to miss). So you’re comparing a single divergent source illuminating a single small target with a small collection angle for the signal, with a continuous source with an infinite number of targets covering 2π steradians returning the signal back to a receiver covering nearly 2π steradians. I think you have more work to make your case!
That reminds me of another of my pet peeves. How many times have we seen a drawing of the Earth which shows a ball or curved surface and a nice big, thick layer of atmosphere? Take your pick, if you draw the earth as a ball, then make sure the atmosphere is shown as a tiny, pencil-thin layer. If you want to show a thick layer of atmosphere, then the surface should be drawn as flat. Well, perhaps that’s a nonsequitur.
Phil, are you an academic, bureaucrat or NGO activist? That would explain a lot about your thought process.
I’m a scientist, perhaps that explains why my thought process is foreign to you?
I understand why that might be you pet peeve, it’s something I have commented on too. I’m not sure why the post should remind you of it though. Perhaps you’re thinking of my response to Kuhnkat about the ‘roughness’ of the Earth’s surface? How about addressing the point I made instead of the non sequitur?
You nailed it Phil. You think like a scientist. Now if you thought like a school gym teacher — like Sky Dragon Sleazer John O’Sullivan — or a tinfoil hat-wearing UFO chaser — like their expert on Venus, Harry Dale Huffman — Ken would be better able to follow your thought process. Hell, he might even publish your book!
Ken Coffman, head of the minuscule US publishing arm (http://www.sos.wa.gov/corps/search_detail.aspx?ubi=603042781) of the equally minuscule unorthodox-science assossiation PSI seems to think that the technology of “Time-of-flight” (TOF) measurement by using pulsed lasers” has relevance to the Greenhouse Effect (comment 1st November at 7:40 pm). Maybe further investigation of the technology is warranted, looking at things like waveband, average power and beam angle on the outgoing side and the return signal mechanism and comparing these with the process of how IR absorbing atmospheric gases reduce the amount of IR from Earth escaping to space. There may be some differences that rule out the comparison that Ken wishes to make.
I’m sure that resident LED expert Dr. Joel Shore can set Ken on the right track.
Ken’s Stairways Press is promoted as a “ .. Short Story, Science Fiction and Compelling Book Editing, Marketing and Publishing Company .. ” (http://biz.prlog.org/stairwaypress/) so “Slaying the Sky Dragon” fits nicely into the Science Fiction category. Ken doesn’t seem to have much else in the way of publishing to boast about since Jan. He also seems to have been infected by John O’Sullivan’s penchant for exaggeration “ .. New book is largest collaboration of scientific research lifting the skirt on Greenhouse Gas Theory .. A Team of Scientists, Scholars and Influential Experts Debunk The Equations & Theories Behind Global Warming .. ” (http://pressroom.prlog.org/stairwaypress/).
Perhaps that is why he has sensibly changed direction and started promoting Stairway Press LLC as a “Washington New Business Listings” under “ .. Cleaning and Maintenance, Cleaning and maintenance services including business, homes, windows, properties .. ” (http://www.lookupbook.com/directory/cleaning-and-maintenance/wa/mount-vernon/stairway-press-llc). Well, we all have to earn a crust somehow and there is no shame in doing house cleaning when you’re a bit short of funds.
Talking of Joel reminds me of Bryan’s recent comment (26th October at 5:26 pm) that “Chris Colose and Joel Shore are on record as saying heat can travel spontaneously from a cold surface to a hot surface”. I don’t recall Bryan ever responding to my request (31st October at 5:13 pm) for a link to where they had said this. Why such evasion I wonder. All that he had to do was point to http://judithcurry.com/2011/09/02/update-on-the-spencer-braswell-paper/#comment-107471 but that seemed to be beyond him.
I have to go along with Joel’s comment about Bryan “ .. doing nothing but peddling pseudoscience here and I think everyone but the most hardened fellow-travelers will see right through it .. ”. Chris and Joel made an inadvertent but harmless slip when using the term heat instead of energy when talking about radiation. The “Slayers” and their supporters make a fundamental error by confusing the terms in order to support their specious argument that energy cannot radiate from a colder towards a hotter body.
I also have to fully support Peter317 when he said “ .. Listen up people, on both sides of the debate. Heat is not energy, and energy is not heat! Kindly refrain from confusing the two .. The words, ‘heat’ and ‘energy’ cannot be used interchangeably in the way some people do.” (3rd & 4th September @ 11:27 & 06:55).
I have to agree with Sean Houlihane in his review of “Slaying the Sky Dragon” QUOTE: .. The proponents seem scientifically illiterate, and unable to differentiate between confusing terminology which is in common use, and bad physics. Read this book if you want a view into the real extreme fringe of what people can convince themselves is true .. ”. I also like Andrew Skolnick’s review – but you might like to skip past his discussion about “Merchants of Doubt: .. ”.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Thank you, Pete, for drawing the business listing to my attention so I can correct it. I’m pleased with the sales of our books and I’m also pleased with the books in the pipeline. Under covers for the moment, there are interesting things happening at Stairway Press. I just posted the Q3 royalty checks…I can assure you this business, though small, is growing and these are exciting times behind the scenes.
You like to appear to be a stickler for accuracy, so I’m surprised you would say something this imprecise:
…comparing these with the process of how IR absorbing atmospheric gases reduce the amount of IR from Earth escaping to space.
Surely you realize that CO2, or water vapor, or anything for that matter can reduce radiation escaping to space. We might argue about how long it takes, but not about its destination. It would be nice to capture radiation and carry it around in a flask, but, sadly, that’s not the way things work.
Oops, I sad ‘can’ when I meant ‘cannot’. What can prevent radiation from escaping to space? You can search S-B all you like…mother nature does not like temperature differentials.
Hi Ken, ref. your comment on 2nd November at 12:08 pm, I take it that you meant “ .. anything for that matter canNOT reduce radiation escaping to space .. ”. If you are sure of that then you should be able to explain why the satellite measurements of outgoing IR show a big gap in outgoing radiation around 15 microns, as I mentioned to Bryan on 26th October at 2:52 pm. After you’ve take a look at the diagrams presented in Professor Petty’s book “Introduction to Atmospheric Radiation” (http://sundogpublishing.com/AtmosRad/Excerpts/AtmosRad217.pdf) and “Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast” Chapter 4. Greenhouse Gases, Fig. 4.2 (http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/archer.ch4.greenhouse_gases.pdf) perhaps you’d be kind enough to tell me why there are breaks in the spectrum of IR radiation from the Earth’s surface.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
What do you think happens, Pete? Think about the spectral Fraunhofer lines “missing” from the sun’s incoming radiation. What happens to the energy carried by those wavelengths? Are we measurably cooler due to this “missing” energy? The energy gets trapped in something? Trapped in what? It gets blocked? Blocked by what? Mother nature is very determined and creative. Believe me, there is no restriction to that energy leaving our system. At the speed of light (or nearly), this energy gets translated to other wavelengths and carries on its merry way.
Hi Ken, with your apparent conviction about what happens to the IR energy radiated from the Earth’s surface please can you explain why an IR detector located on a satellite 700km above the Earth’s surface shows a significant gap in the spectrum at around 15 microns (http://www.sundogpublishing.com/AtmosRad/Excerpts/AtmosRad217.pdf and http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/archer.ch4.greenhouse_gases.pdf Fig. 4.2). It may help if you refer to those “John O’Sullivan’s specious claims” E-mail exchanges in October involving Professor Petty, Roger Taguchi, Claes Johnson, Alan Siddons, etc. in which Professor Petty pointed out how Alan’s “ .. assertions once again fly violently in the face of well-established IR measurement technologies. Professor Petty then described the “ .. IRIS Michelson interferometer flown on Nimbus 4 (which) used a thermistor bolometer detector (a solid-state semiconductor that changes its electrical resistance when its temperature is changed by exposure to a source of infrared radiation) .. ”.
While you’re at it perhaps you’d like to explain why the spectra looking up towards the atmosphere from Earth there appear to show corresponding emissions back towards the surface (http://www.sundogpublishing.com/AtmosRad/Excerpts/AtmosRad212.pdf)?
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete…there are all kinds of optical effects that happen, like diffusion, dispersion, reflection, refraction, focusing and diffraction. They all conserve energy. We know gases and molecular configurations have resonances. Bands are absorbed and translated. The energy moves around. None of this has anything to do with passive things adding energy to a system…which is necessary for the human-caused global warming theory to be true.
The photon of of energy hwy is annihilated to produce photons of energy hwa and hwb, the number of photons produced at wa is equal to the number of photons produced at frequency wb. The photon at frequency wy “splits” to give two photons at lower frequencies (and energies) wa and wb (hwa and hwb).
Waves and Fields in Optoelectronics, Herman A. Haus, page 344.
Pete,
yes, those spectra are realy cool. I have thought a lot about them and how when CO2 absorbs IR in the lower atmosphere it is most likely to collide with another particle before emitting. Yasee, if that happens the energy is most likely to be transferred to non-GHGs and be convected. Not likely to end up being emitted in the same frequency as it was originally emitted.
Would you like to speak about the fact the earth has been emitting more then absorbing recently now??
The “bite” in the satellite obtained outgoing spectra around 15um is easily explained and is not connected to any greenhouse effect.
Outgoing Earth surface radiation around that frequency is readily absorbed by CO2.
This leads to thermalisation with the radiation energy transformed mainly into kinetic energy increase of N2 and O2 molecules .
Of course some CO2 will by collision emit a 15um photon but this becomes less and less likely as altitude increases.
Why?
1. With reduced temperature the collision speed is reduced.
A 15um photon has more than twice the KE of an air molecule so its quite a big jump in energy to acquire by collision.
2. There are almost 40 molecules of H2O to each CO2.
H2O molecules have much more frequencies available, particularly longer wavelengths.
So it is much more likely that any radiation produced will come in the form of longer wave H2O emissions.
Think of a barrel of water with a leaking hole near the top of the water level.
If you now put a hole much lower down the water will gush out at a much higher pressure and flow rate.
In other words more water leaves by low potential energy route than by the higher PE route.
Hence the “missing” part of the spectra around 15um.
“Hi Ken, ref. your comment on 2nd November at 12:08 pm, I take it that you meant “ .. anything for that matter canNOT reduce radiation escaping to space .. ”. If you are sure of that then you should be able to explain why the satellite measurements of outgoing IR show a big gap in outgoing radiation around 15 microns, as I mentioned to Bryan on 26th October at 2:52 pm. ”
If energy is absorbed it will emit at the wavelengths it’s temperature as indicated in Planck Curve. So energy isn’t stopped.
Spectrum of radiation can also be reflected, though there are losses in any reflection or in the transparency of any material- even best mirror have limits to how signal is maintained after number of bounces- and of course this occurring at speed of light.
Whenever you heat gas the average speed of molecules increases in speed- hot gas, fast moving molecules. Energy in form of fast moving molecule “adds” more delay than compared radiation- gas travel at thousands of mph, light travel at 300,000 km per second [6.6 billion mph].
What “greenhouse affect” [increasing night time temperature] is about is the delay of loss of heat – the thermal capacity of matter. Therefore “greenhouse affect” won’t be about slowing radiant energy transfer, instead it will have to do with thermal capacity of gases, liquids and solids.
Pete Ridley
Your readers will doubt your ability for rational thought if you place two contradictory statements beside each other
[1]……”Chris and Joel made an inadvertent but harmless slip when using the term heat instead of energy when talking about radiation.”…….
.[2]…”I also have to fully support Peter317 when he said “ .. Listen up people, on both sides of the debate. Heat is not energy, and energy is not heat! Kindly refrain from confusing the two .. The words, ‘heat’ and ‘energy’ cannot be used interchangeably in the way some people do.” (3rd & 4th September @ 11:27 & 06:55).”…….
Which one do you mean?
Now Chris and Joel were not writing in some tabloid Murdoch rag.
They were writing to the learned readership of the International Journal of Modern Physics B, Vol. 24, No. 10 .
Can you not sense the cringing embarrassment of it all !!!!!!!!!
Hi Bryan, ref. your comment of 2nd November at 10:02, you seem to have a complaint about me doing “cut & paste” quotations but there are good reasons for so doing and for providing clear links to what I quote from. One reason is to ensure that the originators of information that I use receive due credit. Another is to help others access the source in order to understand the full context. Another is to minimise the chance of presenting a distorted picture of what someone else has said.
Let me demonstrate the benefits of this. In your comment of 26th October at 5:26 pm you said “ .. Chris Colose and Joel Shore are on record as saying heat can travel spontaneously from a cold surface to a hot surface .. ” then on 31st October at 8:06 pm you said “ .. JoelShore and Cris Colose .. said heat can travel spontaneously from a cold to a hotter surface. On page 1316 they make this statement .. ”. Page 1316 of your reference 4] has no such statement. In fact no such statement appears in any part of their paper. You appear to have deliberately distorted what was said, not uncommon among those debating the CACC hypothesis.
On that Page 1316 the authors make it quite clear in the first paragraph that when they talk about “ .. transfer from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface .. ” they are referring to radiated not heat energy. Unfortunately they fell into the same trap as others do of using the terms heat and energy interchangeably, which is wrong, as Peter317 pointed out.
Dr. Joel Shore, who , unlike you, has the courage of his convictions and uses his full name, also was not ashamed to admit his incorrect terminology “ .. The argument about heat was a matter of terminology, not of concept, and it did not require a great deal of difficulty to get me to be more precise with the terminology. I readily admitted that the terminology we used was imperfect and explained how it is easily remedied with just a few word changes to our paper, and you continued to harp on it because that what people peddling pseudoscience do. ..” (http://judithcurry.com/2011/09/02/update-on-the-spencer-braswell-paper/#comment-107471) .
You claim that I quote “ .. with approval several of the most rabid CAGW .. ” (I understand CAGW to be Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming but correct me if I’m mistaken). Please be good enough to substantiate that claim because I do not believe that I have ever given my support to any CAGW, or to any Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) arguments. That does not mean that I reject everything that supporters of CACW/CACC say. Here are knowledgeable individuals on both sides of the debate who we can all learn from.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete Ridley
Here you quote me
“ .. JoelShore and Cris Colose .. said heat can travel spontaneously from a cold to a hotter surface.
On page 1316 they make this statement .. ”
You then say
….”Page 1316 of your reference {4] has no such statement. In fact no such statement appears in any part of their paper. You appear to have deliberately distorted what was said, not uncommon among those debating the CACC hypothesis.”..
Here again is the paper so that readers can confirm for themselves
[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
Near top of page;
….” they neglect heat transfer in the reverse direction”….
That is colder to higher temperature.
Middle of page
…..”B (colder plate) would have to stop radiating (higher temp) A because if it did not heat would be transferred”…..
Near bottom of page;
“One must consider all heat flows”
Clearly indicating that the writers considered that there were heat flows from both discs and that Clausius must have really meant net heat flows.
There is no heat pump so all flows would be spontaneous.
They clearly think energy, radiation and heat are all one any the same.
If this level of confusion happened in a thermodynamics exam they would have failed.
This Halpern group are at the extreme end of the CO2 catastrophic greenhouse theory spectrum.
You are now quoting them as experts in climate thermodynamics.
Hi Bryan, trying to exchange opinions with you is like trying to talk to a wall. Please read what is written instead of imagining what is not there. I choose my words very carefully but you seem to just blurt out whatever comes to mind. You say of the “Halpern group” that I am now “ .. quoting them as experts in climate thermodynamics .. ” but once again fail to produce any quote of mine that does this. Please try a bit harder to talk sense but if you can’t then I understand why you are so reluctant to disclose your full name.
Sleazing the Sky Dragon pubilsher Ken Coffman says, “I’m pleased with the sales of our books and I’m also pleased with the books in the pipeline. Under covers for the moment, there are interesting things happening at Stairway Press.”
Good for you. So I guess that means you’ll be taking over publication of John O’Sullivan’s other “blockbuster” book, Summit Shock, the one he self-published to launch his career as an author:
http://self-published.http://cupboard55summitshock.blogspot.com/
He calls this pot boiler of a book a “factual novel.” It’s a romanticized account of how his wife was brutally raped by her correctional officer supervisor and left for dead with a broken neck — and how the sordid crime was criminally covered up by NY Gov. Patterson, attorney general Spitzer, a “lesbian” “scum” supreme court justice, and other criminally corrupt officials — as he complained on the NY Daily News, Wall St. Journal, and other blogs:
http://schlissellaw.wordpress.com/2009/06/02/court-of-appeals-full-custody-includes-the-right-to-make-educational-decisions/
http://personals.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2009/07/weekend-open-thread-24.html
Of course, you get a totally different account when you read the actual court case of his and his wife’s failed attempt to get money out of NY state with a sexual harassment suit — which did not involve any accusation of brutal rape or broken neck!
http://vertumnus.courts.state.ny.us/claims/html/OSullivan.2009-039-142.html
Ken, you support some pretty questionable characters and charlatans. You know, it really is true that when people lie down with dogs they get up with fleas. This might explain all the “soul scratching” you’ve been doing lately.
Pete Ridley says
…..”Talking of Joel reminds me of Bryan’s recent comment (26th October at 5:26 pm) that “Chris Colose and Joel Shore are on record as saying heat can travel spontaneously from a cold surface to a hot surface”. I don’t recall Bryan ever responding to my request (31st October at 5:13 pm) for a link to where they had said this.”….
Can you read Pete?
Do I have to print in capital letters for you?
I gave you the link in my post above
Bryan | October 31, 2011 at 8:06 pm
But here it is again
….”On page 1316 they make this statement.
Further they say if heat did not go from cold to hot it means that the cold object had stopped radiating.
They then went on to say that G&T were saying that cold objects did not radiate to warmer objects.
This despite several diagrams and equations in the G&T paper showing a two way radiative interaction.
Not only that on pages 1316 => 1320 they develop the now discarded slab model which purports to prove the 33K “greenhouse effect”.
I will give a link to all the papers involved in the disagreement.
See paper [4]
Its an embarrassing episode which Colose and Shore would like to forget.
However if you choose to hold them up as experts in climate science then what does that say about your judgement.”….
[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
Pete this is the first time I have had an exchange of views with you.
I must say I’m very disappointed.
Responding any further to your posts would seem pointless if you cannot read.
Perhaps a visit to the optician might help.
kuhnkat is of the opinion that you are a notorious “cut and paste” man.
Perhaps he has a point!
For some one who claims to be a sceptic yet quotes with approval several of the most rabid CAGW seems a bit of a paradox
For some one who claims to be a sceptic yet quotes with approval several of the most rabid CAGW seems a bit of a paradox
We appear to have a different definition of ‘sceptic’, surely a sceptic would agree with something that he found to be correct, regardless of the source?
kuhnkat | November 2, 2011 at 1:12 am |
OK, you weren’t implying that is what Trenberth used.
Why do you say that? He shows in the paper (Fig 1 as I told you) that the emitted radiation is 5μm and above, so why would he use an emissivity for anything else. So I’ll ask you again: What emissivity do you think he should have used and why?
Phil,
Probably my mistake. The Kiehl-Trenberth 1997 paper I looked at had SW charts that cut off at 3 micron. My assumption was that they would start the LW as soon after that point as there was measurable amplitude. I have also seen where it is explicity stated that 4 micron is included.
So Trenberth was right, and you retract your remark?
I’m sorry, I lost track of the claims. Right about what? I didn’t realize I was arguing against Trenberth on anything except his unsupported missing heat and the fact he apparently used an emissivity of 1 for the computations of emissions and this would not answer either of those questions.
As usual you failed to back up your assertion, you claimed that Trenberth’s use of an emissivity of 1 was responsible for his ‘missing heat’, yet you’re unable to give the value that should be used (in your opinion). i therefore conclude that your statement was false.
Phil,
your OPINION of whether Trenberth uses the correct emissivity or not, and attacking my assertion that it is incorrect, would show what a poor grasp you have on the properties of the materials involved. Do you really want to pursue this argument?
I just posted a reasonably good estimation of the emissivity of the atmosphere in answer to JWR. It is easy to look up the numbers and see that water is the only thing involved that approaches 1. You can’t even get started trying to embarass my ignorance without showing yourself to be either more ignorant than me or an argumentative buffoon..
It’s not the emissivity of the atmosphere that’s in question. You said Trenberth was wrong to use 1, and despite repeated questioning have refused to give what you consider the proper value to be and have done so again here, so give us the values!
Phil,
there is nothing with an emissivity of 1 except the fabled perfect black body.
“Here is an interesting article I ran across while looking for information on emissivity and the earth’s atmosphere. It is observations from a Mars probe, on the way there, taken of the earth and used to compute emissivity and temps!!!
http://www.xylenepower.com/Emissivity.htm
Emissivity is about .76…”
Here is an article you should like better:
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/12/27/emissivity-of-the-ocean/
gives emissivity as about .99. After reading it he appears to blow off the issue of roughness so, I will stick with about .98 although it probably varies below this due to conditions.
Then the other 30% of the surface is a bit less, so, the sorry Trenberth diagram doesn’t quite make it.
http://www.raytek.com/Raytek/en-r0/IREducation/EmissivityNonMetals.htm
Trenberth is only missing about .9w/m2. With numbers this sloppy he will always be missing it.
You’re kidding, Phil, right?
The denier’s motto is “Never retract, deny.”
Actually, it’s more a creed than just a motto.
I just want to check something.
Wiki:
“The greenhouse effect is a process by which thermal radiation from a planetary surface is absorbed by atmospheric greenhouse gases, and is re-radiated in all directions. Since part of this re-radiation is back towards the surface, energy is transferred to the surface and the lower atmosphere. As a result, the temperature there is higher than it would be if direct heating by solar radiation were the only warming mechanism.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
And this heating is 2.4 watts per sq meter. And another 2.4 or so watts is going up instead of towards the surface.
The heat from sun heating the surface and heat still in the surface after sun goes down on average global and day and nite is 2.4 watts per square meter. Or since human body generates 100 watts of heat energy, this warming is on average equal one person standing per 40 square meters
around the world. Or a 1500 watt hair dryer running every 600 square meters all around the world.
And this is from the 400 parts per million CO2 in the atmosphere, plus all other greenhouse gases.
“Solar radiation at the high frequencies of visible light passes through the atmosphere to warm the planetary surface, which then emits this energy at the lower frequencies of infrared thermal radiation. Infrared radiation is absorbed by greenhouse gases, which in turn re-radiate much of the energy to the surface and lower atmosphere. ”
And though the 2.4 watts per square meter is an averaged amount, when sun is shining a warming the surface and causing the surface to be hotter than during the nite, there would more 2.4 watts per square. And therefore heating more 2.4 watts in addition to energy of the sunlight which could as high as 1000 watts per square meter. So could have 1000 + say 5 or 10 watts of energy per square meter of surface during the day.
That part is agree by all warmers and some skeptics and/or deniers
disagree with it.
And then we get to amplification and runaway part where there is some disagreement amongst the warmer- questions about exactly how much sensitivity and how much instability is inherent in the earth systems.
But that this 2.4 watts of addition energy causes very significant increase in earth average temperatures.
“If an ideal thermally conductive blackbody was the same distance from the Sun as the Earth is, it would have a temperature of about 5.3 °C. However, since the Earth reflects about 30% (or 28%) of the incoming sunlight, the planet’s effective temperature (the temperature of a blackbody that would emit the same amount of radiation) is about −18 or −19 °C,about 33°C below the actual surface temperature of about 14 °C or 15 °C.[10] The mechanism that produces this difference between the actual surface temperature and the effective temperature is due to the atmosphere and is known as the greenhouse effect.”
Warming the planet by 33 C.
gbaikie
Your rather sceptical post shows you are lacking in a vivid imagination.
You see the 1 or 2 W/m2 effect but fail to see the result producing the full 33K greenhouse effect.
You will hardly accept that increasing CO2 will lead to Venus type temperatures I suppose!
I predict therefor that you doubt the existence of Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.
Physics can explain the 33K effect without any need for a greenhouse effect.
However to fully understand you need to study the Carnot Cycle.
Guess which part of thermodynamics course most climate science courses miss out.
“However to fully understand you need to study the Carnot Cycle.
Guess which part of thermodynamics course most climate science courses miss out.”
All that is needed to be known is at top of atmosphere there is 1361 watts per square meter. 50 miles down on the surface of the earth at noon with sun in middle of sky on cloudless day there is about 1000 watts per square meter. Or more than 100 times 2.4 watts per square meter “disappears”.
And 100 times 2.4 watts is 100 times more important.
And of course that thousands of New Yorker walking on the sidewalk at noon, aren’t warming the sidewalk.
But I digress.
I simply wanted to make sure it is this which the experts all agree on.
Rather than argue and say how foolish they are.
I commend to you all the Angus Millar lecture “Scientific heresy” by Matt Ridley at the RSA in Edinburgh (http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/11/1/scientific-heresy.html). Much of what Matt says is applicable to both sides of the CACC debate. The comments are worth reading too.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete Ridley recommends Matt Ridley
The lecture was very good.
I can’t believe you are related , are you?
Hi Bryan, don’t you think that is a bit cheaky, considering that all you say about yourself is that you are called Bryan from Central Scotland and have a degree in Physics. At least you have enough information on this thread to do your own research to find out for yourself if Matt and I are related. If you do bother checking up don’t get confused with this “Ridley” (http://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/university.college/castellum/castellum2010.pdf) who went to the same grammar school but 9 years ahead of me. I love the comment QUOTE: .. ‘how is it that though you went to school in Hexham you speak so beautifully?’ He gave his usual gurgling laugh before confessing:
‘Elocution, dear boy, elocution!’ .. UNQUOTE. Matt didn’t have that problem because “speaking posh” is in the genes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Ridley).
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Hi Vernon (your comment of 3rd November at 11:44 pm) and Bryan (4th November at 6:27 am), I’m pleased that you found those spectra of interest, just as did Roger Taguchi, who explained what you both have just said and much more during September exchanges involving the “Slayers” (unfortunately for Ken he wasn’t included in the circulation) etc. Energy that would otherwise have shot off into space as IR radiation is absorbed by greenhouse gases and some of it is passed on to the major gases N2 and O2 which don’t radiate. This was debated ad nauseam during Oct. in the “John O’Sullivan’s Specious Claims” exchanges.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Again, Pete, I find your lack of precision troublesome. You can say that N2 and O2 don’t radiate much in the IR wavelengths we generally talk about, but you can’t say N2 and O2 don’t radiate. In fact, they radiate everything they need to to satisfy S-B. In addition, there is a lot of N2, O2 and Argon. These atmospheric molecules have temperatures. This temperature is very close to the temperature of water vapor molecules and mother nature works very hard (via collision) to equalize the temps. So, if WV radiates, and WV radiates according to the temperature it got from nearly 1,000,000PPM of N2, O2 and Argon, then you could be excused for saying N2, O2 and Argon radiate very effectively in IR wavelengths.
Pete Ridley
I look forward to reading the comments of Roger Taguchi and others if the e-mails are made public.
However it does seem that there is a danger of counting radiation twice.
Here is the formula for the temperature profile of the dry adiabatic troposphere.
Lapse Rate = – g/Cp
g = Gravitational Field Strength
Cp = Heat Capacity of dry air at constant pressure.
Cp contains all the relevant thermodynamic quantities including radiation.
End of story.
However it seems to me that IPCC advocates then add the “greenhouse gas” radiation a second time.
Hey Ken Coffman, now that Tim Ball’s attorney Michael Scherr has confirmed John O’Sullivan was NEVER hired as a “legal consultant” for the law firm Pearlman Lindholm — establishing beyond question that the Sky Dragon Sleazer is a fraud, a liar, and a charlatan — are you still standing by your colleague’s integrity? You say you like his ideas, but why should anyone trust anything said or written by such a pathological liar?
You probably are aware that O’Sullivan’s lies are finally catching up to him. A few days ago, his writing gig at Suite101.com was terminated and the 60 or so error- and libel-filled articles he wrote for them during the past two years were deleted. He’s blaming this on censorship. I think it may have more to do with Suite101.com editors’ discovering his bio was full of lies — like claiming to be a member of the American Bar Association, being a “legal consultant for Pearlman Lindholm,” publishing articles in National Review and Forbes magazines, and having “successfully litigated for over a decade in New York State and Federal 2nd Circuit courts.”
Isn’t it time to delete the bogus claim from all your promotional materials that the Sky Dragon Slayer leader has “successfully litigated for over a decade in the New York State courts and U.S. federal 2nd circuit?”
I know, I know, you “like his ideas.” You prefer to associate with a person whose ideas are acceptable to you despite his utter lack of professional and personal integrity. That tells us all we need to know about your own integrity.
Hi Ken (ref. 3rd & 4th November at 8:51 pm & 10:51 am), you may recall that during the “John O’Sullivan’s specious claims” exchanges in Oct. concerning the greenhouse effect ex-“Slayer” Professor Johnson started talking about “ .. The version with backradiation/DLR from a background at a certain temp above 0 K .. ”. There ensued several contributions from Professor Petty, John, Roger Sowell, Alan Siddons and me about which “version” of the Greenhouse Gas Theory was being attacked by the “Slayers”.
In those exchanges I suggested QUOTE: .. Perhaps it would have helped “Slaying the Sky Dragon” book sales if the version of the Greenhouse Theory that they were claiming to have slain had been declared at the beginning of the book. Perhaps a more accurate title would have been more along the lines of “Attacking the Sky Dragon: Death of the AMS Version of the Greenhouse Theory”, but that isn’t the promotional style of the leader of the “Slayers” .. UNQUOTE.
Alan commented QUOTE: .. I don’t know what you mean by “chosen version of the definition of the Greenhouse Effect.” We go by the consensus version, if it may be called that. Here’s NASA’s version, for instance. http://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/g.html .. UNQUOTE.
Regardless of what might be said in IPCC reports, NASA bulletins, AMS glossaries, the media or the blogosphere about back-radiation, IR absorbing atmospheric gases prevent energy that originated from the Sun and was absorbed by the global system of geo/aqua/cryo/bio/atmo-spheres from radiating to space. Energy accumulating in a system as heat causes an increase in temperature of that system does it not? Such a temperature increase will cause an increase in the energy that is radiated by the system until balance is restored between incoming and outgoing energy. Is not that what is known by many of us as the “Greenhouse Effect” even though it is not what causes a greenhouse to heat up?
I also asked in those exchanges QUOTE: .. If, as you claim, E/M energy radiated from a cold object cannot be absorbed by a hotter object then how is it possible for radio transceivers located on satellites in space to transfer E/M energy (both ways) between transceivers on earth. Surely the transmitting aerials in space are colder (3K?) than the receiving aerials on earth (280K?). If you “Slayers” are correct, then the object on which the E/M radiation falls doesn’t care whether the source of the radiation is natural or artificial, only that it exceeds some magic threshold associated with S-B and therefore must be rejected. This doesn’t sound plausible to me, especially as communications between satellites and earth seem to be a feature of our present lifestyles (I even designed telecommunications systems for off-shore oil rigs using such technology and no-one complained about them not working properly) .. UNQUOTE. No-one answered that question and only Allan responded, with a nonsensical “ .. As for your belief that the strength of a radio signal is proportional to the antenna’s temperature, I’d suggest that you drop that line of inquiry. .. ”.
I recall Andrew Skolnick raising a similar point about microwave ovens, which ex-“Slayer” Professor Johnson commented on in “The Sky Dragon Strikes Back” (http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2011_07_01_archive.html), argung “ .. Isn’t this a counter-example? No, it is not because the amplitude of the microwave radiation is much larger than that of blackbody radiation of the corresponding temperature .. ”. Perhaps someone can explain how that justifies the “Slayers” claim that E/M radiation cannot transfer energy from a colder to a hotter body.
Your “ .. WV radiates, and WV radiates according to the temperature it got from nearly 1,000,000PPM of N2, O2 and Argon, then you could be excused for saying N2, O2 and Argon radiate very effectively in IR wavelengths .. ” is pseudo-scientific therefore aligns with “Slayer” arguments. Yes, water vapour (and other “greenhouse gases” can pick up energy from N2, O2, Ar. etc. but what does it then do with that energy – radiate it all out to space? I think not. Maybe radiation is in all directions, including towards the Earth’s surface, AKA “back radiation”.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Hi gbaikie (3rd November at 8:31 am) may I suggest that you use with caution what is offered at Wikipedia. It is not a source of reliable unbiased information, as Andrew and I know very well (http://www.territorioscuola.com/wikipedia/en.wikipedia.php?title=User_talk:Pete_Ridley and http://www.swiss.dreab.com/p-User_talk:TimidGuy ). This is particularly true of the Climate Change entries, on which (until he was stripped of his editing rights) software engineer and “Hockey Team” member Dr. William M Connolley (AKA Stoat – http://www.joabbess.com/2010/10/17/the-stoat-also-rises/) was at liberty to modify to reflect his own biased opinion. Unfortunately Connolley has been allowed back as an editor (http://pediawatch.wordpress.com/2011/10/24/william-m-connolley-ban-appeal-accepted-partially/) but at least he may now be subjected to greater scrutiny than previously.
Your Wikipedia extract says of re-radiation back towards the surface (AKA back radiation) “ .. As a result, the temperature there is higher than it would be if direct heating by solar radiation were the only warming mechanism .. ”. To a first approximation (which is near enough taking into consideration all of the other dubious estimates made about the processes and drivers of the different global climates) Solar radiation IS the only warming mechanism (despite “Slayer” Joseph Olson’s fixation about Geothermal – http://slayingtheskydragon.com/en/blog/135-earths-missing-geothermal-flux).
That extract also refers to “ .. the lower frequencies of infrared thermal radiation .. ” but what is meant by “thermal radiation”? Is not E/M radiation from the sun mainly “thermal radiation” in the sense that it arises from the heating of that body by the nuclear reaction taking place at its core (http://www.suntrek.org/solar-surface-below/solar-energy-chain/source-suns-energy.shtml), although “Slayer” Professor Oliver K Manuel would argue to the contrary (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/29/new-book-slaying-the-sky-dragon/ and Ben Lawson’s take-off blog http://wottsupwiththat.com/2010/12/03/new-book-slaying-the-sky-dragon/). As far as the transfer of energy from one body to another via the radiation of E/M waves is concerned I see no merit in differentiating between parts of the spectrum. E/M waves transfer energy (not heat) from the Sun to the Earth, from the Earth to the atmosphere and from the atmosphere both to space and back to Earth.
You may find of interest “Would the Earth Really Be 33 C colder Without Greenhouse Gases?” (http://ourhydrogeneconomy.blogspot.com/2011/09/would-earth-really-be-33-c-colder.html). Another site that is helpful is “The Sun & its Energy” (http://telstar.ote.cmu.edu/environ/m3/s2/02sun.shtml).
BTW, I was a bit surprised by your comment regarding Venus on 29th Mar 2010 at 9:02 AM on the “Cartoons by Josh – The Auditor” thread (http://climateaudit.org/2010/03/28/cartoons-by-josh-the-auditor/) that “ .. I believe it’s fairly dim under 90 atms of CO2, so would say the amount solar radiation that hits Venus is less than on Earth. On Earth at 90 atm of ocean depth [about 3000′] the sun light doesn’t reach that far- the sunlight doesn’t even get down a thousand feet. .. ”. I was under the impression that CO2 and water were rather different as far as transmission properties of E/M waves and that both are relatively transparent to E/M waves in the visible region of the spectrum. You may find these helpful http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~bds2/ltsn/ljm/JAVA/SPECTRUM/details.html and http://www.mentallandscape.com/V_Lavochkin2.htm.
While searching for the above information I came across a 2009 article “HEAT TRANSFER” by “Slayer” biologist Nasif Nahle Sabag (http://www.biocab.org/Heat_Transfer.html) in which he demonstrates the same fixation about the E/M radiation of heat energy being different from the E/M radiation of light “ .. The thermal radiation is electromagnetic radiation that consists of particles and waves, i.e. photons and waves, the same as visible light. .. ”.
Nasif also makes the odd claim (for A “Slayer”) that “ .. CO2 is able to absorb the energy emitted by the ground and the oceans and transforms it into kinetic and potential energy. By these transformations from one class of energy into another, the CO2 emits radiant energy .. ” which is my understanding of the (mis-named) atmospheric Greenhouse Effect (not to be confused with the cause of heat retention in a gardener’s greenhouse). Unfortunately he then goes on to say that this radiated energy “ .. is transferred by convection to the upper atmosphere layers .. ” without explaining how/where the radiated energy (heading in all directions, including towards the Earth) gets converted to kinetic energy before being carried to the upper layers of the atmosphere.
Notice that in Nasif’s introductory diagram “Convection, Conduction and Radiation” the only mention of radiation is with regard to incoming solar energy – a very confused and confusing
(It always makes me uncomfortable when the begging bowl makes an appearance “Donate to help keep the http://www.biocab.org website going.” (http://www.biocab.org/Index.html and see also http://www.biocab.org/About_Us.html).
Another site that several contributors here should find helpful is “
Absorption of EM radiation Molecular absorption processes” (http://www.geo.mtu.edu/~scarn/teaching/GE4250/absorption_lecture.pdf) which also makes the point relating to the term “thermal radiation” (which Bryan is so keen on) that “Absorption of visible light causes heating”.
In your comment of 3rd November at 9:38 pm you said “ .. If energy is absorbed it will emit at the wavelengths it’s temperature as indicated in Planck Curve. So energy isn’t stopped .. ”. I was under the impression that Plank’s Law and the Plank Curve related to black bodies, whereas gases are not black bodies. As for your QUOTE: .. “greenhouse affect” won’t be about slowing radiant energy transfer .. UNQUOTE I don’t know who has suggested that it is. My understanding is that the “greenhouse effect” is about certain gases like H2O, Ch4, CO2 etc. absorbing certain wavelengths within the band of IR emitted by the Earth and preventing it escaping to space, hence increasing the amount of energy within the global system of aqua/geo/cryo/bio/atmo-spheres.
I thought that increasing the energy of a system could also raise the temperature of that system but I am open to other suggestions. As for the effect of the thermal capacity of the elements in the system, I see that as simply affecting the rate at which that retained energy can increase the system’s temperature. If you are interested I use a simple electrical analogy of this, with the incoming solar energy represented by a constant current source and the global system by a variable resistor with a capacitor across it, discharging through another variable resistor.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
On the back of an envelop I started to make a model of a semi- transparent one slab atmosphere without the concept of back radiation but applying SB between two surfaces with heat flow from warm to cold. I got the same results as those textbook examples with the formulation of the one slab atmosphere with the concept of back radiation.
Taking a bigger piece of paper I made a multi-layer modeland applying the SB equations for a pair of surfaces from warm to cold.
To circumferent those who say that you cannot apply SB to gases, I called my model chicken wire stack model. I do not pretend more.
The equations are correct, and I put in the numbers of the atmosphere.
The results were coherent and I conclude that I can apply the chiken wire model to the atmosphere.
I then put in the numbers of K&T type of budgets.
My conclusion is that
1)back radiation does not exists
2)K%T and other authors use an absorption coefficient which is 4 times to high
3)Measurements by so called pyrogeometers do not measure back radiation, thet get information on the temperature somewhere in the atmosphere and by a wrong application of SB they conver it to Watt/m^2 and call it back radiation.
Please read my article and give me your comments.
http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/IRabsW27102011.pdf
That’s a lovely paper, Joseph. Well said, sir. You think like an engineer, not like a climate scientist. That is a grand compliment. The difference is that engineers have to live in the real world and can’t invent nonphysical processes to serve their philosophic ends.
Ken still doesn’t get it. Engineers are to Scientists as Apes are to Humans. Not all are as highly evolved. As Ken has repeatedly shown us here, some are dedicated knuckledraggers.
It would do the Sky Dragon Slayer publisher a world of good to learn something about the philosophy of scientists whom he ignorantly mocks. Here’s a fairly good description from Wikipedia:
“The philosophy of science is concerned with the assumptions, foundations, methods and implications of science. It is also concerned with the use and merit of science and sometimes overlaps metaphysics and epistemology by exploring whether scientific results are actually a study of truth.”
But truth is not something Mr. Coffman appears to value very much — considering his support of the group of kooks and humbugs led by John O’Sullivan — who has been fraudulently promoting himself and his pseudoscience through a plethora of bogus academic and professional credentials.
Engineers work with applied science and we focus on physical processes that can actually do something. A good engineer would never invent something out of thin air simply because it served a political, psychological or philosophical need. I used to think academic scientists were amusing and irrelevant, but now I see their sad disconnect from reality can be expensive and dangerous. This makes madmen like Hansen, Trenberth and Mann my enemy and I will continue to do my best to shine the bright, sanitizing light of reason on their corrupt pseudoscience. There are many here who share and support your POV, Andrew. I’m happy to be their enemy too.
To “circumferent” climate warming deniers who use words just as inaccurately as they use numbers to fool themselves and others, I plan to create the website http://www.ilovedenierbuffoons.com
In my website, I promise no “pyrogeometers” will call anything “back radiation” or any other such slur. In fact, pyrogeometers will keep their opinions to themselves, just as they do in the real world.
I’m sure, if you gave JWR a big enough piece of paper, he could prove to himself that up is down, the moon is really made of green cheese, and the Texas Rangers actually won the World Series.
I think it would be great if JWR joined up with Harry Dale Huffman to write the “True Science of Everything.” Ken Coffman’s Stairway Press would likely jump on the opportunity to publish their series under the title Kook-squared.
HI JWR, please see my response above (November 5, 2011 at 7:37 pm).
Do you think that reposting this again absolves you from answering the questions concerning it the first time? You disappeared for about a week and now appear to want to start over, try answering the questions instead.
As I said a week ago:
“I have difficulty not with your equations but your obstinate refusal to recognize that you have included negative terms in your equation which are flux from the cooler body. This has nothing to do with the atmosphere or lapse rates but fundamental errors on your part in radiative heat transfer, used by engineers and scientists the world over. You make demands that I construct a 3-layer model when that has nothing to do with my objections but refuse to address any of the points I’ve raised. Your guru, Johnson, did the same, I suspect because neither of you have a clue how to address them.”
Phil,
What you do not understand is when I write the equation for the LW flux leaving the earth that it is less what would have been if the surface was looking trough an atmosphere without being hindered by IR-sensitive molecules. In terms of K&K not 390 is leaving the earth but less.
Nobody exept you is stubborn to think that that nature is sending up the full 390 Watt/m^2.
The reason I ask you to write down the equations for 3 layers is, withth the concept of Prevost-Fourier type of source terms is that then you do not know what to do with the source term on level 3 and level 4.
My equations are correct, in fact you can find the terms which you would call back radiation. You make yourself life too difficult and K&T, and VD and FM are even quarelling about the boundary conditions.
I conclude that K&T, VD and FM have used absorption coefficients a factor 4 too high.
When they claim that they have measured back radiation, I have given in the papre the analytical expression: you do not only need temperature but also the absorption coefficient or if you want the crossection of the IR sensitive molecules.
Phil, I was reading some where in an answer of Judith Curry to Claes Johnson that she is not using the term back radiation in her courses.
She understands that it is an unfortunate concept, being the reason that IPCC authors come with absorption coefficients which are a factor 4 too high.
As concerns your remark that I was absent, yes indeed, I went to see friends leaving my laptop at home..
But I gave you plenty of time to come up with your equations for a three layer model with the Prevost_fourier type of source terms.
Hi Bryan (ref. 4th November at 10:54 am) I may get around to posting all of the E-mail exchanges involving the “Slayers” on my “Global Political Shenanigans” blog, starting with the Dec./Jan. “PSI & Due Diligence” ones (100 + pages) in relation to John O’Sullivan’s “Slaying the Sky Dragon” Chapter 21. Then I may follow up with the recent “PSI & Politics” and “John O’Sullivan’s Specious Claims” (60 pages), “Resolution of conflict between me and Prof. Grant Petty” (30 pages), “The Greenhouse Effect” (25 pages) and “Back Radiation” (40 pages).
On second thoughts maybe I should just write a book “Slaying the Dragon Slayers: Death of Principia Scientific International”. Maybe Andrew Skolnick would like to be a co-author.
Your “ .. Heat Capacity of dry air at constant pressure .. contains all the relevant thermodynamic quantities including radiation .. ” comes as a surprise to me, but I don’t have a degree in Physics like you. Maybe you can make the time to expand on that statement, but please keep it simple. I do agree with you about the risk of double-accounting and it does seem to me that “ .. IPCC advocates then add the “greenhouse gas” radiation a second time .. ”.
BTW, you (and Professor Johnson) may be interested in the Theoretical Physics paper in the American Journal of Physics, 1980 “Thermodynamics of Blackbody Radiation” by teacher Robert E Kelly (http://www.iafe.uba.ar/e2e/readings/thermoblackbody.pdf).
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete Ridley
Thanks for your post.
Yes I have already read the Robert E Kelly paper.
It was one of the first papers I revised in order to fully understand the thermodynamics behind climate science.
Notice once again that the paper relies on analysis of the Carnot Cycle.
Several times I have urged you to become familiar with this fundamental part of thermodynamics.
It would be very easy then to convince you that the claimed 33K greenhouse effect is in fact a fraud.
It is effortlessly derived by the Carnot Cycle applied to dry air subject to adiabatic conditions in a gravitational field.
You would not then be fooled by charlatans like Colose and Shore.
These two gentlemen for instance think that Mann’s Hockey Stick paper is sound science.
The heat capacity of air ( Cp ) is the energy required to raise a mass of air by one degree Celsius.
It is a bulk property summing up all the various relevant thermodynamic processes.
Since air contains traces of CO2 it will also represent any radiative properties as it affects the bulk properties of air.
Its use in the DALR formula for instance will give the expected air temperature as the altitude changes.
Both yourself and Andrew Skolnick seem to know details of the background of some of the ‘slayers’ and have made serious allegations of fraud.
You are right to expose these if true.
The laws of libel seem only to serve the very rich.
The Murdoch press for instance routinely ruin the lives of ordinary people slandered but unable to respond because of the prohibitive costs.
Readers like myself will take note but cannot add anything.
The three papers by Postma are in my opinion a valuable contribution to the climate debate
PSI made publication of these papers possible so if you believe in honest debate you should regard this as a ‘good thing’.
Oh, the allegations of fraud are demonstrably true. Now that the Law Society of British Columbia has completed its investigation, I will in the next few days be posting documentation on my web site that proves Sky Dragon Slayer leader John O’Sullivan has been fraudulently portraying himself as an attorney representing Tim Ball before the Supreme Court of British Columbia, that he was hired as a legal consultant for the law firm Pearlman Lindholm, that he fraudulently claimed to have written two articles in National Review that were actually written by the magazine’s editor-at-large, and other examples where he fraudulently claims credentials he does not have.
In the meantime, here is the reply I received Friday from Mr. Michael Scherr, who is the attorney representing Tim Ball before the Supreme Court of British Columbia:
Dear Mr. Skolnick
I have never said that Mr. O’Sullivan was working for or engaged by Pearlman Lindholm. What I can confirm is that Mr. O’Sullivan was engaged by my client to provide consultation regarding the lawsuits and he did so. Further, that this relationship has been terminated. I further confirm that he claimed to be an attorney.
I trust this is the clarification which you require.
Michael R. Scherr
Pearlman Lindholm
The Law Society of British Columbia is not going to discipline Mr. Scherr on the basis that he was not a knowing-party of John O’Sullivan’s misconduct.
In his reply to the law society, Mr. Scherr said his firm “did not engage Mr. O’Sullivan to provide any services to our firm,” and that he was “not aware that Mr. O’Sullivan was representing himself as a lawyer representing Dr. Ball in these actions.”
Andrew Skolnick’s comment (4th November at 12:25 pm) brings me back to my favourite topic on this thread, the “Slayers”, PSI, Due Diligence & politics. Another of those contributors who hides behind a false name, this one a sort of telescope (1st November at 12:57 am) appears to be keen to know more about the “Slayers” so my opinion of the individuals involved with PSI and their motivations may be of interest. Of course, if anyone can provide convincing evidence that my opinions (which arise from my close involvement with the “Slayers” since Dec.) are mistaken then please let me know so that I can consider whether an apology is warranted.
The first of these opinions is that there is no justification for John O’Sullivan’s claim that QUOTE: .. Principia Scientific International (PSI) was conceived after 22 international climate experts and authors joined forces to write the climate science bestseller, ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory.’ .. UNQUOTE (http://principia-scientific.org/about-us/principles-of-association). It’s those bits about there being “ .. international climate experts .. ” involved in writing a “climate science best seller” that I remain unconvinced about.
First let’s look at the core “Slayers” and PSI Founding Members, John O’Sullivan, Hans Schreuder and Joseph Olson (http://principia-scientific.org/about-us/principles-of-association) but in a somewhat less promotional manner than is evident on the PSI Web-pages.
John O’Sullivan, “Slayer” project leader and PSI CEO:
A self-aggrandising individual who appears to have attempted to build a career in a string of different disciplines during the past three decades, including school teacher, fiction writer, (self?)-publishing and (self?)-promotions but has had scant success in any. His main claim to fame appears to have been “ .. to be ranked second in the UK for indoor machine rowing .. ” (http://www.friendsreunited.co.uk/JohnOSullivan) although I have been unable to find confirmation of this.
Andrew Skolnick and Gareth Reneowden (http://hot-topic.co.nz/so-many-lies-and-the-liar-who-tells-them/) have spent considerable time researching this “Slayer” and Andrew reported his findings in earlier comments here (e.g. October 15, 2011 at 3:13 pm and October 25, 2011 at 1:33 am) and elsewhere. I too have provided information on John in relation to his PSI project so leave it to anyone who is interested to search for more information.
Hans Schreuder, “Slayer” and PSI CFO:
Nothing much can be found about Hans to justify John’s claims about international climate experts. He’s a retired analytical chemist who’s only claims to fame seems to be that he runs his own “ILoveMyCarbon” blog, co-authored Slaying the Sky Dragon and helped John to set up PSI. On 1st Jan John said “ .. Most of my conversations about a vision for PSI have been with Hans Schreuder and Joe Olson .. ” (see NOTE below). Hans claimed on 8th Jan that “ .. My sixth sense has yet to be proven wrong .. ” so perhaps that is how he makes decisions, including those about climate science. Perhaps it was Hans’s sixth sense that played a major role in helping John formulate his ludicrous plans for PSI as a CIC during 2010.
Joseph A Olson, “Slayer” and PSI Founding Member & Stakeholder:
“ .. author is a Registered Engineer involved in construction, who has a lifelong commitment to functional mass transit and to vast improvements in auto efficiency and safety, and is also opposed to political manipulation thru FALSE SCIENCE. .. ” (http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/attachment.php?aid=284).
The presenters of a Dec 13, 1989, KPRC TV, Nitecast with Ron Stone “Houston 2000 News Release” described Joe perfectly “ .. Just an ordinary guy with some extraordinary ideas .. when Olson thinks big he rally thinks big, but does anybody care .. the dreamers of this world have long been ignored .. Joe Olson is still dreaming .. whether anyone listens or not .. ” (www.fauxscienceslayer.com/video/Olson.wmv). Those comments are as valid today as they were 22 years ago.
Semi-retired Engineer Joe is nicely summed up in his own words “ .. This has been a labor of love, freely given to humanity, that we might rescue humanity from the grips of elitist slavery. To date I have not received and financial return from this investment. That may change, for in July 2010 I was invited to be co-author of Slaying the Sky Dragon, the definitive Earth science text of the 21st century. I wish to thank my fellow Slayers and pray that you join us in educating and freeing science and our blessed human family .. ” (http://fauxscienceslayer.com/pdf/author.pdf). Note that mention of a possible financial return through his association with the “Slayers”.
Among Joe’s strong convictions is one that our different global climates are driven by geo-nuclear energy.
I have seen no evidence to refute what was said of Joe in a comment on 17th July 2009 at 12:31 am “ “Joseph A Olson is an Engineer, not a Climatologist. He’s not even a scientist. He works in construction. He has never published a peer reviewed article on ANY scientific subject. He is prone to getting into childish spitting contests. His use of highly partisan and inflammatory language undermines any pretense of credibility he puts forth. Olson is politically motivated, often allowing his emotions to seep into his pseudo-scientific articles” (http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=127).
Joe is another of the “Slayers” who seems to believe, like John O’Sullivan, that they are a group of noteworthy climate scientists. He did confirm one guess of mine, that John had designed the over-the-top cover for ”Slaying the Sky Dragon” (http://audiofarm.org/audiofiles/14845 at 08:50 mins)
I’ll take a look at the rest of the original “Slayers” Martin Hertzberg, Alan Siddons, Charles Anderson, Claes Johnson and Tim Ball later, then mention a few of the others involved in the Dec./Jan. “PSI & Due Diligence” exchanges.
NOTE: In that E-mail of 1st Jan. from my “PSI & Due Diligence” folder John said QUOTE: ..
We realize that the UK govt will not permit us to set up a charity for the express purpose of suing government agencies. It’s a non starter really. Moreover, I’m highly skeptical that we could put together such a large team of experts (scientists, lawyers and media specialists) willing to give up so much time unpaid under the non-paying constraints of charitable status. Personally, I’m barely scraping by financially as I’ve spent the last year working on skeptic advocacy full-time, unpaid. I cannot maintain my current level of commitment without some kind of financial remuneration ( especially now that the UK govt has raised tuition fees so drastically and I’ve 2 ambitious teenagers keen to go to university).
For clarification – if we set up as a CIC we serve a distinct community: scientists and related professionals. (At the bottom of this email there is a current draft why we think PSI should be a CIC).
Suing corrupt govt science agencies is something we know we must do but it cannot be an express aim when applying to set up either as a charity or a CIC .. UNQUOTE
then went on to describe his proposed structure for PSI as a CIC. That final sentence summarises John’s original plans for PSI. If anyone would like a copy of my Word document of “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mails then let me know.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Hi Bryan (5th November at 5:26 am) you say “ .. It would be very easy then to convince you that the claimed 33K greenhouse effect is in fact a fraud. .. ” but I don’t need convincing of this because it doesn’t concern me. My concern is about the nonsense that the power-hungry, the UN’s IPCC, the politicians and the environmentalists keep pushing at us about the catastrophic consequences of our use of fossil fuels. Since 15th March 2007, when I first became aware of the propaganda booklet “Six Degrees: Our future on a hotter planet” by staunch environmentalist Mark Lynas (http://www.adishakti.org/_/to_the_end_of_the_earth_six_degrees.htm) I have researched much of the published evidence about the processes and drivers of the different global climates. As a consequence I am already convinced that the impact of any CO2 that we put into the atmosphere is insignificant. I don’t need to become an expert in thermodynamics or the Carnot cycle to be any more convinced that I am.
Back in September during exchanges with Professor Grant Petty, Dr. John Nicols, Roger Taguchi, Colin Davidson, Chris Colose, “Slayers” Alan Sidons, Martin Hertzberg, , “Back Radiation & The Greenhouse Effect” I drew attention to Alan Siddons’s Chapter 4 in “Slaying the Sky Dragon”. There followed a discussion about the cause of the atmospheric lapse rate which suggested that not all of those who support the CACC hypothesis claim that the 33C additional warmth at the Earth’s surface is due to the Greenhouse Effect. Here are extracts from a couple of those E-mails that illustrate the point, first one from Professor Petty QUOTE ..
The dry adiabatic lapse rate gives the maximum lapse rate that can persist in the atmosphere without the onset of spontaneous convective overturning. Such overturning drives the lapse rate back toward the adiabatic lapse rate. In fact, if you put atmosphere through a blender, and if there were no moisture (and therefore no condensation), then you would get an atmosphere that exhibits exactly the dry adiabatic lapse rate.
The effect of radiative cooling from the top of the atmosphere and of heating from below by the sun-warmed surface is to TRY to make the lapse rate VERY steep. But it can only steepen to the point where convective overturning begins, so the actual lapse rate is limited to the dry adiabatic value. In short, it’s the radiation that forces the temperature to decrease with height; it’s the adiabatic lapse rate that LIMITS how sharp that decrease can become.
Throw in moisture and things get complicated, because when condensation takes place, it’s the moist adiabatic lapse rate rather than the dry one that prevails. That’s why the Earth’s lapse rate averages around 6.5 K/km rather than the dry adiabatic value of 9.8 K/km.
I don’t know much about the details of temperature profiles on other planets, but presumably the same basic principle applies, with minor differences in the value of the respective lapse rate. Jupiter, by the way, as an unusual internal heat source, so solar radiation is not the sole contributor to the energy budget.
UNQUOTE
Next an extract from my later E-mail MAINQUOTE:
Professor Josh Halpern – one of Chris’s co-authors in their attempt to refute the paper ‘Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within the Frame of Physics’ by Gerlich & Tscheuschner (http://climateresearchnews.com/2009/03/new-peer-reviewed-study-falsification-of-the-atmospheric-co2-greenhouse-effects-within-the-frame-of-physics-by-gerlich-tscheuschner/) – had a short item on this in his “The very dry, very adiabatic lapse rate” article” in which he says (http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/05/very-dry-very-adiabatic-lapse-rate.html) QUOTE:
.. The surface temperature is fixed by a radiation balance between incoming solar and out and incoming IR. The second, colder endpoint is some place up there where something else happens to break the adiabatic condition, for example ozone absorption starting to kick in at the top of the Earth’s troposphere. For a planet with an atmosphere and no greenhouse gases, pretty much the temperature of space.
That leaves gas rarification/compression driven by gravitation as the mechanism for setting the atmospheric temperature profile. It is not saying that radiative energy flow is negligible, just that it is balanced .. UNQUOTE.
That last bit suggests to me that Professor Halpern agrees with Alan and Roger that the lapse rate is set by the adiabatic lapse rate for the dominant atmospheric gases (whatever the planet), regardless of greenhouse gases. Professor Halpern talks about the radiation balance into and out of the earth, not about the radiation from greenhouse gases (although that has an effect upon the total radiation to space, hence upon the lapse rate).
That brings us back to “Slayer” Alan Siddons’ question about the turning point in the temperature profile at 0.1bar not only in our atmosphere but in those of Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus and even Titian (but are the diagrams that he provides simply computer predictions rather than actual measurements?) ..
MAINUNQUOTE (sorry about any confusion caused by the nested QUOTEs).
Regarding your attempted clarification of how Cp is “ .. a bulk property summing up all the various relevant thermodynamic processes. Since air contains traces of CO2 it will also represent any radiative properties as it affects the bulk properties of air .. ” I don’t see how this is of any help when considering only the process of energy transfer by radiation.
On the much more interesting issue of “PSI & Politics” you say in relation to the “Slayers” that “ .. Both yourself and Andrew Skolnick .. have made serious allegations of fraud .. The laws of libel seem only to serve the very rich .. ”. Please would you be good enough to provide a link to anywhere that I have alleged that any of the “Slayers” have committed fraud.
I had related discussions with John O’Sullivan in mid-January during the “PSI & Due Diligence” exchanges.
On 12th I had sent a 4-page note to the “Slayers” expressing my reservations about trying to set up PSI as a CIC. That note included comments about likely action by those who might perceive PSI as a threat to the CACC hypothesis. One of the possible lines of attack could be trying to link PSI to a John O’Sullivan closely associated with QUOTE: .. that reviled political party the British Nationalist Party. The PSI executive elect can be linked with the UK’s far right BNP – see http://www.climategate.com/uk-independence-party-leaders-tell-it-like-it-is) and http://renegadeconservatoryguy.co.uk/tag/john-osullivan/. .. Can you assure the group that you will be able to refute immediately that you have not nor ever had any connection with Legal Action, the UK’s BNP or with Kevin Gregory (http://liveraf.wordpress.com/2010/12/06/the-impecunious-mr-griffin-the-strange-world-of-the-british-national-party-leader%E2%80%99s-legal-team/)? .. If our opponents can provide a convincing argument which cannot be convincingly refuted quickly then I believe that the credibility of PSI as a CIC, or even as a charity, and the group as a whole could be badly damaged .. UNQUOTE.
I followed this up on 14th with an 8-page statement covering “ .. I believe that trying to set up PSI as a CIC would fail and here’s why .. ”.
John’s response on 15th included “ .. 3. PERSONAL SLURS ARE ACTIONABLE UNDER LIBEL LAWS
Pete is concerned that PSI founders may be maligned due to our associations with ‘disreputable’ third parties. Pete further maligns me for doing my job as a science writer and legal commentator as if this would bar me from being a director of PSI.
He insinuates that I am a member of a racist organisation. For the record, I’m not the ‘John O’Sullivan’ associated with the BNP. Indeed, by contrast I hold libertarian sympathies. But I am not associated with the US Libertarian Party or any political party.
To slur me in that way, or PSI, once it is formed as a legal entity, constitutes defamation and is thus actionable under law. Thus, neither PSI nor I need fear direct personal attack .. ”.
As I explained to John in a follow-up E-mail on 15th “ .. I have not intentionally accused any third party of being ‘disreputable’ and if anyone can point me to where they think that I have done so then I will be happy to rewrite what was said in order to clarify and will apologise if necessary.
I have not deliberately maligned any of you about anything so if you consider that I have then please point me to it and again I’ll be happy to rewrite what was said in order to clarify and again apologise .. ”. No-one pointed to anything that I had said that warranted an apology and I do not expect that you can either.
You end by saying “ .. The three papers by Postma are in my opinion a valuable contribution to the climate debate PSI made publication of these papers possible so if you believe in honest debate you should regard this as a ‘good thing’ .. ”. This suggests that you believe that Postma’s papers could not have been published elsewhere – nonsense, there are numerous more established places where he could publish. As I pointed out to the “Slayers” in my E-mail on 12th Jan. “ .. is there to believe that PSI would succeed where others have failed (and are failing). It has no recognised status as a dependable scientific publishing house. How would it be seen any differently than Lyndon LaRouche’s EIR News Service Inc. and his 21st Century Science & Technology, .. ”.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
tempterrain says in response to a comment by Andrew Skolnick:
…..”I’m not too sure that I care for this “engineers v scientists” conflict.”….
I would agree, its a kind of pseudo dispute.
Engineers and scientists cooperate and everybody benefits.
There are even some notable crossovers.
Paul Dirac trained as an electrical engineer and ended up Professor of Theoretical Physics at Cambridge
I’m not too sure that I care for this “engineers v scientists” conflict. In fact there is no dispute. Every scientific and every engineering organisation worldwide are in agreement. AGW is happening and is a problem to be taken seriously.
–tempterrain | November 6, 2011 at 3:16 am |
I confess, in the heat of the moment when I drew the line between academics and engineers, I was painting with a broad brush and that’s unfair. That was a generalization and I know we should never generalize. I’ve know some true-believer AGW engineers. They exist. And, I know some scientists who think clearly on this subject. They exist. There is collusion and consensus among rent-seeking bureaucrats in professional and academic organizations. In a few years, Temp, the place you’re standing will be very lonely. I almost feel sorry for you.
Hi Peter Martin (AKA tempterrain), another coward who hides behind a false name, jumps in with another wild comment (6th November at 3:16 am). “ .. Every scientific and every engineering organisation worldwide are in agreement. AGW is happening and is a problem to be taken seriously .. ”? AGW is happening but CACC is not. I’d appreciate a list of each and every scientific and engineering organisation worldwide and the evidence to support that claim. I was a Member of the IEE (now the IET), an international engineering organisation. I am not aware that the institution has made any declaration about AGW, only expressed reasonable concern about the effects of climate change and made proposals about how to adapt (http://www.theiet.org/policy/collaboration/etf/infrastructure.cfm), something that life on Earth has had to do since it all began.
I understand that CERN is a scientific organisation but is not prepared to make declarations on climate change based upon the results of its CLOUD09 experiments, even though they have “ .. found that cosmic rays significantly enhance the formation of aerosol particles in the mid troposphere and above. These aerosols can eventually grow into the seeds for clouds .. ” (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/08/cern_scientists_question_agw_models.html).
So come on tempter, substantiate your claim about “every scientific and engineering organisation”, although I suspect that it is just another of your many exaggerated statements about CACC. Not only do you make exaggerated claims but you also give your support to bully-boy tactics, but that is typical of cowards, isn’t it. I refer here to your support of the vile 10:10 short film “No Pressure” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zH71XCmsbCc) in your Guardian comment a year ago (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/oct/04/10-10-campaign-events?commentpage=2#start-of-comments).
In August last year you asked concerning a doubling of atmospheric CO2 “ .. Is the IPCCs figure of another 3 degrees warming quite so ‘alarmist’ ? .. ”. Yes, it is alarmist and based upon a wild assumption about a non-existent positive feedback effect arising from a forced increase of atmospheric water vapour. There is no evidence that such a positive feedback exists, even though you seem to have swallowed the propaganda, considering your April 2009 comment “ .. There are likely to be a mixture of positive and negative feedbacks, but from the available evidence, it does seem to be wishful thinking that the overall effects are likely to be other than fairly strongly positive. .. ”. In that comment you linked to the “There is no negative feedback in the climate system” thread (http://www.grist.org/article/Negative-climate-feedback-is-as-real-as-the-Easter-Bunny) by Dr. Andrew Dessler. Dressler has admitted that “ .. Long ago, I spent most of my time working on the chemistry of the stratosphere. I haven’t worked on this subject since the late 1990s, and I realized the other day that I’ve forgotten just about everything I ever knew about it .. ” (http://atmo.tamu.edu/profile/Adessler) so I recommend that you find a reliable source for information on the CACC hypothesis (which rules out the “Slayers” or PSI).
A year before that, just around the time that the Climategate revelations were made, you were offering more left-wing environmentalist nonsense about “ .. With our energy supplies increasingly sourced overseas, and with urgent action needed to combat climate change, its time to rethink the way we supply and consume energy in Britain. We urgently need to move to a low carbon economy in order to strengthen our economy, help guarantee our energy security and protect our environment for future generations .. ”. You must now be very disappointed that great strides are being made in retrieving more oil and natural gas from locations both on-shore and off-shore UK “ .. fracked gas opens up the prospect of a cheaper, cleaner and abundant form of alternative energy .. A huge field of shale, fine-grained rock formed from mud and other deposits, stretches from the Scottish Borders to Derbyshire .. ” (http://www.scotsman.com/scotland-on-sunday/scotland/fracking_for_gas_given_the_green_light_1_1950654).
Have a read of that article and be enlightened. Despite the efforts of Lib-Dems like Chris Huhne (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/renewableenergy/8849093/Chris-Huhne-attacks-curmudgeons-and-faultfinders-who-dont-like-wind-farms.html) and Lord Redesdale (http://www.libdems.org.uk/people_detail.aspx?name=Lord_Redesdale&pPK=050cb95a-8f9c-48d9-952c-455b0a1d3fb3) and staunch environmental activist organisations like Friends of the Earth to fight such developments and promote the development of those useless wind farms and other “renewable” sources, natural gas (and coal) will be the major source of our fuel for many many decades.
You obviously are not a scientist of any merit, considering your nonsensical April 2009 comment “ .. OK so the dinosaurs lived in an atmosphere of over a 1000ppmv a hundred million years ago. If you were transported magically back in time you wouldn’t survive too long. You’d have headaches and a shortage of breath if you tried to run .. ”. Have you any idea what the CO2 concentration is in your living room or in the gym (if you use one)? Have you any idea what the operators of commercial greenhouses deliberately maintain the CO2 concentration at in order to get optimum growth?
You must live in a dream world if you still believe as you did in April 2009 “ .. that scientists are .. ‘Honest to a fault’ .. ”. Haven’t you heard of Professor Steven Schneider and his attitude towards scientists and honesty? I have mentioned Schneider and his disturbing comment on numerous blogs, including my “What does Iain Stewart’s CO2 experiment Demonstrate” thread on the Science Forum of the University of Cambridge’s Naked Scientists (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=38723) QUOTE: .. There are those who support the view which Professor Steven Schneider expressed in 1989 about the manner in which climate science should be presented. 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 of us to decide whether to lie or not. This is expected of politicians and those who earn their living through the media but not of those in a position of trust like physicians and researchers .. UNQUOTE.
I refer to that thread because it exemplifies how dishonest some scientists are prepared to be in order to use the popular media to get across their CACC propaganda to the general public. Scientist Professor Iain Stewart claimed in the BBC’s “Climate Wars” series in that he would demonstrate how our use of fossil fuels was causing climate change and then proceeded to use an equipment set-up that deliberately misled the audience into thinking that the absorption of IR by CO2 was far greater than it really is. This was achieved by using a 4 micron filter to remove most of the energy radiated by a candle so that only that narrow band reached an IR camera. He and the set-up designer Dr. Jonathan Hare knew full well that without that filter the effect of the CO2 would have been unobservable, just as the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere on the different global climates is insignificant.
Here’s what Dr. Hare admitted “..The thermal imaging camera we used was sensitive from ca. 1 to 5 µm, quite a large part of the IR spectrum. A lit candle or match produces lots of energy through the IR to the visible. Consequently a candle looks very bright (colourful) on the false colour IR camera image. .. You would think from what I said above that when you view the candle through the tube using the camera, and you introduce CO2 the bright flame would ‘disappear’ due to the IR absorption. However, when you try this it doesn’t work, the candle doesn’t disappear! The reason is that the CO2 absorptions observable by the IR camera are quite weak and are only in a relatively small part of the spectrum. The only way to get the demonstration to work is to have a ‘CO2 filter’ on the camera. This only lets through IR at around 4 µm, close to one of the CO2 absorption’s (which are broadened a bit at atmospheric pressure). The filter blocks out much of the IR energy so that the CO2 absorption is not so swamped anymore and this allows us to now observe our vanishing candle effect .. ” (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=38723.msg353560#msg353560).
(Vernon Kuhns, you mentioned 4 micron in your comment of 2nd November at 11:58 pm so may be interested in having a look at the comments on that Naked Scientists thread and at the a/v – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo.)
In my opinion geologist Professor Steward’s motivation for misleading the viewer with that demonstration was his personal conviction (like that of climatologist Professor Schneider) about our use of fossil fuels leading to CACC. I wanted to continue discussing the evidence that I had which showed Professor Stewart’s conviction about CACC but the moderator locked the thread. I may get round to discussing that on my blog after I have discussed PSI and the motivations of its founding members.
BTW, in Jan 1979 Professor Schneider was saying of CO2, the greenhouse effect and a rise in temperature of several degrees that “ .. It is surely the most dramatic of the carbon-dioxide induced effects .. ” (http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/05/23/1979-ncar-forecast-sea-level-may-rise-15-25-feet-before-the-year-2000/). Only the previous year he was very concerned about taking action against climate change, but cooling, not warming. Thanks to Luboš Motl we can see and hear him in Part 2 of “In search of the coming ice age” (from about 6 minutes in http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/10/in-search-of-coming-ice-age.html) and hear him say “ .. we can’t predict with any certainty what’s happening to our own climatic future .. How can we come along and intervene in that ignorance .. ”. Then he was worried about us heading into another ice-age but his comments are just as valid today, despite the enormous progress made in computer modelling. Schneider must have spotted a lucrative gravy-train passing by and decided to jump aboard.
Having read a lot of your comments elsewhere I conclude that you are a far left anti-capitalist from Australia or New Zealand perhaps. You seem to think that Professor Barry Brook of Adelaide University is one of your “ .. 7 top Australian climate reseachers .. ” and that his Adelaide associate Professor Ian Plimer is simply a mining industry stooge. Ecologist Brook is an expert in species extinction, not in the processes and drivers of global climates.
Peter, I can understand why TonyN said of you “ .. I’m afraid that your sneers, unwarranted assumptions and silly questions are becoming tedious not only for me but for other users of this bog. The time has probably come when you should find somewhere else to comment .. ”. You commented last year about Governments and taxation that “ .. They are experts at they sort of stuff they don’t need AGW to do it .. ” shows that you do not understand why they support the CACC scam so enthusiastically. One reason is to attract the environmentalist vote and another is to encourage the taxpayer to believe that they are parting with their hard-earned money for a worthy cause, protecting the environment from catastrophe to ensure that their grand-children don’t suffer.
If the CACC hypothesis was supported by convincing evidence then it would be a worthy cause, but the evidence just does not exist. If the positive feedback upon which the whole hypothesis depends was a reality the life as we know it would have been killed off many millions of years ago.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete Ridley
You say
” Professor Petty QUOTE ..
The dry adiabatic lapse rate gives the maximum lapse rate that can persist in the atmosphere without the onset of spontaneous convective overturning. Such overturning drives the lapse rate back toward the adiabatic lapse rate. In fact, if you put atmosphere through a blender, and if there were no moisture (and therefore no condensation), then you would get an atmosphere that exhibits exactly the dry adiabatic lapse rate. The effect of radiative cooling from the top of the atmosphere and of heating from below by the sun-warmed surface is to TRY to make the lapse rate VERY steep. But it can only steepen to the point where convective overturning begins, so the actual lapse rate is limited to the dry adiabatic value.”……
I would agree with Petty and I think Postma would too.
Consequently the 33K CO2 driven greenhouse effect does not exist.
Remember the IPCC version is that the radiative effects of CO2 heat the planets surface 33K higher than otherwise.
Instead the new narrative is the CO2 gets rid of excess heat at the TOA.
I feel that the advocates of the IPCC position have a “Russian doll ” defence method for their beloved greenhouse theory.
As each outer layer is abandoned they say;
‘well that is really a gross simplification and the real greenhouse theory is’…..
You say
…”Regarding your attempted clarification of how Cp is “ .. a bulk property summing up all the various relevant thermodynamic processes. Since air contains traces of CO2 it will also represent any radiative properties as it affects the bulk properties of air .. ” I don’t see how this is of any help when considering only the process of energy transfer by radiation.”….
That’s the problem, since radiation energy changes to thermalisation energy partly back to radiation of another frequency then collision induced radiation and further thermalisation with multiple possibilities.
Each molecule makes 10^10 collisions per second for instance.
With altitude changing all the outcomes continuously.
The aggregated effects are present in the bulk properties and are the ones that concern the laws of thermodynamics
You say
“On the much more interesting issue of “PSI & Politics” you say in relation to the “Slayers” that “ .. Both yourself and Andrew Skolnick .. have made serious allegations of fraud .. The laws of libel seem only to serve the very rich .. ”. Please would you be good enough to provide a link to anywhere that I have alleged that any of the “Slayers” have committed fraud.”…..
Other than an impression I got from some of your posts, however if you say that this is not the case I will gladly admit to jumping to the wrong conclusion.
You end by saying “ .. The three papers by Postma are in my opinion a valuable contribution to the climate debate PSI made publication of these papers possible so if you believe in honest debate you should regard this as a ‘good thing’ .. ”.
…..”This suggests that you believe that Postma’s papers could not have been published elsewhere – nonsense, ”
Now you are jumping to conclusions!
Best wishes.
Bryan
Hi Bryan, you said “ .. the 33K CO2 driven greenhouse effect does not exist. Remember the IPCC version is that the radiative effects of CO2 heat the planets surface 33K higher than otherwise. .. ” (6th November at 9:36 am) but I don’t remember anything like that. You may have been more correct in your comment on Anthony Watts’ thread “Visualizing the “Greenhouse Effect” – Molecules and Photons” on 31st March but I don’t recall anything in AR4 WG1 claiming that the 33C of extra warming is all down to CO2 & H2O. Section 8.6.3.1 of the IPCC report discusses “Water Vapour and Lapse Rate” but I didn’t find any mention of the extent of surface warming from atmospheric adiabatic warming. Can you provide a link to the IPCC source document that justifies your statement that “ .. The gross error of IPCC dogma is to attribute a 33K increase effect as due solely to the radiative properties of CO2 and H2O in gaseous form .. ” (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/29/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-molecules-and-photons/)?
You were involved in the exchanges on Professor Curry’s “Physics of the atmospheric greenhouse(?) effect” thread (http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/30/physics-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect/) but pulled out in January. Perhaps you’d benefit from reading the comments that were made after that.
You said of my suggestion that Postma’s papers could be published elsewhere than on the little-known “Slayers” PSI blog that “ .. Now you are jumping to conclusions! .. ”. I would say that the evidence of past publications (e.g. several by ice-core sceptic Professor Zbiniew Jaworowski) suggests that Postma would have no trouble persuading Lyndon LaRouche’s supporters at the Fusion Energy Foundation to publish in their “21st Century Science and Technology” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21st_Century_Science_and_Technology#21st_Century_Science_and_Technology). There’s some interesting information about the US’s Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and “ .. FEF’s status as a tax-deductible non-profit .. ”, fund raising and contributions to FEF. Perhaps the “Slayers” should spend a little time reading that article.
Then there’s The International Climate Science Coalition (http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/) with its branches all over the world. I understand that this well-established science organisation welcomes sound articles on the nonsense of the CACC hypothesis. Drs. Vincent Gray and John Nicol are significant members of the New Zealand and Australian branches (http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=12&Itemid=45 and http://www.auscsc.org.au/about_us.html) and both were involved in the Dec./Jan. “PSI & Due Diligence” and more recent exchanges with the ”Slayers”. It was Dr. Gray who arranged for the publication of my article “Politicization of Climate Change and CO2” in 2008 (http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=374&Itemid=1)
On second thought, Jo Postma was involved in those “John O’Sullivan’s Specious Claims” exchanges along with Drs. Nicol and Gray so it is quite possible that they wouldn’t have been interested in publishing his article considering the unorthodox scientific analysis.
As a side-issue, I spent last evening enjoying the Guy Fawkes celebration at the school my grand-children and as I basked in the radiated energy from 50 metres away was fascinated by the colours of the bonfire flame. They ranged from the deep red of the embers through the orange and yellow of the burning gases, which puzzled me. I had expected that Methane and other less complex alkanes would be the most significant gases coming out of the wood so wondered about the predominance of orange and yellow flame. Checking up on the expected colours I found that many of the alkanes seem to be blue, violet or grey (although cyclohexane and ceclohexene are blue and orange and Methylbenzene is dark orange).
I then recalled from my employment in the gas industry that methane burns with a blue flame unless starved of oxygen, when CO, C (soot) and H2O are produced giving a tell-tale orange flame.
I was surprised to find that CO burns with a bright blue flame (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=1k_zz-VdHhUC&pg=PA200&lpg=PA200&dq=%22colour%22+%22carbon+monoxide+flame%22&source=bl&ots=Ma_HetdX4H&sig=a73EotwsNY3v8q5fMSl_EX4KwnU&hl=en&ei=08a2Tr21LoOq8QO585jsBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&sqi=2&ved=0CEIQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=%22colour%22%20%22carbon%20monoxide%20flame%22&f=false) so puzzled over that characteristic orange flame of a gas burner that is being starved of oxygen. It turns out that Hydrogen burns with an orange flame (http://wn.com/methane_gas_burning_flame_color option 4) which matches what I saw at the bonfire and that in a dangerous burner. Is it hydrogen that we see glowing orange within a bonfire made from damp wood burning on a damp November 5th?
CH4 + 2H2O → 4H2 + CO2 ??
CH4 + H2O → 3H2 + CO ??
Any experts here know the answer?
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete Ridley
You say
…”Can you provide a link to the IPCC source document that justifies your statement that “ .. The gross error of IPCC dogma is to attribute a 33K increase effect as due solely to the radiative properties of CO2 and H2O in gaseous form” ..
You seem to be on a forensic matching of exact phrases which I don’t think moves the discussion on.
When I use the IPCC label I am being polite, as the phrase “warmist” or “alarmist” is a bit judgemental.
You and other readers must ask yourself how many times they have heard a phrase like;
‘greenhouse gases cause the planet to be 33K warmer than it would otherwise be’
From official and semi official sources.
You seem surprised at this and ask for links.
I will need to start collecting them.
IPCC have said that the Himalayan glaciers will disappear soon and then were forced to retract.
I don’t have a link for that either.
I would be very happy to come on a document from an IPCC supporting source saying
The greenhouse effect is made up of the following fractions
Adiabatic expansion and compression = x %
Liquid water internal energy storage = Y %
H2O and CO2 gases radiative effect = Z %
O2 and N2 internal energy storage = A %
Cloud Effects = B%
etc,etc.
Then we could have a real grown up debate with the IPCC advocates.
Yes I have debated this point several times and the vast majority of the IPCC advocates stick to the greenhouse gas theory as the sole agent.
In fact I take it as significant progress if some of them admit that perhaps there are other factors.
Any progress with the publication of the e-mail interaction?
Best wishes
Bryan
Hi Bryan, you ask “Any progress with the publication of the e-mail interaction?”. As I said on 31st October at 5:13 pm .. all will be revealed in the fullness of time. .. ”
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Hydrogen burns with an extremely pale blue flame which is difficult to see except in a fairly dark room. That movie is misleading, it appears to me that they are using a soda glass tube which is causes the orange glow due to sodium atoms in the flame. I recall sea coal from the north sea beaches burning very orange for the same reason.
Hi Phil, thanks for that information about the hydrogen flame (November 6, 2011 at 10:40 pm) but it seems that there are others who are convinved that Hydrogen burns with a yellow/orange flame. There’s no obvious source of Sodium in these balloon experiments (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbmV5lM4z74&feature=related, http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=Ko5VpvE2btY, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6ejjNsJegk&feature=related, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5MJhuaXUlc&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFpe8P9EhVk&feature=related) or When I pondered the colour of the Guy Fawkes bonfire I first asked myself if there could be much sodium in the wood but ruled that out. Now you are making me think that I was wrong, however, there was no hint of blue at all in the flame, which I would expect to predominate.
Doing a bit more research on this I found sources saying that with a correct mix of H and 2 x O a colourless flame is produced and it is trace impurities that create colour, such as sulphur for a blue tinge, phishorous bright green, tin bright scarlet, ammonia yellow, e.g. see (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3h8DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA378&lpg=PA378&dq=%22color%22+%22hydrogen%22+%22flame%22&source=bl&ots=aSxXuSuPq2&sig=MrVZDuTLrnZVqEo_svbXDKNk1Ng&hl=en&ei=-Be4TvCuB4yzhAfB8eyQBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAjge#v=onepage&q=%22color%22%20%22hydrogen%22%20%22flame%22&f=false) – but hat information a a little dated (Popular Science Jul 1872).
One source suggested that the colour is dependent upon the temperature at which the hydrogen is burning. This line spectrum seems to support that argument to a degree (http://www.webexhibits.org/causesofcolor/3BA.html) and also talks about the other components, such as soot, causing a wide range of possible colours. Who would have thought that a Guy Fawkes bonfire was so complex. Maybe we need a top international chemist like “Slayer” Hans Schreuder (http://www.iceagenow.com/Chemist_responds_to_ecocide_evil_craziness.htm) to explain this one.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
I know some here prefer to take the word of “others who are convinced otherwise” over authorities who publish in peer-reviewed science journals (right Ken?). I’ll go ahead anyway to cite the observation B.F. Barrett published 139 years ago in Nature, one of the world’s oldest and most prestigious science journals:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v5/n128/abs/005461d0.html
“There are also several text-books on chemistry which assert that hydrogen burns with a characteristic faint blue flame. It is easy to prove, however, that the flame of pure hydrogen has no blue tinge whatever. The blueness so frequently associated with the flame of hydrogen is really due to the presence of sulphur as is shown in a little paper I published in the Philosophical Magazine for November 1865.”
Because hydrogen burns with an almost invisible flame, it’s the pale color from any contaminating substance that will be visible.
Hi Andrew, are you sure it wasn’t (Professor?) W F (William Fletcher) Barrett in the paper in Nature 18 April 1872 “On Certain Phenomena Associated With a Hydrogen Flame” (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v5/n129/abs/005482a0.html) – see also page 377 of Popular Science (the link that I gave at 3:34 pm).
Best Regards, Pete Ridley
I have a tendency to believe the pioneers who seem much less corrupt than the modern day crop of activist-scientists. I have a set of the 1961 Encyclopedia Britannica which I consider definitive in many ways. Hubert Lamb? I believe him. Tom Wigley? I don’t believe him. John Tyndall? I believe him. Kevin Trenberth? Nope. That’s not universal. Svente Arrhenius? He was a bit befuddled.
Pete, I don’t understand how you could possibly ask me if I am sure I’m not referring to a different paper when I NOT ONLY QUOTE the AUTHOR, but I PROVIDE THE LINK to the AUTHOR’S COMMENTARY right ON THE JOURNAL NATURE’s web site! Good lord! How in the world can you ask this when the QUOTE and LINK to the NATURE article is STARING YOU RIGHT IN THE FACE?!
Hi Andrew, fair comment and my apology for being so careless. Maybe I was getting tired after putting together what Bryan describes as my “way over the top” comment of 7th November at 4:22 pm about the “Slayers”, transparency, PSI and due diligence.
I should have asked of you “ .. was that the same (Professor?) W F (William Fletcher) Barrett who wrote the paper in Nature 18 April 1872 “On Certain Phenomena Associated With a Hydrogen Flame”?
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Yes, he wrote both.
In his comment of 6th November at 6:47 pm Bryan said “ .. You seem to be on a forensic matching of exact phrases which I don’t think moves the discussion on. When I use the IPCC label I am being polite .. ”. That was simply an evasive response concerning a misleading claim that he had made when debating the very significant and contentious “greenhouse effect”. His unsubstantiated claim was not only about the significance of CO2 but also about what was said by the IPCC, a major source of CACC propaganda,. The carelessness demonstrated by Bryan provides bullets that CACC supporters can and will use against those of us who reject what the power-hungry, the politicians and the environmental activists would have us believe.
Although he and I disagree over some details both of us reject the CACC hypothesis and are eager to jump on any such error by CACC supporters and we have to do our best to avoid making the same kind of mistakes ourselves. Likewise we need to be transparent about our true motives for challenging the CACC hypothesis because again, both sides of this debate will take every opportunity to undermine the credibility of the other.
During the Dec./Jan. “PSI & Due Diligence” exchanges when John O’Sullivan was proposing that the “Slayers” set up PSI as a Community Interest Company (CIC) and implement the plan he’d outlined in “Slaying the Sky Dragon” Chapter 21 of “ .. beating the AGW fraud in the courts-its the only serious game in town .. ” (see my comment of 22nd October at 2:30 pm) I repeatedly warned the “Slayers” about leaving themselves wide-open to attack if each of them was not squeaky clean.
For example, on 4th Jan. when discussing with the “Slayers” QUOTE: .. If PSI is pushed in the direction that John is struggling for then I can see it being a still-born and I wouldn’t invest a penny in it if it becomes a limited company, whether a CIC or otherwise .. I see it as being vitally important for the protection of group integrity that there is nothing underhand about what we do. The CIC Regulator must fully understand the reason why PSI is being established. If there is anything that appears dishonest about PSI (then) disciples and supporters of “the doctrine” will amplify it out of all proportion. I say that each if us must be squeaky clean in what we say and do and provide no ammunition for our opponents to support their inevitable claims that our motives are avaricious not altruistic .. UNQUOTE.
Then on 9th Jan. QUOTE: .. My overriding concern is that PSI must do its utmost to be open and honest during the whole legal “war” against Governments/Agencies that is being proposed. If not I believe that we’ll be crucified by the opposition. .. We’re talking about challenging the most powerful individuals and organisations in the world and need to do our utmost to be “squeaky clean”. I’ve said this over and over again to the group but am getting little reaction .. ”.
Again on 14th Jan. QUOTE: .. Each of us will be carefully researched and any skeletons in cupboards will be dragged out into the open. Any suggestion of past dishonesty or irrationality will be exploited (remember the treatment that Lord Monckton has received, e.g. over his claims to being a member of the Upper House) .. As I’ve said before, we have to be seen to be squeaky clean. Are we all happy that we can achieve this? .. UNQUOTE.
Finally, on 20th Jan. QUOTE: .. It will only get worse if they ever see PSI as a threat and identify unsubstantiated claims. That is why I keep repeating that PSI must be seen to be “squeaky clean”. No matter the degree of truth behind any such challenges, mud not only sticks when thrown but also splashes whatever is next to the target .. UNQUOTE.
Of course the rest of the “Slayers” followed John, Hans Schreuder and Joseph Olson down the road that they had declared on the “Why PSI is Proposed as a CIC” page on 20th September 2010, in “Slaying the Sky Dragon” Chapter 21 in November and in the “PSI & Due Diligence” exchanges in Dec./Jan. The PSI web-page had also declared that “ .. Benefiting the community is what PSI is all about .. ” but also stated as the first of the “ .. BENEFITS OF BEING A CIC .. The directors can be paid .. ”. After listing Dr. Ball as Chairman, John as CEO, Hans as CFO, Philip Foster as Compliance Officer and the rest of the Slayers as members of the PSI Executive it went on to say “ .. .. PSI is funded by member subscriptions and voluntary donations .. ” then tried to attract subscribers with “ .. As an introductory offer the first 2,000 members will receive a free copy of the best-selling climate science publication, ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory’ and the companion volume, ‘Sky Dragon Slayers 2’ (retail value of both volumes is $19.85) .. ”.
That bit of marketing appeared to fail because by the 28th Dec. there didn’t seem to be enough money in the kitty to fund a PSI legal action. You may recall that this was when John advised that “ .. A typical mandamus petition will ordinarily cost a client $3,000. If we can raise $3,000 I can set the legal wheels in motion. The legal skills and resources are at the ready so now the ball is in our court and that of our supporters to raise the $3,000 .. ” (see my comment of 26th October at 12:07 pm). Offers came in from a few of the “Slayers” to contribute towards this first attempt at “ .. beating the AGW fraud in the courts-its the only serious game in town .. ” (see my comment of 22nd Oct. at 2:30 pm). Offers of support came from Oliver Manuel ($500), Miso Alkalaj (£100), Hans (£50) and Tim Ball (no definite commitment), a miserable total of about £500.
Another unsuccessful money-raising effort started on the 17th Jan. with the gofundme “begging bowl” appeal (http://www.gofundme.com/1v39s) targeting £15,000. On 18th I said to the “Slayers” “ .. It will be interesting to see what reaction there is to PSI’s attempt to raise those start-up funds through gofundme. Also it would be very interesting to know who is that anonymous donor of the first $350 received within the first hour .. ”. John admitted on 19th Jan. that “ .. I can reveal the first donation of $350 is from a member of my family in the US .. ”. Nearly 10 months later that appeal for charitable donations has only reached £400.
I commented on the gofundme page QUOTE: .. Can you explain why .. a group of 36 respected international scientists and related professionals. Mostly .. the authors of ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon,’ the world’s first full volume refutation of the greenhouse gas theory that was “the talk of the Cancun Climate Conference” .. need to beg for what amounts to a mere £417 each in order to set up .. the creation of the world’s first open to all, politics-free, generalist science association .. UNQUOTE. That never as been explained.
Each of those attempts by this illustrious group of what John considers to be “respected international scientists and related professionals” to obtain the necessary funds to set up PSI as a private company appears to have failed miserably. I doubt if the current attempt to establish it as a scientific association will fair any better.
When promoting PSI as a CIC on gofundme John declared “ .. PSI .. guarantees to invest every penny it makes back into the society for the benefit of all member subscribers .. Please .. commit to donating to a worthy new chapter in modern science .. If you contribute £60 .. or more .. we will ensure you receive a copy of ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory’ plus a bonus book (two volume pack RRP: $38.98) .. ” (that irresistible offer again!). Now when promoting PSI as a “ .. A PRIVATE CONSORTIUM .. ” the “Slayers” are offering simply to “ .. share the financial rewards from sales .. ” (http://principia-scientific.org/about-us/principles-of-association). They then state the “ .. FINANCIAL BENEFITS FOR MEMBERS: PSI is first and foremost a private association carrying on a social activity and must be viable as such. As a business with social goals we will need to generate surpluses to support all our activities, maintain our vital assets, deliver our promised contribution to the community and in some cases make a limited return to investors. .. ” (http://principia-scientific.org/about-us/principles-of-association).
That brings us back to a subject that I have I talked about previously, what motivates the “Slayers” to set up PSI,. John made it quite clear on 1st January that he is “ .. barely scraping by financially .. ” (see my comment on the 4th November at 4:08 pm). One day later he said “ .. Personally, I have no time to not earn a living. I know from my own private conversations that my coauthors may also not have time to devote unpaid to setting up and running a charity .. The ‘Slayers’ project is first and foremost a commercial operation because, for all our hard work and endeavor, we wish to be paid .. ” (see my comment on 22nd October at 2:30 pm). Then on 4th Jan. John said “ .. The Slayers know we are a team operating a book authoring and publishing business and that I’m running this aspect for profit .. You and I are coming at the problem from opposite directions. Your position is coming at this keenly for a charity, which we all support in principle but we all need to make a living, too and if any such proposals conflict with the core aims of the Slayers then I’m out, and so I suspect will most if not all of the other 32. Thus my concerns are for the book publishing core of the group .. ”.
I think that it is reasonable from all of this to form the opinions that the:
– one thing that motivates all of the “Slayers” to be involved with PSI is being paid for their services. I can find no mention of what are the proposed remuneration packages intended to be paid to them from PSI funds, despite the claim that “ .. Transparency is an important aspect of PSI .. ” (http://principia-scientific.org/about-us/principles-of-association). In my opinion that’s one of the details that anyone considering subscribing to PSI needs to be aware of before making any commitment,
– claims that “ .. PSI applies its talents to grow a business with enshrined charitable interests for the benefit of the broader community .. ” (http://principia-scientific.org/), “ .. PSI aims to .. conduct our business with a social purpose .. with a view to adopting a more rigorous insitutionalized legal and financial format of association e.g. either as a limited company .. CIC .. or charity .. ” (http://principia-scientific.org/about-us/principles-of-association), .. PSI is designed to appeal to those wishing to work within an association that draws on the most appropriate features of a charity and a business with altruistic goals .. ” (http://principia-scientific.org/about-us/why-psi-is-a-private-assoc),
– PSI Mission Statement (http://principia-scientific.org/about-us/psi-mission-statement), like those of other private commercial organisations, should include as the primary mission objective the provision of profit for the major stakeholders
however, because I may have misunderstood something, please read the full text in the links for the full context of what was said. If anyone can identify any unreasonable conclusions that I have drawn then please let me know so that I can consider whether or not an apology to any of the “Slayers” or their PSI is warranted.
CACC supporters like Andrew Skolnick and Gareth Renowden are doing with a vengeance what I was warning the “Slayers” about in the Dec./Jan. “PSI & Due Diligence” exchanges, repeatedly drawing attention on numerous blogs what claim to have unearthed about “Slayers” John (PSI CEO) and Tim Ball (PSI Chariman), e.g. see:
– http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/posts-vanish-osullivan/,
– http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/do-industrial-countries-absorb-co2/,
– http://sciblogs.co.nz/hot-topic/tag/tim-ball/,
– http://sciblogs.co.nz/hot-topic/2011/11/03/the-gullible-leading-the-credulous-with-a-sting-in-the-tale/
– http://sciblogs.co.nz/hot-topic/2010/10/15/i%E2%80%99ve-been-wrong-before/
and its likely to get worse.
Andrew, please let us know when you have completed posting documentation on your web site that you believe “ .. proves Sky Dragon Slayer leader John O’Sullivan has been fraudulently portraying himself as an attorney representing Tim Ball before the Supreme Court of British Columbia, that he was hired as a legal consultant for the law firm Pearlman Lindholm, that he fraudulently claimed to have written two articles in National Review that were actually written by the magazine’s editor-at-large, and other examples where he fraudulently claims credentials he does not have .. ” (your comment on 5th November at 10:40 am).
Maybe we and Gareth Renowden should co-author an article about PSI and the “Slayers”. What a wonderful outcome, staunch supporters and deniers of the CACC hypothesis finding a common cause.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
In my comment of 7th November at 4:22 pm please add “ .. motivate the “Slayers” to a lesser degree .. ” in front of “ .. however, because I may have misunderstood something .. ”.
Pete Ridley your posts here are way over the top.
You say of me
….”His unsubstantiated claim was not only about the significance of CO2 but also about what was said by the IPCC, a major source of CACC propaganda,. The carelessness demonstrated by Bryan provides bullets that CACC supporters can and will use against those of us who reject what the power-hungry, the politicians and the environmental activists would have us believe.”…….
My claim to remind you was;
that the IPCC and its proponents claim that the average Earth surface temperature would be 33K lower if it wasn’t for the greenhouse gases.
This is a very common claim made by defenders of the IPCC position on several occasions even on this site.
My reaction to such claims is probably what you are referring to.
Have you not on several occasions seen exactly that statement?
You ask me to supply links to back up what anyone who is interested in the topic would regard as commonplace knowledge and fair comment.
No one but yourself has ever disputed the above claim .
I have links to any matter that I think folk would be likely to question and this is not one of them.
I do not make long detailed notes of time and place for my every utterance.
I consider that a waste of my time.
This is a fast moving blog not a peer reviewed publication
Have a sense of what is appropriate.
I believe that there was a second world war and that Hitler had a large part in it.
And no, I don’t have a link to support that statement offhand.
Your long posts about the internal organisational workings of the PSI do not interest me.
Andrew makes direct claims of fraud by some members of PSI and that does concern me.
Apart from that I am interested in the climate science.
It concerns me that you will not spend time to study the Carnot Cycle and yet offer me links to papers that use the Cycle to prove their point.
What is that all about?
The only PSI papers that I have recommended to you are the Postma papers but apart from some vague statement that they have been refuted you do not care to say which parts.
Oh and another thing’ you say not giving full name and further details is cowardice.
Last year on this site when I first came across you and Andrew Skolnick you were very much at odds.
A menacing “I know where you live” type atmosphere was created.
Most inappropriate.
There are more than enough unhinged zealots out there.
Hi Bryan, you say my “ .. posts here are way over the top .. ” and you are entitled to your opinions, just as we all are. What I said to Vernon Kuhns on 26th October at 12:07 pm applies “ .. Regarding your suggestion that no-one cares about what really motivated the “Slayers” to form PSI, I’m sure that we can safely leave it to Professor Curry to tell me if she wants me to stop commenting .. ”.
Let me remind you what your precise claim was on 6th November at 9:36 am “ .. Remember the IPCC version is that the radiative effects of CO2 heat the planets surface 33K higher than otherwise .. ”. I had read the IPCC reports fairly carefully since 2007 and had no recollection of such a statement being made about CO2 so I searched them again and couldn’t find such a comment. That’s why I asked for a reference. You couldn’t give one because you had made an incorrect statement. Just admit it and be done with it. We all make mistakes. Why waste time trying to defend the indefensible?
If my “ .. long posts about the internal organisational workings of the PSI do not interest .. ” you then simply don’t read them. On the other hand, you have on three occasions (26th October at 5:26 pm, 4th November at 10:54 am and 6th November at 6:47 pm) expressed an interest, so which E-mails precisely are you interested in. Take your pick from “PSI & Due Diligence”, “John O’Sullivan’s Specious Claims”, “Back Radiation”, “PSI & Politics” or “The Greenhouse Effect”.
As for your QUOTE: .. A menacing “I know where you live” type atmosphere was created .. ” I certainly don’t feel threatened and doubt very much if Andrew does. There are lots of individuals involved in the CACC debate who have the courage of their convictions. Even though I might disagree with those opinions I respect the courage of those who express them openly. I have much less respect for those who cower behind false names.
Now I must push on researching the possible motivations of Tim Ball then the lesser “Slayers” Oliver Manuel, Martin Hertzberg, Alan Siddons, Charles Anderson, Claes Johnson, Ken Coffman and Philip Foster.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete Ridley you said back there
….”Hi Bryan, you said “ .. the 33K CO2 driven greenhouse effect does not exist. Remember the IPCC version is that the radiative effects of CO2 heat the planets surface 33K higher than otherwise. .. ” (6th November at 9:36 am) but I don’t remember anything like that.”…..
Did you notice the CO2 driven part?
The updated greenhouse theory says feedback amplifies the increase in a small CO2 effect into a larger radiative problem when interacting with H2O.
Hopefully every other reader understood my point.
Perhaps every blog should be 800 pages long to cover every possible misinterpretation that could possibly arise.
There would also have to be another volume to cover all links and references.
Hi Bryan, please stop wriggling. I repeat “ .. you had made an incorrect statement. Just admit it and be done with it. We all make mistakes. Why waste time trying to defend the indefensible? ..”
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete Ridley you say
“I repeat “ .. you had made an incorrect statement. Just admit it and be done with it. ”
My statement being
“ .. the 33K CO2 driven greenhouse effect does not exist. Remember the IPCC version is that the radiative effects of CO2 heat the planets surface 33K higher than otherwise. .. ”
Pete you have followed blog discussions where I have made clear that H2O has much more important infra red properties than CO2.
So why would you misinterpret this particular statement?
Are you being obtuse?
The IPCC must blame CO2 for the whole CAGW scam to make any sense.
The only way to make their case is to AMPLIFY the modest CO2 radiative contribution.
This is why the updated greenhouse theory involves words like ‘feedback’ and ‘forcing’ when combined CO2 contribution interacts with H2O
Hence my use of the phrase
‘CO2 driven greenhouse effect ‘
Then if you accept the IPCC version then the full effect after CO2 forcing is that
…..” the radiative effects of CO2 heat the planets surface 33K higher than otherwise. .. ”
Another point
Personally speaking the only aspect of the e-mail interaction (of Grant Petty and Joel Shore with Postma and other slayers) that are of interest to me are the debates about the science.
Noticing Ken Coffman’s most recent post (below) reminds me that my last dispute with Joel Shore concerned the adiabatic conditions of the troposphere.
Pekka Pirella and Nick Stokes backed Joels position.
But an earlier quote you gave from Grant Petty suggests that on this aspect he would back my position.
Hi Bryan (11th November at 4:51 am) I don’t recall what your position was during your dispute with Dr. Joel Shore but atmospheric lapse rates (environmental, adiabatic, dynamic adiabatic, dry adiabatic) and even an isothermal atmosphere were discussed in E-mail exchanges in September on “Back Radiation” and “The Greenhouse Effect”, with contributions from Professor Petty, Dr. John Nicol, Dr. Martin Hertzberg, Roger Taguchi, Chris Colose and me. Even John O’Sullivan put in his two-bits-worth with “ .. Indeed, one very useful new development is that the Slayers have identified a major error in the understanding of adiabatic lapse rate by one of the most prominent skeptics .. ” (1 Oct 2011 11:16 NOT TO BE SENT) during what turned into “PSI & Politics” and “John O’Sullivan’s Specious Claims” exchanges.
If you would like to see those “ .. debates about the science .. ” then all that you have to do is give me your E-mail address and I’ll forward the 100+ Word pages.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete,
You have my email address.
Please send me the 100 pages.
jwreynen@aol.com
JWR
The Sky Dragon Slayer leader John O’Sullivan is going to rue the day he dared me to report him to the authorities for claiming bogus academic and professional credentials. (See a copy of his July 2nd taunt below from an earlier Climate etc discussion.)
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.
Last night, 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 SlayerTim 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.
Posted by John O’Sullivan
John O’Sullivan | July 2, 2011 at 5:49 am | Reply
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.[sic]
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!
Hi Andrew, congratulations on acquiring that information from The Law Society of British Columbia to add to your bundle of documents about John O’Sullivan’s professional claims and thanks for sharing it with us. Assuming that the letter is genuine (which I have no reason to doubt) then it appears to provide irrefutable evidence that John’s claim that:
– “ .. He is currently a paid consultant to Dr. Tim Ball .. ” (on the PSI “Principles of Association” page – http://principia-scientific.org/about-us/principles-of-association is substantiated ,
– to having been “ .. Appointed Consultant for Canadian law firm, Pearlman Lindholm .. Working, Pearlman Lindholm . ” (on his Friends Re-United page – http://www.friendsreunited.co.uk/JohnOSullivan at 2011-11-09) is false.
– to being “ .. Legal Consultant at Pearlman Lindholm .. As of April 2011 I have been engaged by Vancouver law firm, Pearlman Lindholm as Legal Consultant to advise on matters relating to libel suits involving prominent international climatologist, Dr Timothy Ball .. ” (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/john-o-sullivan/ at 2011- 09-29) was false.
The Law Society of British Columbia’s Ruth Long, Staff Lawyer, Professional Conduct did say “ .. There is no evidence that Mr Scherr .. was responsible for the false assertions published by Mr. O’Sullivan .. ”.
In his 2011- 09-29 LinkedIn entry John also claimed to be “ .. a member of the American Bar Association .. ” which is not strictly true because he appears to be simply an associate member, which I understand is open to anyone who is prepared to pay the annual fee, regardless of qualifications.
Of course it is possible that there has been some misunderstanding. It is my opinion that, in the spirit of transparency (claimed to be so important to PSI) and in order to protect the integrity of all the “Slayers” associated with that organisation, it behoves John to explain how those apparent misrepresentations have come about. Over to you John.
Several of the comments in that letter relate to what I have been discussing with the “Slayers” during September (see my comment of 24th October at 5:17 pm) when Tim Ball and John talked about your activities regarding the BC Law Society and your “ .. unsolicited correspondence .. ” regarding Michael Mann’s and Andrew Weaver’s lawyer, Roger McConchie. Have you any comment to make about those? and once again, are you minded to tell us what your involvement with those libel cases is?
That item about “Soliciting of Funds” to help fund Tim Ball’s defence was also discussed in those exchanges with the “Slayers” and others. In his “PSI, charity v CIC v private company status & Due Diligence” Email of 27th May John had claimed that “ .. Part of helping Tim defend himself .. has been in raising funds via public donations .. Dr. Ball’s supporters have .. donated well over $100,000CAD already in just a few weeks .. ”. I asked on 30th Sept “ .. John, if, as you confidently predict, Dr. Mann loses his claim is Dr. Ball likely to get his costs paid (as well as perhaps getting substantial damages)? If so, what will happen to those funds donated towards the costs of him defending it? Those contributions cannot reasonably be considered as contributions to the PSI start-up fund, can they.
(Dr. Ball, are you prepared to let us know how you would propose to dispose of any surplus donations from that appeal if you recover your costs from Dr. Mann)? .. ”.
As I said on 25th October John’s response was “ .. All your questions have already been asked and answered .. ” which they hadn’t. Transparency does not appear to be as important to the “Slayers” as is claimed on the PSI promotional pages.
If, as is stated by Mr Scherr, Tim Ball’s defence “ ..will cost several hundred thousand dollars .. ” and Tim Ball loses then I wonder where the shortfall will come from. Perhaps there’ll be another “gofundme” appeal for charitable donations.
BTW, those are interesting exchanges that you are having with the Rogue political analyst and opinion-editorialist at http://rogueoperator.wordpress.com/2011/11/07/envirocensors-hide-explosive-japanese-satellite-data/. Rogue doesn’t seem to appreciate that once a person is caught out distorting the facts everything else that he/she utters becomes suspect, as do the utterances of associates. After all, aren’t we often judged by the company that we keep?
Best regards, Pete Ridley
“Rogue doesn’t seem to appreciate that once a person is caught out distorting the facts everything else that he/she utters becomes suspect, as do the utterances of associates. After all, aren’t we often judged by the company that we keep?”
Quite right Pete. Rogue, who so aptly chose his screen name, is pretending not to understand that once a person is caught lying in important matters, nothing he or she says can be trusted. He keeps insisting he’s not interested in the truth of O’Sullivan’s reporting. He’s only interested in the “substance” of O’Sullivan’s reporting — what ever the Hades that means. He’s like the 4th guest at the Mad Hatter’s tea party.
“Several of the comments in that letter relate to what I have been discussing with the “Slayers” during September (see my comment of 24th October at 5:17 pm) when Tim Ball and John talked about your activities regarding the BC Law Society and your “ .. unsolicited correspondence .. ” regarding Michael Mann’s and Andrew Weaver’s lawyer, Roger McConchie. Have you any comment to make about those? and once again, are you minded to tell us what your involvement with those libel cases is?”
I’m not sure whether you’re addressing this to me. You really need to learn how to clearly use quotes so that we know who said what, and how to state questions so that we know to whom they’re addressed. I tried to look through your jumbled comment of 10/24 and no way am I going to spend the time trying to unravel who said what about whom. So if you have a specific question for me, please ask it in a clear fashion.
If you’re asking me if I’m involved in any way with Dr. Mann’s and Dr. Weaver’s law suits, the answer is no. I have no involvement whatsoever with them or their law suits. I don’t know either scientist and I’ve never communicated with either of them. But I have communicated with the lawyers for all three litigants to obtain information and comments.
The humbug O’Sullivan is lying when he claims Mann’s and Weaver’s attorney Roger McConchie put me up to filing complaints with the Law Society of British Columbia (NOT the Supreme Court of Canada as O’Sullivan foolishly says!), the American Bar Association, the New York County Lawyers Association, Suite101.com, and other “authorities.” He knows who put me up to filing those complaints. He did. In an earlier Sky Dragon Slayer discussion (and in other discussions), he dared me to “raise the matter with … the appropriate authorities” and taunted me to “put up or shut up.”
http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/31/slaying-a-greenhouse-dragon/#comment-82009
He’s now regretting making those taunts, I’m sure.
Hi Andrew, sorry that you found it difficult to decide who said what in some of my comments but please let me know how you’d like me to lay it out to make it easier for you (you have my E-mail address from our exchanges in July). Despite the difficulty you did figure it out OK because you have answered my question – thanks.
You picked up on my mention of being judged by the company we keep and I’d like to pursue that a bit more along with my opinions on what motivates the “Slayers”. Professor Claes Johnson, who is next on my list of “Slayers”, has decided to dissociate himself from them and talked about this during E-mail exchanges in Oct. In her “PSI & Politics” E-mail of 9th October (@ 14:52 NOT TO BE SENT) Professor Curry said of Professor Johnson “ .. His credibility in the science community is severely diminished by engaging with this group .. ” and I can’t disagree with that. Although the “Slayers” continue to present Professor Johnson as a stakeholder in PSI this seems not to be the case, because Professor Johnson replied (9th Oct @ 15:51 NOT TO BE SENT) that “ .. I am no longer a Slayer, if I ever was .. ”.
Professor Johnson is a respected mathematician who has earned a prestigious position with the highly respected Swedish institution the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm but he appears to be looking for more. Considering his numerous musings about things like “The Equivalence Principle”, “Mach’s Principle and Mystery of a Rotating Universe”, “Soul as Simulation of Body” etc. (e.g. see http://knol.google.com/k/does-the-earth-rotate#The_SI_Standard_of_Length_as_Lightsecond) perhaps he has an eye on a Nobel Prize. That begs the question of why he became involved with the “Slayers” in the first place?
An possible explanation was provided by John O’Sullivan when he said “ .. I’m highly skeptical that we could put together such a large team of experts (scientists, lawyers and media specialists) willing to give up so much time unpaid .. ” (my comment of 4th November at 4:08 pm NOT TO BE SENT), “ .. The directors can be paid .. we wish to be paid .. ” (my comment of 7th November at 4:22 pm NOT TO BE SENT). Professor Johnson also indicated his interest in money when he said in the “PSI & Due Diligence” exchanges on 18 January (at 9:13 NOT TOO BE SENT) “ .. Hi John: I see that you are already asking for money .. before we have even agreed on what PSI is supposed to be, in particular on the behalf of me as one in the group of people you are referring to. Is this the way it is supposed work? What will this money be used for? Will I get some money to spend on what? .. ”.
Then again , maybe I am being unkind to suggest that money was a motivator for Professor Johnson. I wonder if anyone else can provide a more reasonable explanation.
Another individual who has been closely involved with the Slayers since at least July 2010 is Piers Corbyn, of WeatherAction (http://www.weatheraction.com/). I mentioned Piers and his appearance at Climate Fools Day 2011 in my comment of 31st October (at 5:13 pm NOT TO BE SENT) and yesterday I tried to post a comment on his “Climate Fools Day! 2011 – REPORT” thread (http://www.weatheraction.com/displayarticle.asp?a=391&c=5). Piers’s take on the event was just the opposite of mine because he claims it to have been “ .. a great success .. ” whereas I saw it as being a flop.
It was the opening comments by and body language of the Climate Fools Day 2011 Chairman which made me conclude that it was a flop. He said that ” .. our aim, one of the main ones anyway, is to try and get the Climate Act repealed. For that we need MPs to be here and that’s the reason for coming here and I’m not sure that we have any here. I think probably not .. ” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGVzZvX4J6U from 15 – 40 secs).
In the comment that I tried to post on Piers’s thread I tried to explain my reaction but Piers refused to post it and instead sent me an E-mail of complaint. I have told Piers that I propose to post the content of his E-mail and my response to it but have given him time to come back to me with any objections that he may have. Meanwhile, here is what I said in my submission to his thread.
QUOTE: ..
If that A/V presents the 2011 Climate Fools Day highlights then I’m pleased that I didn’t waste time attending. Comments and body language from Chairman Graham Capper (20-40 secs) say it all. The 2010 event included a presentation to you of a $10,000 ” .. Award for Scientific Integrity and Competence” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/oct/25/climate-fools-day-sceptics-parliament which provides a useful description of that PSI extravaganza) but I’ve heard no mention of one this year. Maybe sales of “Slaying the Sky Dragon” were significantly less that expected.
John O’Sullivan claimed “ .. in Parliament we put evidence .. ” but there’s a big difference between using a committee room and putting evidence in Parliament.
Anyone wanting more about the “Slayers” can read Andrew Skolnick’s and my comments on Judith Curry’s thread at http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/.
BTW, have you, like Claes Johnson, dissociated yourself from the “Slayers”/PSI?
UNQUOTE.
(Andrew, I hope that you and others can see clearly who said what there).
I had thought of popping along to the Climate Fools Day 2011 event in order to at last meet some of those “Slayers” and perhaps ask a few questions during Q&A. As it turns out as far as I could tell the only ones in attendance who had been involved in the “PSI & Due Diligence” exchanges were Piers and Philip Foster.
Just after the 2010 extravaganza John had boasted on Russia Today that “ .. We are looking at corruption issues that are not made known to the public. Today in Parliament we put evidence to parliamentarians .. ” (http://principia-scientific.org/media-centre/113-rt-qcracking-the-climate-fraud-wide-openq-john-osullivan, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24aEw7f1Xuc and elsewhere starting @ 20 secs.). As I said to Piers, there is a big difference between making use of a committee room and putting evidence in Parliament, but John is well known for exaggerating.
Last year’s event was covered in “Cabal of climate sceptics to descend on UK parliament” by Leo Hickman (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/oct/25/climate-fools-day-sceptics-parliament) which makes for interesting reading.
You say that John has blamed the removal of his articles from Suite101 on censorship so perhaps he should have a chat to Piers about how wrong it is to censor just because you don’t like the message. After all, the open exchange of differing views is essential to the resolution of contentious issues.
I’ll let you know what those exchanges were between Piers and me in a day or two, depending upon whether or not Piers objects to anything.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
You and ASSkolnick need to stop your BS and concentrate on the technical issues, or at least the issues surrounding climate. Messing with people’s backgrounds only makes YOU look bad. Here is an example of how it can turn around and BITE you:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=8638
ASSkolnick’s apparently malicious intervention in the case has failed and may have opened HIM to what he wanted to do to O’Sullivan.
Kumquat, you’re starting to squeal like a stuck pig, now that the misdeeds of your fellow denier Mr. O’Sullivan are starting to catch up to him. Can’t wait to hear your squeals when the other shoes drop.
Hi Vernon (10th November at 7:47 pm) I don’t think that you are authorised to dictate to anyone on this thread what they should comment on. As I said to you on 26th October (at 12:07 pm) “ .. I’m sure that we can safely leave it to Professor Curry to tell me if she wants me to stop commenting about it ,, ”. I E-mailed Professor Curry on 8th asking if she would like me to stop posting “Slayers”/PSI comments on this thread and she has not asked me top so I have to assume that she has no objection to what I or Andrew are commenting on.
Until Professor Curry asks that I stop posting my comments about the “Slayers” then I shall continue. My comment to Bryan on 8th November (at 2:39 am) that “ .. If my .. long posts about the internal organisational workings of the PSI do not interest .. you then simply don’t read them .. ” applies.
Thanks for the link to John O’Sullivan’s opinion that “Canada Bar Association Rules ‘No Misconduct’ by Tim Ball’s Legal Team”. Although John claims that “ .. The LSBC finding vindicates what I have always publicly stated about myself in my website biography on Suite101. .. ” it does not appear to vindicate what he said of himself on his Friends Re-United page – http://www.friendsreunited.co.uk/JohnOSullivan at 2011-11-09 or on his LinkedIn page – http://www.linkedin.com/pub/john-o-sullivan/ at 2011- 09-29 about being apponted/engaged as a Legal Consultant for/to “ .. law firm, Pearlman Lindholm .. ” (see my comment 9th November at 5:38 pm).
In my opinion that claim does need clearing up by John because, as I said on 9th Nov. the The Law Society of British Columbia’s Ruth Long, Staff Lawyer, Professional Conduct did say “ .. There is no evidence that Mr Scherr .. was responsible for the false assertions published by Mr. O’Sullivan .. ”.
Neither does it appear that the LSBC’s finding vindicates John’s claim on his Suite101 biography at 13th June 2010 that “ .. In the U.S. his work features in the ‘National Review .. ”. This is another claim about which there appears to be some dispute, because, as Andrew has said here on several occasions, the National Review’s Editor at Large John O’Sullivan is not “Slayer” John O’Sulllivan (http://old.nationalreview.com/jos/jos.asp).
Your “ . ASSkolnick’s apparently malicious intervention in the case .. ” would appear to be an unfounded opinion based upon a misinterpretation of the facts. As Andrew said (9th November at 10:50 pm ) “ .. If you’re asking me if I’m involved in any way with Dr. Mann’s and Dr. Weaver’s law suits, the answer is no. I have no involvement whatsoever with them or their law suits. I don’t know either scientist and I’ve never communicated with either of them. But I have communicated with the lawyers for all three litigants to obtain information and comments .. ”. Do you have evidence to show that Andrew was lying? Because if not then I think that you owe him an apology or you may end up in a libel action.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
That is an appropriate warning Pete, because if Mr. O’Sullivan forces me to take him to court, I will throw my net widely and include (as is usually the practice in libel suits) all who have helped him defame me. I would already have filed the papers if I were confident Mr. O’Sullivan has the resources to pay my damages. However, the more defamers I can add to the suit, the better the chances of finding a scoundrel well off enough to make suing worth while.
Pete, not only has Dr. Curry not objected to discussing the integrity of Mr. O’Sullivan and his fellow Sky Dragon Slayers, she has stated that examining the integrity of scientists involved in these affairs (as well as science writers) is indeed appropriate.
The Slayers and their defenders would have you believe it’s only appropriate to question the honesty of climatologists, never their accusers. They clearly live in their own little world, where they think they need to look up to see down. No wonder it’s so easy to trip them up.
Andrew Skolnick says
……”I would already have filed the papers if I were confident Mr. O’Sullivan has the resources to pay my damages.”…..
You cant have it both ways Andrew.
What about all the money that ‘big oil’ and other fossil fuel magnates give to climate sceptics.
John O’Sullivan must be loaded, surely!
Back in the real world we all know that the libel laws only favour the very rich.
The Murdoch press here in the UK can (and did) slander people safe in the knowledge that the costs involved meant that ordinary folk had no redress.
Both Andrew Skolnick and Pete Ridley have diverted this thread away from science and instead talk about issuing writs.
The ordinary reader has no idea who is correct with the accusations and counter accusations.
Could we return to the science and for instance point out any serious flaws in the three Postma papers.
That’s right Bryan, nobody pay no attention to the humbug behind the curtain.
Just call us Dorothy and Toto. LOL!
Hi Bryan, are you living in a different universe to the rest of us? Have you bothered to read the lead article on this thread, which is called “Letter to the Dragon Slayers”. That “letter” of Professor Petty’s was an E-mail on the subject of “My final message to the Slayers” sent on 14th Oct. It was his direct and final response to earlier exchanges with Joe Postma about “ .. the nature of radiative energy exchanges between objects .. ” in one of the “John O’Sullivan’s specious claims” E-mails. That letter did not discuss science and there is no discussion of any science in Professor Curry’s article, which is about “.. the obtuseness, false accusations, deliberate misrepresentations, sophistry etc. that dominated these emails .. ”.
I understand that Professor Curry (and I’m sure that she’ll correct me if I am mistaken) was referring to the recent exchanges with the “Slayers” that included numerous E-mails on the subjects of “PSI & Politics” and “John O’Sullivan’s specious claims”.
I have no interest in making a “ .. return to the science and for instance point out any serious flaws in the three Postma papers .. ” because I prefer providing some transparency about what motivates the “Slayers” to set up PSI. I get the impression from her opening statement “ .. A letter from Grant Petty provides a fitting finale to our engagement with the skydragons .. ” that Professor Curry also has no wish to continue debating the unorthodox science that the “Slayers” insist on pushing. After all, she has been very patient and allowed significant debate to take place on her blog and has been in receipt of virtually all of the E-mails that have been exchanged during the past couple of months. I can understand her desire to concentrate on more productive activities.
Anyone who wishes to discuss the Postma papers should be able to do so on the PSI blog although, if the censorship of my comment (see my comment of 10th November at 5:08 pm) on the blog of Piers Corbyn (a highly valued contributor to the “Slayers” team – see below) is anything to go by, anyone who disagrees with Postma will get short shrift.
Talking about Piers, he hasn’t raised any objection to me posting his E-mail in response to my comment so here it is
QUOTE: ..
Mr Ridley
1. Graham Capper was extremely ill with pneomonia until recently and I find your remarks about his demenour disrespectful and inappropriate.
2. Last year’s “$10k” was in fact “$10k of which we are giving $9k to our own things and you can have $1k” and note this was before the Slayer’s book in which I was not involved. Your remarks on this are nothing to do with CFD 2011.
UNQUOTE.
I have told Piers that I was not privy to information about Graham Capper’s recent medical history but hope that he is improving. I wasn’t commenting on that but on his words and body language when saying ” .. our aim, one of the main ones anyway, is to try and get the Climate Act repealed. For that we need MPs to be here and that’s the reason for coming here and I’m not sure that we have any here. I think probably not .. ” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGVzZvX4J6U from 15 – 40 secs). It appears that there were only about 20 people in the audience, none of whom were MP’s, so I asked Piers to explain how ” .. Climate Fools Day! 2011 was a great success. .. ” (http://www.weatheraction.com/displayarticle.asp?a=391&c=5).
Piers said that his receipt of the $10,000 ” .. was before the Slayer’s book in which I was not involved .. “. He may not have been involved in the Slayers’ book but he was certainly involved in the “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mail exchanges in Dec/Jan. and in the recent “PSI & Politics” and “John O’Sullivan’s specious claims” exchanges in May, Sept and Oct. As he should know, on 29 Sep John O’Sullivan stated that ” .. I can say that currently the most active/influential members of the Slayers team are Hans Schreuder, Alan Siddons, Joe Olson, Joe Postma, Dr Nasif Nahle, Dr Tim Ball, Dr Martin Hertzberg, Derek Alker, plus our publishers, Ken Coffman and Philip Foster .. Other highly valued contributors include .. Piers Corbyn .. “.
Not only that but he was also involved with John and the other Slayers back in July 2010 (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/co2isplantfood/message/279).
I have asked Piers if he, like Professor Claes Johnson, is now trying to dissociate himself from the “Slayers”. I can understand why he might wish to do that but I expect that he, like Professor Johnson, is going to find it rather difficult. Are we not all judged by the company that we keep?
Piers should also recall John saying on 2nd January that ” .. As a CIC we may, for example, give a loan or a grant to Piers Corbyn to advance both the science of long-range weather forecasting and help Piers expand a business that has boundless potential but which is much maligned by the advocates of junk science principles .. “. In his 20th Feb. article “British Weather Guru Labels Met Office as Evil Dictator of Science” (http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/31163.html) John O’Sullivan heaped praised on Piers and mentioned “ .. In acknowledgement of his astonishing achievements 2010 ended as an award-winning year for Corbyn as he scooped the Stairways Press Ernst-Georg Beck Award plus a check for $10,000 .. ”. There was no mention in that article about Piers only getting $1k of it so I do believe that Piers should clarify who it was that said “ .. of which we are giving $9k to our own things and you can have $1k”.
I have told Piers that I am posting on this thread my opinions on the motivations of the “Slayers” and that it appears to me that he too may have a financial motive. Hopefully he’ll drop by and have a chat, especially about that $10k award and about his present relationship with the “Slayers”. Come on Piers, don’t be shy.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
I’ve just noticed that at the end of John O’Sullivan’s “Canada Bar Association Rules ‘No Misconduct’ by Tim Ball’s Legal Team” thread (http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/41331.html?mode=reply#add_comment which Vernon Kuhns linked to on 10th November at 7:47 pm) John is again appealing for charitable donations with his “ .. I conclude with this plea: please punish the fakers and fraudsters and either donate to Dr. Ball’s legal fund or help to publicize Skolnick’s, Mann’s and co.’s cynical misuse of the legal system .. ”. I know that it is only 6 weeks until Xmas and “goodwill to all” but in my opinion there are far more worthy causes.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Yes, I already noticed that, Peter. Yesterday, I sent a note to the Law Society of British Columbia yesterday pointing out how O’Sullivan is misrepresenting their statements in a pitch to raise money.
I bet you didn’t notice the other “present” he gave me. I now have a statement that justifies filing a complaint with another government body. I’ve been hanging onto the complaint forms while looking for stronger evidence of wrongdoing. Sorry, it will be a while before I can say more. You can try to figure it out yourself.
The humbug still doesn’t know when he finds himself in a hole, the worst thing he can do is keep digging.
OK ASSkolnick,
if you insist that you are a crossdresser wearing red slippers and Ridley is your dog who are we to argue with you??
So, when are y’all going to address Bryan’s question?? The last time I had anyone around here discussing Postma’s papers they deserted to other things. It appeared that up to the point they could handle the math there was nothing wrong. When they passed that point theyw were lost. Can you click your heels and take you and Toto somewhere that you can handle the math??
Hi Vernon (12th November at 12:24 am) you ask of Andrew that “ .. Can you click your heels and take you and Toto somewhere that you can handle the math?? .. ”. I can’t speak for Andrew (but I suspect he feels the same) but I will only go somewhere else that this thread a) if Professor Curry asks me to and b) if I choose to. I refer you to my comment of November 11, 2011 at 7:47 am.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Perhaps y’all would be interested in my review of Dr. Petty’s book…
http://www.amazon.com/First-Course-Atmospheric-Thermodynamics/product-reviews/0972903321/ref=dp_db_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
You’ll note–in contrast to other eminent critics–I don’t review books I have not read.
Bryan | November 4, 2011 at 6:27 am |
The “bite” in the satellite obtained outgoing spectra around 15um is easily explained and is not connected to any greenhouse effect.
Outgoing Earth surface radiation around that frequency is readily absorbed by CO2.
This leads to thermalisation with the radiation energy transformed mainly into kinetic energy increase of N2 and O2 molecules .
So far so good
Of course some CO2 will by collision emit a 15um photon but this becomes less and less likely as altitude increases.
Actually it becomes more likely because collisional deactivation becomes less effective as pressure decreases. Try reading Clough and Iacono.
Why?
1. With reduced temperature the collision speed is reduced.
A 15um photon has more than twice the KE of an air molecule so its quite a big jump in energy to acquire by collision.
But is still well within the Boltzmann distribution envelope and there is still activation by absorption of IR radiation.
2. There are almost 40 molecules of H2O to each CO2.
H2O molecules have much more frequencies available, particularly longer wavelengths.
A wider range of frequencies available but not near the peak of the SB distribution like CO2 is, number isn’t as important if there is less light to absorb. Also the higher in the atmosphere the lower the ratio of H2O/CO2.
So it is much more likely that any radiation produced will come in the form of longer wave H2O emissions.
No it isn’t, for the reasons given above, and the closer the emitter is to the peak of the SB curve the more likely it is to emit.
Think of a barrel of water with a leaking hole near the top of the water level.
If you now put a hole much lower down the water will gush out at a much higher pressure and flow rate.
In other words more water leaves by low potential energy route than by the higher PE route.
You have this analogy backwards, and you should consider the size of the holes!.
Hence the “missing” part of the spectra around 15um.
Phil thanks for the post.
Its good to get back to the science.
I said
Of course some CO2 will by collision emit a 15um photon but this becomes less and less likely as altitude increases.
You said
“Actually it becomes more likely because collisional deactivation becomes less effective as pressure decreases. Try reading Clough and Iacono.”
My reply
If the temperature decreases the chances of an radiatively inactive CO2 molecule picking up enough energy by collision to emit a 15um photon will also decrease.
I said
. There are almost 40 molecules of H2O to each CO2.
H2O molecules have much more frequencies available, particularly longer wavelengths.
You said
A wider range of frequencies available but not near the peak of the SB distribution like CO2 is, number isn’t as important if there is less light to absorb. Also the higher in the atmosphere the lower the ratio of H2O/CO2.
My reply
Number is very important as the absorption probability must be proportional to the number of absorbers.
H2O has a much wider range of available frequencies including some around 15um
On my water barrel analogy you say
“You have this analogy backwards, and you should consider the size of the holes!.”
My reply
No I don’t have the analogy backwords.
There are 40 ‘H2O holes’ at the bottom of the barrel to every ‘CO2’ hole at the top.
Each H2O hole is bigger!
The barrel fills from the bottom.
Hence the leakage of long wave radiation to space minus the ‘bite’ around 15um.
In your way of thinking the bite should not be there!
You say
“Try reading Clough and Iacono.”
Could you be more specific about your link.
A free to view link if possible.
On my water barrel analogy you say
“You have this analogy backwards, and you should consider the size of the holes!.”
My reply
No I don’t have the analogy backwords.
There are 40 ‘H2O holes’ at the bottom of the barrel to every ‘CO2′ hole at the top.
Each H2O hole is bigger!
The barrel fills from the bottom.
In which case there should be a large hole towards the bottom for CO2 and a number of smaller holes towards the top for water. Try looking at the observed spectrum!
Phil says
…..”Try looking at the observed spectrum!”…..
That’s exactly what Ive done.
This brief description below is what I think happens.
The bite around 15um exists.
The shorter wavelengths around 8um are part of the window and are relatively unaffected by atmospheric absorption
Near the surface any absorbed 15um radiation is thermalised
The main source of this radiation is the Earth surface.
Of course radiatively inactive CO2 can be made active by molecular collision but this is in competition with H2O molecules.
At temperatures around 300K only about 3% of molecules have the KE required to bump a CO2 molecule up to the required 15um quantum chunk required for subsequent emission.
But even then before emission the same collision processes are more likely to deactivate it by thermal clollision.
The much more numerous H2O molecules have available more energetically favourable longer wavelength frequencies.
With increasing altitude and decreasing temperature these tendencies are accentuated.
To sum up then on the spectra
the bite around 15um represents the thermalised radiation that adds heat to the atmosphere.
To the left of the bite we gradually enter the window or shorter wavelengths as we approach the window.
To the right of the 15um bite we have longer wave frequencies emitted principally by H2O.
Now its your turn to explain the satellite spectrum looking down.
Simple Grade School Experiment to Prove the Existence of the Atmospheric Green House Effect
Here is an easy experiment which will undeniably prove the existence of the atmospheric Green House Effect as theorized by climate scientists. Please note this effect has already been proved and affirmed by consensus. The science is settled.
Fill a container with a cubic foot of water. Put in a thermometer. Fill a large balloon (you can borrow a condom from the school nurse’s office if you like) with one cubic foot of air. For the purpose of the experiment, it is okay to use air from human lungs which will have a higher concentration of CO2 than normal room air. You can use a much smaller balloon with much less than a cubic foot of air if you’d like to more accurately represent the proportions of sea water and Earth atmosphere. Make a note of the water temperature.
Allow enough time to pass for the water temperature and the air temperature in the balloon to become stable at the ambient temperature. Make sure the temperature of the room is stable during the experiment by turning off any heating or cooling in the room. Run the experiment from after 2:00PM so the outside temperature is mostly stable or declining.
Now, position the balloon anywhere you like as long as you don’t disturb the natural conduction (i.e., don’t allow the balloon to touch the container of water) and convection (i.e., don’t restrict air flow above the container of water or disturb the stillness of the air) of the experiment.
As you move the balloon around, it will absorb thermal radiation from the water. This radiation will stimulate the CO2 and water vapor in the balloon which will “back radiate” and heat up the water. Make a note of all the time periods where the water temperature increases. These time periods of elevated temperature will undeniably prove the existence of the atmospheric GHE. Print these results on your blog and use the data as ammunition to discredit the insane people who do not believe back radiation can add addition heat energy to an emitter.
Actually, Ken, all the “ammunition [needed] to discredit the insane people who do not believe” in the greenhouse effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide is the record of fraud and deceit of the Sky Dragon Slayer’s leader and the willingness of his publisher and fellow Slayers’ to defend his fraud.
Anyone who doubts SDS leader John O’Sullivan is promoting his and Ken’s book, himself, his group, and his company, and his fund raising efforts with lies and false credentials, should see for themselves. One thing they can do is call the membership office of the New York County Lawyers Association. Tell them that you verify the membership of a lawyer whose online bios claim he is a member.
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=64434874&authType=name&authToken=0rq9&locale=en_US&pvs=pp&trk=ppro_viewmore
If needed, Mr. O’Sullivan’s middle initial is “A.”
NYCLA membership office: (212) 267-6646, ext. 212.
Then get back to us.
Hi Andrew, you may recall that on 24th October I quoted from one of John O’Sullivan’s E-mails. It was sent on 29th Sept (during the Sept/Oct exchanges involving the subjects of “PSI & Politics” and “John O’Sullivan’s Specious Claims”). In your response you provided a link to John’s “Sleazy Climate Fraud Cover Up Reaches Friends Reunited” article (http://www.friendsreunited.co.uk/blog/read/JohnOSullivan/77846) of 21st September where he started “ .. It appears that an eco journalist called Andrew Skolnick is doing the rounds trying to dig up some kind of dirt from my past .. ” then goes on to talk about criminal fraud.
I’ve put a comment on that article letting “ .. all who know (him there) on Friends Reunited .. ” that they may get a more balanced picture by reading this thread of Professor Curry’s.
Regarding the other “present” that you say John gave you (11th November at 6:13 pm) tell me when I’m getting close:
– “ .. Andrew Skolnick .. filed the complaint .. as part of a coordinated attack stage managed by lawyer Roger McConchie .. ”.
I wasn’t impressed by John’s .. The LSBC finding vindicates what I have always publicly stated about myself in my website biography on Suite101. .. ”. From the records that I have that statement is valid but I’m not convinced about his statements on LinkedIn, FriendsReunited, etc.
You mentioned on one of the blogs that you believed that John O’Sullivan had returned to New York (you thought Delhi) from Swansea and I came across this entry from 2005 (http://www.blogger.com/profile/01289470993106566998) which appears to be relevant. That also links to “ .. Bloggers with an occupation of Lobbyist against Spitzer .. John O’Sullivan 50 year old .. Location: Delhi : New York .. Interests: Seeking Justice for the brutal rape of my wife; exposing corrupt attorney generals .. ”.
That ties in with your comment on 2nd November at 9:51 am, as does John O’Sullivan’s Nov. 2005 article “My letter to Eliot Spitzer” on his “EXPOSING SPITZER” blog (http://exposingspitzer.blogspot.com/). John said of himself at that time “ .. Long suffering victim of injustice; a Brit married to a yank; with a love of freedom of speech and democracy .. ” then went on to complain that QUOTE: .. My wife, our daughter and me have suffered considerably in what you lawyers would term “non-economic damages” including pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental suffering, emotional distress, loss of society and companionship, loss of consortium, injury to reputation and humiliation. .. UNQUOTE.
In his articles “The Background: Bracci v NYSDOCS” and “Why I Think Spitzer is a Criminal” John provided details of the action by his wife Barbara Bracci-O’Sullivan involving her supervisor William Peek and others. John appeared to place all of the blame for that upset on New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer of whom he said QUOTE: .. may be deemed, as the key perpetrator and to have been particularly careless, e.g., grossly, recklessly or wantonly careless or acted with intent and caused injury, then “punitive damages” might be awarded against you in addition to the compensatory damages if you were not so lucky to be under the privilege of tort immunity for that particular remedy .. UNQUOTE. John went on to make several less-than complementary statements about Spitzer, some of which may have been justified, however, Spitzer does have his supporters (e.g. http://usliberals.about.com/od/stategovernors/p/ElliotSpitzer.htm).
In May 2009 Barbara J Bracci’s petition against New York State Division of Human Rights that it had “ .. erred in dismissing her Complaint .. charging DOCS and her former captain with unlawful discriminatory practices relating to employment .. ” was dismissed (http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/ad3/Decisions/2009/506150.pdf). In July 2009 John expressed his views on “ .. the crass stupidity of the intellectually challenged presiding over American courts today. Adding my own two cents I can relate a similarly shocking account. I am an advocate currently fighting to uphold the principles of due process in a disturbing case concerning the rape, battery and near killing of a mother of one left permanently disabled with a broken neck. .. ” (http://appellate.typepad.com/appellate/2008/09/appellate-polit.html). He then went on to describe his wife’s complaint (failing to mention that the person he was talking about was his wife) then advised that “ .. Now Bracci is filing with the Court of Appeals. We shall soon see if the very highest court in New York dares be as corrupt. .. ”.
John (describing himself as an “advocate”) exchanged comments about this on several blogs, including The Elliot Schlissel New York Law Bog (http://schlissellaw.wordpress.com/2009/06/02/court-of-appeals-full-custody-includes-the-right-to-make-educational-decisions/). One of those involved claimed to by his wife’s relative and said “ .. If this lady was really telling the truth then maybe someone would listen. But this is all about money. This lady has not make one truthful statement and even all the court orders say that she doesn’t even know what the truth is. She changes her story all the time. I should know because I am her relative! .. ”. It’s hard to know who to believe but there is that mention that “ .. this is all about money .. ”.
On another blog he was asked “ .. Why are you spamming this nonsense, John? .. ” (http://blackbooklegal.blogspot.com/2009/06/raking-it-in-scotus-justices-make.html) and spamming he was (see http://www.newyorkinjuryattorneyblog.com/2009/07/due_process_stunning_decision_1.html http://www.injusticeeverywhere.com/?p=464 http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/07/31/denver-doozy-tenth-circuit-orders-new-sentence-fine-for-nacchio/ etc. etc. etc.).
On September 30, 2009 the claim by the O’Sullivans “ .. that representatives of various state agencies continue to wrongfully withhold personal property belonging to claimant Barbara Bracci-O’Sullivan consisting of seven microcassette tapes that she submitted to authorities in connection with prior unrelated legal proceedings .. ” was dismissed. It appears that John O’Sullivan’s efforts as “advocate” in US courts on this case, “ .. litigating for over a decade in the New York State courts .. ” (http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=64434874&authType=name&authToken=0rq9&trk=nmp_pymk_name) could hardly be considered an astounding success.
You also talked about John not being a member of NYCLA but what do you have to say about this 28th Oct. letter from NYCLA President Stewart Aaron (attached to (http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/9557-canada-bar-association-rules-no-misconduct-by-tim-balls-legal-team) apparently confirming John’s membership?
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete, seeing that you also share my interest in John O’Sullivan’s published accusations of sordid crimes he claims were committed against his wife Barbara Bracci, this following may also interest you.
I just came across a series of old news articles published in the Pittsburgh News Gazette which received a Dart Award in 1998. This one is entirely about accusations against John O’Sullivan’s brother-in-law, Peter Bracci, a retired police officer and current Town Supervisor of Delhi, NY. The Dart Award is given to recognize outstanding news coverage of victims of trauma, conflict, and social injustice.
http://old.dartcenter.org/dartaward/1998/winner/15.html
As the article notes, some of his brother-in-law’s family appeared twice on the Giraldo Show to accuse Peter Bracci of abuse.
Quite an interesting family, I think you’ll agree.
Hi again Andrew, I could not find any reference to a Peter Bracci in the link that you provided. I did a search on Peter J Bracci, listed as being a relative of Mary L Hallock (AKA Mary L Hallack, Mary L Bracci-hallock, Mary Aka Bracci, Mary L Bracci, Mary L Braccihallock – what’s this thing that the Bracci’s of Delhi, NY have about using so many different names?)
I see that there is a Supervisor Peter J. Bracci, (607) 746-8696, 5 Elm Street, Delhi, NY 13753 (http://www.delawarecounty.org/delhi.lasso) and I did find this 1997 article “After Years Underground, They’re Living Life in the Open” (http://old.dartcenter.org/dartaward/1998/winner/14.html). As you say “ .. Quite an interesting family .. ”.
I posted a related comment on the Bracci’s just before I read yours so you may find it of interest but it is awaiting approval.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete and ANdrew, please don’t discuss Sullivan’s family here, that is out of bounds.
Hi Judith, I have modified the comment that you wouldn’t post and hope that this now meets with your approval.
Hi Andrew, (ref. 14th November at 9:35 pm) thanks for drawing our attention to the latest change that John has made to one of his many (somewhat misleading?) biography entries. Comparing the current one in his FriendsReunited profile with the copy I have from 9th Nov. he has deleted his claim to being “ .. Appointed Consultant for Canadian law firm, Pearlman Lindholm and advising on libel suit of Dr. Michael Mann-v-Dr. Tim Ball .. ”.
I see that he still insists that he is “ .. Working, Pearlman Lindholm, , International legal advocate .. ”. He also still claims that he was “ .. Attending a Parliamentary meeting on October 27th 2010 .. ”. I speculate that few others share John’s opinion that an event organised by “ .. the UK’s close-knit cabal of climate sceptics .. hosted by Sammy Wilson MP” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/oct/25/climate-fools-day-sceptics-parliament) in a Westminster Palace committee room is a Parliamentary meeting. This years fiasco, also hosted by Sammy Wilson in another Westminster Palace room, appears to have had no other MPs in attendance (see my comment of November 10, 2011 at 5:08 pm).
Not one to miss an opportunity for self-promotion, in his FriendsReunited “Books” entry John refers to “Slaying the Sky Dragon: . ” and links to his promotional blog. At the bottom of that blog are links to Piers Corbyn’s “Weather Action” site and to the “Galileo Movement” of Case Smit and John Smeed (http://www.galileomovement.com.au/who_we_are.php). I have a suspicion that Piers may be following Professor Johnson’s lead in trying to dissociate himself from the “Slayers”. I don’t know about Smit or Smeed but Piers hasn’t responded to my E-mail or put in an appearance here (see my comments on 10th and 11th November).
Piers was a recipient of all of the “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mails and most of the “PSI & Politics” and “John O’Sullivan’s Specious Claims” E-mails but said not a word, just like his close associate Philip Foster, PSI’s Compliance Officer. I suspect that Philip Foster may also be trying to dissociate himself from the “Slayers”.
The Galileo Movement’s project leader is Malcolm Roberts who runs the “Conscious” blog (http://www.conscious.com.au/). That organisation is associated with Dr. Vincent Gray, a co-founder of highly regarded CACC sceptics organisation, The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=12&Itemid=45). Dr. Gray was involved in the “PSI & Due Diligence”, “PSI & Politics” and John O’Sullivan’s Specious Claims” E-mail exchanges during the past year. John added Dr. Gray to the circulation of E-mails on 1st January but Dr. Gray didn’t make a single contribution to the “PSI & Due Diligence” exchanges. Six months earlier John had invited comments on his article “X-Factor Hid Fakery in the Greenhouse Gas Theory” (http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5850&linkbox=true&position=1). In response to John’s “Any feedback is most welcome” (June 11, 2010 7:21 AM) Dr. Gray simply said “Dear John Poppycock Cheers” then followed up with “ .. Dear John Take a course in basic physics. You will discover that radiation goes in all directions, taking radiant energy with it. It does not “cancel out” .. ”.
More recently (17th October) in a “John O’Sullivan’s Specious Claims” E-mail Dr. Gray said of the “Slayers” in an exchange with Professor Johnson “ .. It is sad that some of you are sufficiently bamboozled by the warmers to pursue your non productive sideline .. ” then asked “ .. Folks Please cut(sic) me off–once again .. ”. It looks to me as though Dr. Gray, like Professor Johnson, may wish to dissociate from the “Slayers” so may not be too happy about the connection through The Galileo Movement’s project leader. In the interest of transparency, claimed to be so important to the “Slayers” PSI association, Messrs. Smit, Smeed and Roberts need to be aware of the comments that are being posted here so I have sent a message to Malcolm Roberts.
It’s odd that John, always appearing eager to promote his own works and achievements, in his Friends Re-United “Book” interests makes no mention of his “Summit Shock” publication (http://cupboard55summitshock.blogspot.com/2008/03/and-what-is-cupboard-55_31.html) in which he relates his version of the experience that had at the hands of the New York judicial system. Andrew is convinced that John distorts the facts and some of those who commented on this “Summit Shock” promotional page think along similar lines. The page is well worth reading.
That page is another of the many that says of John “ .. In the U.S. his work features in the ‘National Review .. ” but there seems to be some dispute over that claim. I see that John’s portrait (the out-of-date picture from many years ago that he insists on using) now hangs on the wall of “The O’Sullivan Hall of Fame IV” (http://www.osullivanclan.com/halloffamegalleryiv.html) with the declaration beneath that “ .. The world’s leading global warming theory debunker is an O’Sullivan .. ”. Not only that but he has a version of his biography including that disputed statement “ .. In the U.S. his work features in the ‘National Review,’ America’s most popular and influential magazine for Republican/conservative news .. ”.
Guess who is also proudly (and rightly so) presented on that wall above a banner saying “ .. One of the most influential editors in the world is an O’Sullivan .. ”. That John O’Sullivan is none other than the “ .. editor-in-chief of United Press International. He was Editor of National Review from 1988 to 1997 and in 1998 was named Editor-at-Large .. ”. That John O’Sullivan really does have things to boast about. I have posted a comment on the Clan’s Discussion Board (http://osullivanclan.wordpress.com/2010/03/20/hello-world/#comment-93) drawing attention to this thread and have suggested that the National Review Editor at Large John O’Sullivan be asked if “Slayer” John had any of his work featured in the National Review.
John, despite “ .. successfully litigating for over a decade in the New York State courts .. ” failed to make headway in the courts with the case that he documents in “Summit Shock”. Trying a different career path he turned his attention in 2009/10 to Climate Change and devised his plans for PSI and taking legal action against Government agencies over their CACC activities. I predict another failure for him. I think that his Blogger profile “About Me” statement (http://www.blogger.com/profile/01249494027819685623) “ .. A dark horse-not much to tell .. ” is the most accurate reflection that I have seen so far – part fact and part fiction.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Hi Andrew, perhaps we should take our discussion about John’s relatives in Delhi, NY. over to your blog. This matter of his relatives is relevant to his promotion of PSI because, as I said in my comment of 7th November (at 4:22 pm) regarding his Gofundme appeal for charitable donations QUOTE:
.. John admitted on 19th Jan. that “ .. I can reveal the first donation of $350 is from a member of my family in the US .. ”.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
We’re fortunate this humbug is such a big fool. He’s dug himself deeply into an embarrassing hole and doesn’t have the sense to stop digging. As he has done his this latest reckless ploy:
Around the first few days of October, O’Sullivan deleted his false claim of being employed by the law firm Pearlman Lindholm from his LinkedIn and Suite101.com bios. He also deleted the bogus claim that he is a member of the American Bar Association, which is open only to attorney’s licensed to practice in the U.S. — which he now admits he is NOT.
And he replaced that bogus claim with another. He now claims to be a member of the New York County Lawyers Association — which similarly requires members to be licensed attorneys — even though he now admits he isn’t a licensed attorney. As the NYCLA membership form states, members must be licensed in NY or they must submit a “current letter of good standing” from a state or foreign licensing board.
http://www.nycla.org/siteFiles/sitePages/sitePages176_3.pdf
That was in the first week of October. After noticing the switch, I called NYCLA’s membership director on Oct. 11 and asked whether John O’Sullivan is a member. She checked the membership list and confirmed that he’s not. I immediately began reporting his latest bogus credential. One of my first reports was in this discussion above on Oct. 15.
Yesterday, hoping to strike a mortal blow to my credibility, O’Sullivan published the thank-you-for-joining letter from the NYCLA over on Climate Change Dispatch, where he and his pack of rabid jackals are dancing a jig over what they believe is my dead reputation.
What hopeless buffoons. It turns out, Mr. O’Sullivan became a NYCLA member on Oct. 30. 2011 — more than two weeks after I had exposed his bogus claim of membership, and nearly a month after he began claiming this latest false credential in his online bios.
There’s much more about this to come. For one, I suspect he may have submitted a phoney “current letter of good standing” from a state or national licensing board in order to qualify for membership. I’ll report what I find out from the NYCLA membership office.
Ken Coffman and any Sky Dragon Slayers still here, lets do the math:
For an attorney to become a member of the New York County Lawyers Association, he or she must be a licensed attorney, as is clearly indicated in its membership application. Active members are licensed attorneys living in or practicing in New York City. Other attorneys can become associate members if they meet the following requirements:
“Associate Member: Member of the bar of the State of New York who neither resides nor practices in New York City, or an attorney not admitted in New York but admitted [to the bar] in any other state, territory, District of Columbia or foreign country. If admitted outside New York, please include a current certificate of good standing with this application.”
http://www.nycla.org/printFriendly.cfm?section=Members_Only&page=Print_Your_ID_Card&newwin=1
In other words, this humbug is barred from being a NYCLA member because he’s NOT a member of any bar. Just WHO says John O’Sullivan has NO license to practice law? Why, the very humbug himself:
“Since May 2011, when Mr. Skolnick first learned that Dr. Ball engaged me, he has sought to make capital out of our ‘professional relationship’ by imputing that I falsely asserted my standing was that of a fully licensed attorney. I have repeatedly denied those allegations and challenged Mr. Skolnick to provide evidence such as weblinks to statements I’ve made to back his bogus claims. … To be very precise, I have never claimed to be a licensed attorney and as such cannot be accused of misrepresenting
myself.“
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/9557-canada-bar-association-rules-no-misconduct-by-tim-balls-legal-team
Altogether now, two plus two equals?
Those who didn’t come up with 3 1/2 are probably snickering over the humbug’s claim that no one can accuse him of misrepresenting his credentials.
Well, it sure took a lot of time and nudging of Tim Ball’s attorney Michael Scherr to get John O’Sullivan to stop falsely advertising himself as being employed by Scherr’s law firm, Pearlman Lindholm. That bogus claim caused Mr. Scherr quite some embarrassment as well as a formal investigation by the Law Society of British Columbia.
Yesterday or today, the Sky Dragon Slayer leader finally deleted from his Friends Reunited webpage his fraudulent claim of being employed as a “legal consultant” for Pearlman Lindholm:
http://www.friendsreunited.co.uk/profile/80921442/59D6969B901CDE19B6D7EFE2B66AA2ED
Meanwhile, over on his buddy’s Climate Change Dispatch web site, O’Sullivan has been busy proclaiming this a great victory and vindication. His spin is a marvel to behold, as well as hilarious — I especially like how he mistakes the Law Society of British Columbia in Vancouver for the Canadian Bar Association in Ottawa, more than 2000 miles:
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/9557-canada-bar-association-rules-no-misconduct-by-tim-balls-legal-team
Mr. O’Sullivan’s misdeeds are finally catching up to him. In the past month, he was forced to delete his bogus claim of being a legal consultant for Pearlman Lindholm from his online bios, as well as his bogus claim of being a member of the American Bar Association. He has finally admitted that he never held a license to practice law. He was fired as a contributing writer for Suite101.com and nearly all of the more than 60 error-strewn, often defamatory articles he wrote for Suite101 were deleted.
Unable to defend his fraudulent claims, Mr. O’Sullivan has been reduced to bizarre rants, for example, accusing me of being “gleefully aligned with pedophiles.”
See if you can follow his line of “reason”: I exposed Mr. O’Sullivan’s fraudulent claims about being an attorney employed to defend Tim Ball against the libel suit brought by Prof. Michael Mann. Mann is a professor of climatology at Penn State. He accuses Prof. Mann of criminal fraud and claims Penn State is covering up the climatologist’s crimes. He also says Penn State covered up the sexual abuse of children by a former football assistant coach. Ergo, I have “aligned [myself] so gleefully with the climate criminals and pedophiles.’
Which brings to mind that ancient wisdom wrongly attributed to Euripides: “Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad.”
Mr. Ken Coffman – I just performed your recommended experiment, as you outlined, with the balloon 1 1/2 feet above the container of water. You said to move the balloon around, so I tied a string to the balloon’s string and pulled it slightly while I was six feet away from the water container so as not to influence the experiment with my body heat.
The water temperature did not increase. Any suggestions?
Very good, Chad. I suppose we’ll have to open our minds to consider the possibility that emanations from a passive gas have no capability of adding energy to an emitter. The precise nature (the medium and what motivates it) of radiation, like magnetism and gravity, is unknown, so it is natural to be confused about what radiation can do. Mother Nature does not like things to have differing temperatures (or energies) and she really does not like things with wide temperature (or energy) differentials. She has a “toolkit” for equalizing temperatures (or energies) which include conduction (a strong equalizer), convection (a weaker equalizer) and radiation (a very weak equalizer). In no case will we find passive radiation to be an agent of coherence. Passive radiation is an agent of dissipation. Radiation works to equalize temperatures and balances of energy. That is its “purpose”. This is why you cannot blame increasing proportions of CO2 for increasing the Earth;s surface temperature.
Please note that I’m not talking about microwave ovens, nuclear reactors or exothermic chemical reactions because the physics of these things have no relevance to the discussion of atmospheric CO2 and the Earth’s climate.
Sky Dragon Slayer publisher Ken says, “Please note that I’m not talking about microwave ovens, nuclear reactors or exothermic chemical reactions because the physics of these things have no relevance to the discussion of atmospheric CO2 and the Earth’s climate.”
LOL! They have just as much relevance to the discussion as does blowing up a condom or a balloon and moving it around a bowl of water.
I’d rather blow up a gaseous maroon.
Andrew, I’m open to your suggestions about how to make the experiment more accurately represent the Earth and atmosphere. The only thing I can think of is to make the balloon larger if you’d like to represent the Earth’s atmosphere having about 3X the volume of our ocean water. It’s tough to get things with small thermal masses to increase the temperatures of things with large thermal masses, particularly when the small masses are colder, but you can wave your climate science magic wand and invent all kinds of formulas and computer models. Don’t let me stand in your way.
Sorry Ken, I’ll prefer to let you and your humbug colleague John O’Sullivan apply your “common sense” tools to deconstruct science. When you self-publish your discoveries, I’ll have more fun “popping your balloons.”
Let me ask you something. Do you know whether John O’Sullivan earned his law degree from Hill University?
The reason I’m interested is that I’d like to be able to get the following in “15 days” after sending in my $349:
Original Accredited Degree
•
2 Original Transcripts
•
1 Award of Excellence
•
1 Certificate of Distinction
•
1 Certificate of Membership
•
4 Education Verification Letters
http://www.hilluniversity.com/Hill/life_experience_degrees_programs.asp
Andrew, I think you could make better progress with your therapy if you would print these exchanges and share them with your mental health professional.
So may I take that as a yes?
Great. I’ve always wanted a doctorate in theology. And maybe one in marine biology.
No, you may not take my helpful suggestion as a ‘yes’ to your question. Honestly, Andrew, it’s clear your medication is not balanced properly. Seriously. Get some help with the cocktail.
No, Ken, it is you who didn’t understand MY suggestion.
For your own good, you need to sit down with your fellow sky dragon sleazer and ask him whether he really earned his law degree from Hill University. If its true, you’re going to be even more embarrassed and we’ll have an even more hilariously funny needle to pop your mendacious balloons.
These series of time-lapse photographs show the proper proportion of the Earth’s atmosphere to the Earth’s surface. The atmosphere is a very thin layer. Surely common sense would tell you that blaming 390PPM of CO2 for doing anything measurable to the Earth’s surface temperature is plain stupid. Sun heats water. Water heats air which smears, integrates and convects. That’s about all there is to it.
Mr. Coffman’s plea to common sense is about the most idiotic thing he said.
If we had to rely on common sense to solve our problems, we’d still be protecting our children from deadly diseases with foul-smelling poultices and magical chants instead of vaccines and antibiotics.
Oh, I forgot. Many of Ken’s global warming denier friends also don’t believe in vaccines for their children. They’d rather trust common sense then “corrupt scientists.”
I find things like this interesting.
We cannot see infrared, but if we could, things would look a lot different. Surveillance photographs are often taken with infrared cameras because infrared radiation can penetrate haze and smoke more readily than visible light.
–Basic Optics and Optical Instruments, Naval Education and Training Program Development Center, Dover Press, 1997
There’s also lots of things infrared cannot see through, like rain, heavy mist, glass windows.
And your point was?
I don’t have a particular point in mind, I’m just sitting here daydreaming about the nature of light and radiation. Don’t we crave a break from the ugly accusations going back and forth?
Because a photon carries momentum, and momentum is conserved, the atom emitting the photon experiences a recoil of hv/c. Moreover, the momentum associated with a photon can be transferred to objects of finite mass, giving rise to a force and causing mechanical motion. As an example, light beams can be used to deflect atomic beams travelling perpendicularly to the photons. The term radiation pressure is often used to describe this phenomenon (pressure = force/area).
Fundamentals of Photonics, Second Edition, B.E.A. Saleh and M. C. Teich
“This series of landscape photographs show the land is flat everywhere we look. Surely common sense would tell you that belief in a ball-shaped earth is plain stupid.”
It’s a painful fact that for many people “common sense” is an oxymoron — and it’s no more so than in global warming deniers like Mr. Coffman, John O’Sullivan and their merry band of Sky Dragon Slayers.
Skolnick and Ridley need to face the facts that the British Columbia Law Society thoroughly investigated all the above allegations against me and then dismissed them all as baseless. Dr Ball’s libel attorney, Michael Scherr, affirmed to the BCLS investigation that my statements that a professional relationship between Michael Scherr’s firm, Pearlman Lindholm, Dr. Ball and me are entirely true.
Nowhere has Mr Scherr or Dr Ball denied this relationship that I am Dr. Ball’s legal adviser. I also affirm that I have been paid for such work. Despite untold hours spent trying to smear these muck rakers have failed.
Despite their best efforts to try to drive a wedge between Dr Ball and me they have failed. Dr Ball is entitled to seek legal advice from anyone he chooses. If Skolnick and Ridley are correct and I’m a faker and charlatan then better to leave Dr Ball and me to it and let Michael Mann’s attorney discredit us in court.
Others have recently uncovered evidence that it is Skolnick who is the faker and charlatan having been fired from his job at the AMA for lying. He falsely claims on his CV that he was a Pulitzer Prize nominee. He has also lied when he claimed he won two lawsuits that he actually lost. Also, is appears his claims to possess a master’s degree are similarly bogus. Perhaps it is time an independent investigation is now carried in Skolnick and Ridley. It seems overdue.
Mr. O’Sullivan, I see from the bio that your name tag links to, that you are still fraudulently claiming to be a member of the American Bar Association and a legal consultant at the British Columbia law firm Pearlman Lindholm.
I’ve brought this to the attention of the General Counsel of the American Bar Association and to the Law Society of British Columbia. And I copied Pearlman Lindholm’s attorney Mr. Scherr.
Mr Scherr said in his disposition to the BC Law Society “Mr O’Sullivan is engaged by our client, not by this firm” the Law Society pointed out that “It is easy to see, in retrospect, that it would have been wise for Mr. Scherr to inquire and seek verification from Mr O’Sullivan as to his professional status prior to filing the Response”. Those statements don’t seem consistent with your account.
I just checked and found that no one can make his or her alumni page viewable to anyone but a fellow Columbia University alum (any lurking here who would like to verify my degree?). But I have something almost as good: An article in the Columbia School of Journalism’s publication 21st C that identifies me as a J-School grad, which I wrote in 2000. Any one can view it on the university website:
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/21stC/issue-4.2/skolnick.html
If Mr. O’Sullivan would do at least as much — provide us with a document on the University of Surrey’s web site that identifies him as a law school graduate — I’d offer him an effuse and sincere apology.
To judge the veracity of Humbug O’Sullivan’s other sleazy slurs, you can read Wil Hylton’s excellent Harper’s Magazine account of Correctional Medical Services (CMS) wrong doing, including the company’s attempt to suppress our reports in the Journal of the American Medical Associationand the St. Louis Post-Dispatch with false accusations and an empty threat to take us to court. Although they got the AMA to throw me under the bus, the Post-Dispatch hired a prominent law firm to deal with the SLAPP suit threat. Tail between legs, CMS went away. Not one word of our articles had to be retracted.
CMS then lobbied journalism groups not to award our investigative and public interest reporting. That also failed to work. We received a slew of awards, including Amnesty International USA’s “Spotlight on Media” award, Harvard University’s Goldsmith Prize for Investigative Journalism Finalist Award, First Prize in Community Affairs/Public Interest News Writing from Missouri Associated Press Managing Editors, Missouri Press Association’s Best Investigative Reporting Prize for Dailies, and the honor of a Pulitzer Prize nomination from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch — the very paper founded and made famous by Joseph Pulitzer.
The following year, the American Medical Writers Association awarded my lifetime of “Preeminent Contributions to Medical Communication” with the prestigious John P. McGovern Award. Anyone interested in seeing the kind of company I keep can view the list of all recipients of this honor. http://www.amwa.org/default.asp?id=171
If readers are interested in determining whether Mr. O’Sullivan’s version of events is any more honest than his bogus resumes, they can get a free copy of Mr. Hylton’s Harper’s article on the Wrongful Death Institute’s web site: http://www.wrongfuldeathinstitute.com/links/sickontheinside.htm
In 2000, I filed suit against Correctional Medical Services and another corporation for libel and tortuous interference with my employment. Although in his typically disreputable fashion, Mr. O’Sullivan says I lost the suits, I received a satisfactory settlement from both defendants. The suits were dismissed as settled.
Skolnick, even more curious! I see no mention there in your link of your “master’s degree” – I wonder why?
Also, the misrepresent the two lawsuits you fought – they were “settled” because you lost and others linked to the cases have pulled you up about your mischaracterization of them. In sum, you lost. If I am lying then carry out your threat to sue me : )
What’s your mailing address? The real one.
Hi Andrew, you’ll find quite a few of the “Slayers” E-mail addresses at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/co2isplantfood/message/280 along with some Mid-2010 “Slayer” exchanges. There appeared to be a degree of carelessness regarding E-mails addresses which I commented on to the “Slayers” during the Dec/Jan “PSI & Due Diligence” exchanges.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
John O’Sullivan spins another whopper: “Skolnick and Ridley need to face the facts that the British Columbia Law Society thoroughly investigated all the above allegations against me and then dismissed them all as baseless.”
The Law Society of British Columbia confirmed today that the complaint I had filed against John O’Sullivan — not Michael Scherr — was NOT closed. It is still being investigated:
“As we are in the midst of reviewing a complaint of unauthorized practice, we cannot comment specifically. … The Law Society investigates complaints of people who aren’t lawyers engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. These investigations are based on specific facts and circumstances. Where there is a question of public protection the Law Society seeks undertakings from unauthorized practitioners that they cease. If someone refuses to sign an undertaking we may seek an injunction from the courts.”
If you wish to retract the following defamatory statements you made with clear malice, I will not, for now, proceed with a libel suit:
“It is Skolnick who is the faker and charlatan having been fired from his job at the AMA for lying.”
“He falsely claims on his CV that he was a Pulitzer Prize nominee.”
“He has also lied when he claimed he won two lawsuits that he actually lost.”
“Also, it appears his claims to possess a master’s degree are similarly bogus. Perhaps it is time an independent investigation is now carried in Skolnick… It seems overdue.”
By the way, Mr. O’Sullivan, did you earn your law degree from Hill University?
You didn’t earn a law degree from University College, Cork as you first publicly claimed. And it’s hardly likely you earned it at the University of Surrey at the SAME time you were actually earning an art degree at West Surrey College of Art and Design — as you say on your Friends Reunited web bio.
Now I hear it was actually from Hill University. Please tell us if this is true or not.
Skolnick, you are a proven liar. If you wish to sue me, sue me. Frankly, you gave it your best shot by trying to persuade the British Columbia Law Society with your ‘evidence’ that I lied. When they examined it they found it was you who had lied. There is no substance to any of your claims.
Just accept you lost and were made to look utterly stupid. Use this as a learning experience. Move on.
A lot of honest people are now feeling very stupid that they swallowed your lies.
I wonder what other lies will you be caught in? It seems others now taking an interest in your fatuous personal claims are already uncovering inconvenient facts already about your history of fakery.
Try to man up and admit you lied about why you were fired from the AMA, admit you lied that you won two lawsuits when you hadn’t and lied that you were a Pulitzer Prize nominee.
Yet more bald-faced lies from Mr. O’Sullivan. The Law Society of British Columbia confirmed by email today that the complaint I had filed against John O’Sullivan — not Michael Scherr — was NOT closed. It is still being investigated:
“As we are in the midst of reviewing a complaint of unauthorized practice, we cannot comment specifically. … The Law Society investigates complaints of people who aren’t lawyers engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. These investigations are based on specific facts and circumstances. Where there is a question of public protection the Law Society seeks undertakings from unauthorized practitioners that they cease. If someone refuses to sign an undertaking we may seek an injunction from the courts.”
Hi John (ref. 16th November at 7:17 am), it’s been quite a while since we exchanged opinions. I believe that the last time we did this was in one of the “John O’Sullivan’s specious claims” E-mails on 10th Oct. when you responded to my question about whether or not Nasif Nahl was QUOTE: ..
another scientist who is dissociating himself from what appears to me (and Professor Curry?) to be a dwindling band of “Slayers”?” .. UNQUOTE.
In you response you said “ .. Why do you persevere with this desperate wishful thinking that the Slayers are in decline when the opposite is true? .. I can further add that although you and Dr. Curry have made play that Claes Johnson took a step back from the team it is evident from recent discussions that he and the Slayers have again come closer with an agreed position that “atmospheric CO2 can have no measurable warming or cooling effect on climate .. “. That seems to conflict with Professor Claes Johnson’s comment here on 15th October that “ .. I am not a member of any group subject to group thinking, in particular not the slayers group .. ”.
Back in January in your Gofundme appeal for charitable donations to set up your company PSI you said “ .. We are a group of 36 respected international scientists and related professionals .. ”. You may recall that on 26th Sept. I raised the point about “ .. what appears to be a dwindling group of “Slayers” .. ”. You responded with what you called my “ .. unsubstantiated claim (in effect, a lie) about the Slayers being in decline is laughable .. ”. I asked on 28th Sept. “ .. who presently regard themselves as being members of your group of “Slayers” .. How many are there now and who are they .. ”.
You responded on 29 Sept. with named individuals which I said on 30th Sept. amounted to QUOTE: ..
only 10 individuals who are “ .. currently the most active/influential members of the Slayers team.. ”. I make the total count in your E-mail to be 33 and that includes those that you “ .. would hesitate to call ‘Slayers’ per se just yet .. ” (and Dr Matthias Kleepsies has just advised that he is a former member of the “Slayers”). Falling from 36 to 32 (at best) certainly appears to me “ .. to be a dwindling group of “Slayers” .. ”! I wonder who else agrees with you about my “ .. unsubstantiated claim (in effect, a lie) about the Slayers being in decline .. ”. (I won’t hold my breath waiting for an apology) .. UNQUOTE.
In that E-mail of yours on 29th Sept. you said that “ .. Certainly Claes Johnson has taken a backwards step lately .. ” but as I said in response “ .. I wonder how he would describe it .. ”. I think that Professor Johnson’s comment above on 15th October about not being “ .. a member of any group .. in particular not the slayers group .. ” answers my question. Of course it does raise another question. Back in 16th Aug. 2010 Professor Johnson said “ .. I am happy to announce that I have joined the project Slaying the Sky Dragon: The Death of the Greenhouse Effect .. ” (http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2010/08/slaying-sky-dragon-of-greenhouse-effect.html) so what made him change his mind and dissociate himself from the “Slayers”? He was involved in most of those 90+ “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mail exchanges so perhaps they helped him change his mind.
Your January Gofundme appeal for charitable donations does beg the question of why “ .. 36 respected international scientists and related professionals .. ” should go begging for what amounted to only $417 each in order to set up a commercial organisation. On 2nd Jan. during our “PSI & Due Diligence” exchanges you acknowledged that “ .. The ‘Slayers’ project is first and foremost a commercial operation .. ” yet only two weeks later you were presenting the “Slayers” PSI organisation as “ .. the world’s first open to all, politics-free, generalist science association .. ” and appealing for charitable donations to help you realise your desire for PSI to “ .. become registered as a charitable association in the U.S. .. ”. Please correct me if I am mistaken but I have always considered the motivations of those wishing to set up a charitable organisation to be quite different to those wishing to set up a commercial operation.
I have asked the UK’s CIC Regulator to clarify this and shall let you know her response.
In your comment here on 2nd July you complained bitterly about several matters raised by Andrew and concluded “ .. All I can say to creatures like Skolnick and Shore is put up or shut up! .. ”. It seems to me that Andrew is doing his very best to “put up” rather than “shut up”.
One of your complaints was that “ .. Andrew Skolnick is an inveterate liar who has deliberately misrepresented my words .. ”. In my opinion that last bit could be seen as the pan calling the kettle black. Once again you appear to be distorting what I have said. If you can point to any correspondence or comment of mine where I have said that you are a “ .. a faker and charlatan .. ” then please do so and I will consider whether or not a retraction and apology are due. You should recall that on several previous occasions I have made that same suggestion to you with regard to lying and libel but you have never taken me up on it. I have made several references to that on this thread.
You also complain that I have made “ .. efforts to try to drive a wedge between Dr Ball and me .. ” but once again, please provide a link to evidence that I have done this. Dr. Ball has been mentioned here 84 times, 7 of those in your latest post. I have named him 29 times, 10 of those being in quotations. None of my remaining 19 can reasonably be construed as trying to drive a wedge between you and Dr. Ball. Once again my opinion is that you owe me an apology but I won’t hold my breath waiting for it.
As for your feeble parting shot, investigating me will reveal nothing that diverts due attention from yourself, your “Slayers” and PSI.
Best regards, Pete Ridley, previously C. Eng; M.I.E.E; M.I.E.R.E; P. Eng. APEO; but now retired.
BTW John, talking about those “PSI & Due Diligence” exchanges and dwindling “Slayer” numbers reminds me that Roger Sowell was going to review your “Slaying the Sky Dragon” Chapter 21 ““Legal Fallout from False Climate Alarm”. In that chapter you summarised the plans for PSI and subsequently provided much more detail about those plans in the “PSI & Due Diligence” exchanges. Over a month ago I provided Roger with a 60-page Word document containing many of the most relevant of those E-mails for him to review alongside Chapter 21. An experienced attorney like Roger should be able to read those and draw his conclusions very quickly but I have heard nothing more from him since his E-mail of 12th October when he said “ .. Now, to Mr. Ridley, to further answer your question, yes, I am still digesting and investigating the claims made in Chapter 21, Legal Fallout from False Climate Alarm. I will give my analysis on that at some later time. I am not familiar with the other issue, “PSI U & Due Diligence emails”. Perhaps I’ve missed them in the incredible volume of emails that was generated by the simple question of thermal radiation .. ”.
To save Roger searching through all of those E-mails I sent another copy of that Word document to him immediately but I haven’t heard a word from him about his analysis.
On 29th September you said “ .. Californian attorney Roger Sowell .. is in discussion with us as a potential new recruit, but his decision is pending because he is currently reviewing our Sky Dragon book .. ”. I wonder if, after reading Chapter 21 and those “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mails, Roger too has decided to dissociate himself from the “Slayers” but of course I could be mistaken. Would you, as PSI’s CEO, care to clarify that? – after all, transparency is claimed to be very important to PSI (http://principia-scientific.org/about-us/principles-of-association).
Best regards, Pete Ridley, previously C. Eng; M.I.E.E; M.I.E.R.E; P. Eng. APEO; but now retired.
Still no answer whether it’s true that this humbug bought his law degree from “Hill University” — the online diploma mill where a guy can buy a Doctorate degree in any subject in just 15 days — complete with the following credential documents:
– 2 Original Transcripts
– 1 Award of Excellence
– 1 Certificate of Distinction
– 1 Certificate of Membership
– and 4 Education Verification Letters!
All this for just $849! But wait, there’s more! For an additional $500, you will receive your very own:
– Thesis Approval Letter!
Act now at these very affordable rates: http://www.hilluniversity.com/Hill/online-degrees/online-doctorate-program.asp
Well John, what say you? Did you or did you not get a law degree from Hill University?
What a travesty of a discussion on what should be climate science.
It could not happen in any other branch I’m sure.
Still if Al Gore can get a Nobel Prize then I suppose that’s all we can expect.
Where the hell is Grant Petty?
Has anyone thought of checking his qualifications?
Oh dear, Bryan, that comment about Professor Petty is the most feeble one that you have made so far.
You still persist in believing that this thread is provided for “ .. a discussion on what should be climate science .. ”. Please read my comment of 11th November at 1:49 pm.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
I can vouch for Dr. Petty. He’s a bright and well-educated person.
Pete Ridley and Ken Coffman.
Your appreciation of irony is somewhat lacking!
Ah, I’m just goofing around. I’m with you, Bryan.
Bryan, if you mean “a usually humorous or sardonic literary style or form,” your comment was not “irony.” It was a lame attempt to shift attention away from the Sky Dragon Slayer leader’s fraudulent conduct.
Ken’s vouching for Dr. Petty being a “bright and well-educated person,” now that’s irony.
Bryan, if this discussion bothers you so much you’ve only got yourselves to blame for hitching your global warming denying wagon to a con-artist like John O’Sullivan and his merry band of humbugs, crackpots, and hired guns.
I don’t know any science where virtually every academic and professional credential claimed by one of its leading “authorities” turns out to be bogus — as John O’Sullivan’s clearly have.
So it’s not surprising Bryan would try to deflect readers’ attention onto Prof. Grant Perry’s integrity: Has anyone thought of checking his qualifications?” he asks. As a matter of fact, yes.
Anyone who wasn’t a bread-dead denier could easily check and see he’s a research scientist and full professor in the University of Wisconsin-Madison Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences:
http://www.aos.wisc.edu/faculty/faculty.htm
They could also verify that’s he’s well ranked as teacher on the Rate My Professors web site, where 41 students gave him an average rating of 4.1 out of 5 — which is very good for a professor, who is primarily occupied with research, publishing, and presenting research at conferences: http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=399245
And, unlike the Sky Dragon Slayer humbugs and kooks Bryan defends, Prof. Petty has a long list of publications on climate research in peer-reviewed science publications and papers that he presented at many peer-reviewed conferences:
http://rime.aos.wisc.edu/gpetty/publications.html
So well done, Bryan. You’ve only drawn further attention to the worthlessness of your arguments.
Andrew Skolnick says
“So it’s not surprising Bryan would try to deflect readers’ attention …….
The sentence should have finished
…..back to climate science.
Its quite clear that Andrew Skolnick and Pete Ridley have almost nothing noteworthy to say on the topic.
An endless repetition of smears is the best they can come up with.
What they don’t realise is that the points they make are totally unimportant even if true.
For instance the Postma papers and Claes Johnson ideas will not be judged on John O’Sullivan’s qualifications but on whether they call withstand detailed scientific scrutiny.
It’s well known that the integrity of an author’s papers is judged in large part by his or her professional integrity.
By collaborating with and being lead by a con-artist with bogus academic and professional credentials, Postma, Johnson, and the rest of the Sky Dragon Slayers have damaged their credibility beyond hope of repair.
This is an interesting social experiment. I don’t agree with Dr. Petty, but I like and respect him.
I don’t agree with Spencer Weart, but I respect his work (see my review of his history book: http://www.amazon.com/Discovery-Global-Warming-Histories-Technology/product-reviews/067403189X/ref=cm_cr_dp_hist_4?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&filterBy=addFourStar). Fair review, wouldn’t you say? I bought the book and actually read it twice.
I don’t agree with our hostess, but I respect her position and admire her tolerance and consideration of opposing opinions.
I would not accuse any of those three of having ugly souls.
Joel,
Mr. Smith says he’s only interested in the Sky Dragon Slayer’s message and not in whether the message is being spread by a con-artist whose bogus academic and professional credentials were never challenged by his global warming denying followers.
If Mr. Smith doesn’t want to hear the truth about John O’Sullivan or his gang of Sky Dragon Slayers, he can simply ignore what he doesn’t want to read. However, he also wants to keep others from hearing the truth about the charlatan and the hired guns, kooks, and humbugs who are his co-authors.
If there’s any doubt that they’re peddling complete garbage and nonsense to right wing-leaning nincompoops, this bat dropping from the opening pages of their book should settle it. It’s an utterly mind-boggling piece of nonsense written by Sky Dragon Slayer Alan Siddons:
http://www.aaskolnick.com/global_deniers/batshitstupid.jpg
It should make you wonder how anyone who got past the second grade would call the bizarre machinations in this book “science.”
(Anyone who needs to ask what is wrong with the “science” of Siddon’s ludicrous claim needs to return to school and finish at least the third grade.)
With your aptitude, Andrew, it would be surprising if your mind was ever unboggled.
Skolnick,
You are a proven liar and a fraud as affirmed by the Law Society of British Columbia’s recent findings after they investigated your unfounded accusations against me. Get over it and move on. See here:
http://co2insanity.com/2011/11/10/canada-bar-association-rules-%E2%80%98no-misconduct%E2%80%99-by-tim-ball%E2%80%99s-legal-team/
As can be seen above, I have repeatedly published online details of my academic and professional qualifications. Full details of them were submitted as part of the investigation by the LSBC who then dismissed every part of Skolnick’s malicious and false complaint.
Not only has Skolnick failed to substantiate any of the lies he published about me but also it turns out that others have now uncovered evidence that it is Skolnick who faked his own resume.
It appears he was fired from his post at the AMA for misrepresentation and does not have the master’s degree he claims. He falsely boasted to be a Pulitzer Prize nominee when he wasn’t and lied when claiming he’s won two lawsuits that he actually lost.
He has made empty threats to sue me for libel but that is as credible as his promise to get the LSBC to “expose” me. If anyone still takes this fraudster seriously then more fool them.
John, I see that you’ve added yet another job to your growing list of professions. First a gym or sports high school teacher, then a self-published author of sordid tales of sex and crime, followed by your career as renowned science journalist, lawyer, and legal analyst. And now, rodeo clown. LMBO!.
Readers, for a jolly good laugh, look how John changed his name tag link and bio right after the warning notice I posted yesterday:
“Mr. O’Sullivan, I see you are still fraudulently claiming to be a member of the American Bar Association and a legal consultant at the British Columbia law firm Pearlman Lindholm. I’ve brought this to the attention of the General Counsel of the American Bar Association and to the Law Society of British Columbia. And I copied Pearlman Lindholm’s attorney Mr. Scherr.”
I suspect Mr. Scherr and his law firm were not the least bit happy.
Mr. O’Sullivan scrambled to redo his Gravatar bio (and also dropped the “LLB, BA Hons, PGCE” from his name tag — compare today’s name tag with the one he was using yesterday:
http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-139011
Knowing his penchant for rewriting the record, I saved his Gravatar web page and a screen capture of the bio to show readers which one of us is the humbug: http://www.aaskolnick.com/global_deniers/OSullivan_gravatar_capture.11.16.2011.jpg
Skolnick,
Some advice: learn when to quit.
Regards,
John O’Sullivan LLB, BA (Hon), PGCE
Looking for the latest “news” about the company John O’Sullivan runs, I popped over to his “Principia Scientific International” web site and saw a notice of a landmark international event:
http://principia-scientific.org/component/content/article/48-upcoming-events/101-second-annual-psi-conference-set-to-take-place-in-boston-mass
Annual PSI Conference scheduled for London, England
“First Annual PSI Conference set to take place in London, England, October 2011. Delegates from 12 countries expected to attend three-day event. Further details to be posted.”
Anyone interested in attending the October conference better hurry. It’s already mid-November.
What a rodeo clown.
Although Andrew and I have tried to stick to the topic for which this thread was established there has been far too much chatter in several recent comments by Bryan and Ken that have nothing to do with it. The reason for Professor Curry setting up this thread is beautifully summed up by these words from her opening article “ .. you just might even feel a little shame at your roles in aggressively promoting misinformation and distrust of experts among those who aren’t equipped to tell science from pseuodoscience .. ”. Professor Petty (for whom I too have enormous respect) made that comment to the “Slayers” in a 14th Oct. response to an E-mail from Joseph Postma on 13th on the subject of “John O’Sullivan’s specious claims” (a subject that Professor Petty had started on 8 Oct).
That “final E-mail to the “Slayers” from Professor Petty was the climax of numerous (60+?) exchanges about the Greenhouse Effect, radiative physics (and glass boxes) that he had mainly with Joseph Postma and Alan Siddons during 12th-14th Oct. although other “Slayers” did contribute. During those exchanges Postma and Siddons showed Professor Petty little of the respect to which he is entitled considering his status compared with their own insignificance.
Joe Postma made the less than complementary comment to Professor Petty on 11th Oct. “ .. You apparently cannot read .. Just keep your head in the sand. Not that your original critique has any basis in reality, as it was not my own work which was being presented. You didn’t read a damned thing. Congrats, JP .. ”. John O’Sullivan’s response on 12th Oct. exemplifies that disrespect (which he has also shown Professor Curry) saying “ .. Joe, Superb and hilarious retort to Perry! You have put into context that Perry, thinking he had spotted your error of “incompetence” as his excuse to dismiss your paper had mistakenly singled out Harvard University’s version of the GHE for his venom thus attacking his own position. Priceless!!! And all due to Perry’s half-assed and arrogant skim reading of your paper. If ever someone had been hoist by his own petard it is Professor Perry. I’m picturing the humilation that will befall Perry once all this gets published more widely. Perhaps I might title my article thus: ‘Greenhouse Effect Professor Debunks Harvard’s Greenhouse Gas Theory!’ Many, many thanks, John .. ” – that’s typical of John!
Professor Petty’s retort “ .. By the way, what IS your real objective? Science? Or humiliating your adversaries? The more I learn about you, the more I conclude that science has little to do with it .. ” appears to me to sum up not only John but several of his fellow – “Slayers”.
Professor Petty also said in that E-mail to the “Slayers” “ .. you will close your eyes to that evidence forever and continue to be the conspiracy theorists who believe that you’re modern-day Galileos fighting the evil scientific establishment, and everything you see and hear will be forced to fit into that paranoid world-view no matter how divorced from reality it is… ”. On 18th Oct. he said to John QUOTE:
.. I’m done debating it here. You and the others are content to simply contradict or twist whatever I say, making utterly unsubstantiated assertions (e.g., “complete absence of ANY thermal radiation” — where’s the calculation to back that up??) along with casually dismissing every established mainstream principle of radiative transfer — both observed and theoretical — that is cited .., You, Claes, Alan, and Joe P. have demonstrated an unwillingness to even contemplate the possibility that your own belief system may be flawed. The more you are pressed on the evident internal inconsistencies in that belief system, the more you resort to astonishing new inventions such as (e.g.) the idea of photons being absorbed but not imparting their energy to the medium that absorbed them, and so on. It doesn’t get much more fringe than that .. ”.
I think that few of us would argue with that.
Of course, true professional educator that he is, Professor Petty could not leave the “Slayers” struggling with their unorthodox science claiming that no form of energy, even radiated energy, can flow from a colder to a hotter body. He continued enlightening them until at last even Joseph Postma admitted to having erred. Postma acknowledged on 18th Oct. that ” .. To correct the statement: Energy flows in both directions, but the flow of heat is from warmer to colder and the temperature of either body will never increase beyond the initial temperature of the warmer body .. ” – what a breakthrough!
As Professor Petty responded “ .. You are now apparently accepting something that was debated ad nauseum over the past couple weeks. Does Claes agree with you? If so, we could have all been spared a few dozen emails .. ”.
After a final attempt to educate the “Slayers” Professor Petty pulled out of the exchanges on 19th Oct. On the same day Dr Vincent Gray, co-founder of the CACC sceptic organisation New Zealand Climate Science Coalition E-mailed “ .. Please please take me off this madhouse .. ”.
That signalled the end of those exchanges.
Professor Petty talked about the “Slayers” and “ .. modern-day Galileos .. ” but perhaps he isn’t aware of the link between them and Galileo. On 15th November I mentioned The Galileo Movement (http://www.galileomovement.com.au/who_we_are.php) which is linked to the “Slayers” through the Climate Realists blog (http://climaterealists.com/?tid=233&page=1) and “Slayers” Hans Schreuder and Piers Corbyn. It also promotes the “Slayers” unorthodox-science publication although it does so under the (appropriate?) title “Scientific Untruths” (http://www.galileomovement.com.au/scientific_untruths.php).
Anyone interested can listen to the Galileo Movement’s project leader Malcolm Roberts talking about the “Carbon Tax Corruption Scandal” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPIyIMwfcwQ).
I have suggested to Malcolm that he reads the comments here and I wonder if the Movement’s sponsors will still wish to be associated with the “Slayers” after that.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete Ridley
Well thanks for the edited highlights.
I can be sure you gave an unbiased narrative of the strong points as well as the weaker points on both sides.
The poor readers on this thread would not be able to understand such complex issues.
Its good to get the predigested outline from an expert like yourself.
Did you ever work for Pravda?
Hi Bryan, what does Pravda have to do with John O’Sullivan and his merry band of “Slayers”? I did work for British Gas and apparently Pravda is owned by Gazprom which was in 2006 targeting taking over the British gas market, including British Gas (http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-155116780.html) so maybe, if I’d been 10 years younger I could have been employed by the owner of Pravda, but that’s the closest I’ve been.
On the matter of the processes and drivers of the different global climates, I’m no more an expert than you are, however, I do have a lot more inside knowledge than many of the “ .. poor readers on this thread .. ” (including you) of the “Slayers” and their plans for PSI. Listen and learn my friend.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Ridley,
Your cherry picking of many dozens of private email correspondence to mischaracterize what was actually discussed shows that your agenda is utterly biased and has no place being part of a science discussion.
Thankfully, I don’t think you or Skolnick are fooling anyone by filling this and other threads with your witless diatribes
And what you think is important to us, why?
Mr. O’Sullivan, haven’t you noticed that you have barely any apologists left who are willing to defend your scurrilous record of deceit? Even your publisher Ken Coffman backed off, claiming that he “likes your ideas” and has no interest in whether your resume is fraudulent or not.
Unfortunately for you, most readers here ARE interested in seeing documentation of your fraud and deception. Such as being able to compare the fraudulent bio you just replaced with this one, in which you omitted claims that you knew might get you in further trouble with the American Bar Association, the Law Society of British Columbia, and Tim Ball’s real attorney, Michael Scherr.
Before I “blew the whistle two days ago: http://www.aaskolnick.com/global_deniers/OSullivan_gravatar_capture.11.16.2011.jpg
After: http://en.gravatar.com/johnosullivan
Dear oh dear John, how many times do I have to say that this thread was not started by Professor Curry in order to discuss science but to discus the “Slayers”.
As for ” .. private email correspondence .. ” – there was never any suggestion by those who originated the various E-mail threads that any of it was private. Just because you choose to declare them so does not make it so, just as with the unorthodox science promoted by your “Slayers”.
Sorry to have to burst your bubble but you do have limited powers.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete Ridley
It seems the e-mails examined what happened to the radiation from the colder surface on arrival at the warmer surface?
Us lesser mortals can only guess at the details however here goes.
Lets say both surfaces are black bodies for simplicity and with a vacuum between them.
The hotter one radiated with a spectrum centred at 5um.
The colder radiates with a spectrum centred at 10um
Three viable solutions.
1. Classical wave theory approach.
A single Poynting vector of magnitude with direction hot to cold.
(Claes Johnston approach)
2. Subtraction of photon streams.
Orthodox physics position
Effectively the cancellation of oppositely flowing wavelengths will result in heat flow of the resultant uncanceled photons from hot to cold.
This is what we call heat
3. Absorption of XJoules/s of 15um centred radiation and emission of X J/s of 5um centred emission.
So the consequence for that each square metre of having the hotter object there is the up-conversion of XJ of 15um centred radiation into XJ of 5um centred radiation.
This also raises the temperature of the hotter object.
The increase in the “quality” of the radiation appears to violate the second law.
Methods 1 and 2 give the correct answer if properly applied
I would guess Claes would pick 1 .
I guess Postma would pick 2 because you get the correct answer without speculating about quantum mechanical effects of photon absorption.
I would guess that 3 was Grant Pettys position
What do the textbooks say.
University Physics Young and Freedman Pg 484.
“If a body of absolute temperature T is radiating and its surroundings (at temperature Ts ) is also radiating and the body absorbs some of this radiation.
If it is in thermal equilibrium with its surroundings then
T = Ts .
For this to be true the rate of absorption must be
= AεσTs^4 ”
If however T > Ts
Flow of heat from body = AεσT ^4 – AεσTs^4
H = Aεσ(T ^4 – Ts^4 )
“In this equation a positive value for H means heat flow out of the body.
Equation 15-26 shows that for radiation as for conduction and convection the Heat current depends on the temperature difference between the bodies.”
So it looks like option 2, mirrors the equation above.
Correction to post above should read
So the consequence for that each square metre of having the hotter object there is the up-conversion of XJ of 10um centred radiation into XJ of 5um centred radiation.
Bryan,
It seems like everyone is hung up on two body examples. The effect is more like three bodies. That one at T with near infinite mass, and one at T/2 with much less mass. If you insert a disk between the two bodies you get a better example of the radiant effect. As you noted, both conductive and radiant flux are dependent on the temperature difference. The inserted disk will stabilize at ~0.75T but that temperature is not dependent on mass but the proximity of the inserted disk between the T main source of energy flux and the T/2 original target.
Then you see that there is a radiant impact due to CO2 and that impact is related to the temperature of the radiant layer (inserted disk) and the distance of that disk from the main source disk.
So the infinite disk, surface, will have an apparent increase in temperature, the T/2 disk will decrease in temperature (this becomes the tropopause effectively) and the inserted disk stabilized at the average atmospheric effect, (0.75T). Of course that doesn’t allow for emissivity variation of latent heat transfer from the surface, but it get you in the b all park.
No two object example will produce realistic results, IMHO.
BTW, the latent impact at the surface is the most aggravating part of trying to find a definitive solution.
Ridley,
Again you lie. Go check from the top of this thread and see that it addresses how Grant Petty tried to refute our refutation of the greenhouse effect. Petty failed because he resorted to hand waving, pseudo-scientific rambling. Now contrast and compare to the Slayers’ more rigorous approach. For example, my colleague, Professor Nasif Nahle performed a robust replication of RW Wood’s famous 1909 experiment in his laboratories at Monterrey, Mexico in which he demonstrated there is no empirical scientific support for the greenhouse effect. Nahle’s results were thoroughly peer-reviewed and have not been refuted. See here:
http://principia-scientific.org/publications/Experiment_on_Greenhouse_Effect.pdf
Nahle’s conclusions are thus utterly credible and are as follows:
“The greenhouse effect inside greenhouses is due to the blockage of convective heat transfer with the environment and it is not related, neither obeys, to any kind of “trapped” radiation. Therefore, the greenhouse effect does not exist as it is described in many didactic books and articles.
The experiment performed by Prof. Robert W. Wood in 1909 is absolutely valid and systematically repeatable.”
I challenge you to personally refute the science. But I know you won’t/can’t because your sole strategy is to subvert scientific debate into a personal diatribe. To my mind that shows you are out of your depth and that’s why you endlessly resort to ad hom slurs.
uh john, you forgot about the fact that Grant Petty wrote and published an actual textbook on atmospheric radiative transfer, that is widely used by universities.
Judith,
Just because someone with a PhD published a book on a subject that, in itself, doesn’t make him (or her) a world leading authority. The Slayers possess 11 science PhD’s between them – so what?
Petty tried and failed to back his hand waving claims that back radiating HEAT exists as Downwelling Longwave [Infrared] Radiation, which he claimed had been measured by NASA. A lie.
When we challenged Dr Petty to cite any source proving these NASA measurements he declined (no surprise there!). Frankly, if NASA had measured DRL that data would have been published and if it existed Petty, you, Ridley and whoever would thus possess evidence to refute Slayer claims.
You and I know that Perry was just blowing the usual hot air that proponents for this junk science usually spout. As we tried to explain to you and Petty at the time, you cannot impute thermal radiation from ‘back radiation.’ As Tim Ball commented,
“ merely resonating in place does not imply reflecting energy back at the source….it is so difficult to argue with the absurd Alice looking glass science.”
As we all know, DLR is claimed by GHE religionists to be half of the Outgoing Longwave Radiation and such energy is then claimed to be re-radiated back by CO2 molecules to warm the Earth.
However, as the Slayers explained, WW II radar operated on a million to one signal-response ratio and with that ratio a good operator could detect a life boat at 20 miles and SOME large weather systems.
Techonology has since moved on dramatically and with signal output and antenna design today (with a billion to one ratio) weather radar can now ‘see’ clouds and rainfall. But even trillion or quadrillion ratios would not allow NASA (or even Petty) to measure the reflection from individual THREE ATOM molecules.
Even if DLR has been measured by NASA (as Petty claims but cannot prove) the reflection off of water droplets is magnitudes larger than CO2 reflections.
For all his ‘authority’ this elementary fact was lost on Petty. Again I challenge you to produce actual measurements to show ANY additional thermal heating from the ‘back radiation’ /’ blanket effect’ (or whatever else you want to call) it from this elusive GHE.
By contrast, Dr. Nasif Nahle validated RW Woods’ experiment of 1909 to empirically show that the fundamental claims about heating from the GHE are refuted by replicable observable facts. Thus, we argue your GHE belief system is even less valid in physics than pixies and tooth fairies, yet you still actively refuse to acknowledge physical proof that the GHE doesn’t exist.
As I just predicted, the denier doesn’t forget, he just denies. Dr. Curry points out that, unlike any of the Sky Dragon Slayers, Prof. Petty is the author of a textbook on atmospheric radiative transfer that is widely used by universities. Does the humbug say, “sorry, I forgot.” Not a chance:
“Just because someone with a PhD published a book on a subject that, in itself, doesn’t make him (or her) a world leading authority,” John O’Sullivan replies, adding: “The Slayers possess 11 science PhD’s between them – so what?”
DUH! The fact that a highly-accredited scientist is an author of a textbook on the subject — that is widely used by universities, to TEACH THE SUBJECT — by definition MAKES HIM a leading authority on the subject.
As predicted, the humbug didn’t forget, he just denied. It’s what deniers do. Cheaters cheat, liars lie, abusers, abuse, con artists con, and deniers deny — just like fish have to swim and birds have to fly.
Skolnick,
I know you so desperately like to clutch at straws but claiming Grant Petty as ‘highly accredited’ and a ‘leading authority’ with a book ‘widely used by universities’ is yet ANOTHER Skolnick whopper.
Petty, himself, makes no such claims because his career achievements are very modest indeed. His one published book is a BASIC physics introduction as shown here on his bio link.
http://experts.news.wisc.edu/experts/81
Petty only addresses elementary thermodynamics, as does our host, Dr Curry whose own book on thermodynamics written 10 years ago has been severely panned by it’s one and only reviewer. Such is the extent of the ‘widely used in universities’ bluster upon which you build your very flimsy appeal to authority.
Frankly, if we’re in an academic pissing contest then neither Petty or Curry has anywhere near the level of academic training nor professional real world expertise or success found within the Slayers. Our think tank possesses two former NASA scientists and 11 PhD’s and several successful science patents that netted millions of dollars in the real world.
But again, I say, so what! Such credentials do not, in themselves, make anyone more right on any issue than anyone else.
John, Dr. Petty’s book on Atmospheric Thermodynamics is very good. I don’t think you’d find anything significant in it to argue about. I don’t have his book on Atmospheric Radiation yet. I suspect its infested with nonsense, but we’ll see.
Skolnick,
The more you rant on with these utter lies the more mentally deluded you look. Your complaint against me to the Law Society of British Columbia was dismissed in its entirety. No evidence of wrongdoing was found because I am qualified as stated and your letter cannot be imputed to mean anything else.
The Law Society tells you it dismisses your complaint against me entirely and specifically advises you that Mr. Scherr agreed,
“…if receiving input from Mr. O’Sullivan at my client’s request, and processing payment, again at my client’s request constitutes a professional relationship then there was such a relationship in place until August 1, 2011.”
http://www.aaskolnick.com/global_deniers/BC_LawSociety_4-nov311_Skolnick.pdf
Your false accusations against me have been exposed because I have never claimed to be a licensed Canadian lawyer and you presented no proof to back up your lies. But what is proven is that I work as a professional legal consultant.
I remain happily ensconced as Dr. Ball’s legal adviser and there is nothing you or anyone else can do to get me off Dr. Ball’s legal team. We all know you want to live in a fascist green dictatorship, but at the moment this is still a free society. Therefore, despite all your sour grapes Dr. Ball can take legal advice from whomever he chooses. Grow a pair, admit you lost and move on!
John O’Sullivan LLB, BA (Hon), PGCE
Andrew Skolnick | November 18, 2011 at 1:10 pm | Reply
DUH! The fact that a highly-accredited scientist is an author of a textbook on the subject — that is widely used by universities, to TEACH THE SUBJECT — by definition MAKES HIM a leading authority on the subject.
This line of argument reminds me of the Penn State report exonerating Michael Mann approved by disgraced and fired Penn State President Graham Spanier:
This level of success in proposing research, and obtaining funding to conduct it, clearly places Dr. Mann among the most respected scientists in his field. Such success would not have been possible had he not met or exceeded the highest standards of his profession for proposing research…
Had Dr. Mann’s conduct of his research been outside the range of accepted practices, it would have been impossible for him to receive so many awards and recognitions, which typically involve intense scrutiny from scientists who may or may not agree with his scientific conclusions…
Clearly, Dr. Mann’s reporting of his research has been successful and judged to be outstanding by his peers. This would have been impossible had his activities in reporting his work been outside of accepted practices in his field.
TallBloke,
“Clearly, Dr. Mann’s reporting of his research has been successful and judged to be outstanding by his peers. This would have been impossible had his activities in reporting his work been outside of accepted practices in his field.”
Reading this confirmed all the Denier rhetoric that Climate Science was all about the MONEY!! I wonder if ASSkolnick is trying to obtain, or has obtained, access to that money stream? That would definitely explain how he can simply ignore facts and continue ranting for weeks with no one to rant to.
Kuhnkat:
Andrew Scolnick appears to be a misguided advocate with zero understanding of the climate debate who has decided to be an attack dog for the Mann.
I doubt he is being paid for it, though I have no doubt he would love to be. Although Mann himself is no Einstein, his legal team are sharp cookies and wouldn’t have a loose cannon like Scolnick anywhere near. They may view him as a useful idiot, although he seems to be doing his ‘side’ more harm than good in my view.
I only commented here because Scolnick made a claim that was contradicted by the documents he himself has published and pointed to.
The LSBC did not uphold his complaint against Tim Ball’s BC lawyers.
Nor did they pass judgement on John Sullivan’s credentials.
tallbloke,
when I noticed ASSoilnick running his mouth with accusations I tried to follow what he was posting for a day. There was a couple of old things that appeared to be somewhat factual. None of the more recent diatribes seemd to have much behind them. He keeps accusing O’Sullivan of trying to pass as a lawyer and has NOT been able to present any proof of that which would apply to this case. His relentless diatribes triggered my old blog wars irritation for those who LIE!! Like you, I do not want to see a slime ball continue their petty trashing of a person unless they wish to stay clean themselves. As he appears to be loose with his rants I am willing to kick back. His general rudeness and bad language simply compounds it. As you point out he has been seriously misrepresenting what happened,
Having worked at Morrison and Foerster, LLP, in IT for 6 years in the 90’s I have talked to a fair number of Legal Assistants, Secretaries, and direct IT support people and they ALL talked about LITIGATING Cases when they are working with the Attornies!! O’Sullivan may have been using this term in that same context or he may have actually been using it to try and make people think he was an attorney. It doesn’t really matter. if he did not claim to be an Attorney or a Lawyer no one has the right to ASSume that is what he means without asking!! It would appear that ASSkolnick was making this ASSumption. Until he presents much better evidence of wrongdoing by O’Sullivan I am not going to let this slide.
He hasn’t done a very good job of responding to O’Sullivan’s accusations either. It is a pissing match that we could all do without.
Judy – The problem with John O’Sullivan’s argument doesn’t reside in radiative transfer but inHydrostatics.
When John makes the nonsensical claim that outgoing radiation is blocked or trapped by a cold, rarefied gas, thermalizes and reradiates backward to make the surface hotter than it was, then he will be my enemy.
Mr. Coffman, it’s helpful to hear you say that honest people who hold beliefs you disagree with are your “enemy,” since you previously indicated that a frauds and humbugs like John O’Sullivan — who shares your beliefs — are friends.
You told us that you are NOT interested in any of the nonsensical claims Mr. O’Sullivan has made in his resumes — such as having published articles in National Review and Forbes magazines or being a legal consultant employed at Pearlman Lindholm — because you “like his ideas.”
In so doing, you’ve told us all just what we need to know about your own integrity and the integrity of the books you public.
(Ouch!) Publish, not public.
I am not interested in character assassination. I am interested in science. I don’t sleep with John, so I don’t care about the length of his penis. We don’t share the kitchen at dinner time, so I don’t care if he likes broccoli or garlic. If John said something stupid about radiative physics—I care about that and I’d argue with him vehemently. He knows that. If he says something stupid about climate science, I would relentlessly argue the point. However he got there, his knowledge of climate science is excellent. World class. Okay? That’s my opinion. He has the big picture figured out. Nailed. He knows this stuff. Period. I have a POV. He has a POV. We have a common enemy–mindless, self-hating, collectivist creeps like you, Andrew. I think Al Gore is a hyper-inflated, moronic creep. I think Michael Mann is a hyper-inflated, moronic creep. But their character is not the issue. Mann’s divorce is not my business. Gore’s relationship with this happy-ending LMPs is not my business. I want to talk about hockey sticks and atmospheric carbon dioxide. Run your mouth and spew poison all you like, Andrew. I don’t care and I don’t pay any attention. I like physics. That’s what I like to talk about.
The more Ken finds himself in a hole, the more desperately he digs. Can you believe this guy? He equates a humbug who deceives people with fraudulent credentials to “liking broccoli or garlic.”
He appears more concerned about the odor on a man’s breath than the stench of his rotten soul.
He can read the report of the Law Society of British Columbia that found his business associate and fellow Sky Dragon Slayer John O’Sullivan has been fraudulently passing himself off an attorney defending Tim Ball in court and working for Pearlman Lindholm as a legal consultant.
Not a concern, Mr. Coffman says. Since they “don’t share a kitchen at dinner time,” he doesn’t have to worry if his con artist business associate likes garlic or broccoli.
What character.
Fred,
thank you for pointing out how you appear to be an authority here. 8>)
Dr. Curry, you needn’t sugar coat it: Mr. O’Sullivan didn’t forget Prof. Petty’s outstanding credential. Deniers deny, they don’t just forget.
Greenhouses are not dynamic. If Dr. Nahale’s, demonstration gets similar results on a consistent basis, the evidence speaks for itself. There is no turbulence inside of a greenhouse. No jet streams. Nothing. Textbooks just fade away… besides: Science is what you do, when you are unable to comprehend what you don’t understand.
dy·nam·ic /daɪˈnæmɪk/ Show Spelled[dahy-nam-ik]
adjective Also, dy·nam·i·cal.
1. pertaining to or characterized by energy or effective action; vigorously active or forceful; energetic: the dynamic president of the firm.
2. Physics .
a. of or pertaining to force or power.
b. of or pertaining to force related to motion.
3. pertaining to the science of dynamics.
I am sorry. “Professor Nasif Nahle”.
Who else here agrees that the gobbledygook of global warming deniers can be very entertaining? Like this from Tom:
Science is what you do, when you are unable to comprehend what you don’t understand.”
Ah… I think science is what we do to help us comprehend what we don’t understand. If we were unable to comprehend what we don’t understand, it would be senseless to try.
Tom’s claim there is “no turbulence inside a greenhouse,” I’m afraid is more head shaking than entertaining. Speaking of turbulence, I am reminded of the biblical quote from the great story of an even bigger anti-science group of deniers: “He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind: and the fool shall be servant to the wise of heart“
Andrew
There are those who accept the case of cAGW and those who do not think there is sufficient evidence to support that case. The issue is not whether if the reason to not accept the case is the correct one or not, the issue is whether the cAGW case is demonstrated to be supportable or not.
As a simple example:
You have 3 people-
Person “A” makes the claim 2+2=6 and—therefore we should all do “this”
Person “B” says no, 2+2=5, therefore I do not agree we should do “this”
Person “C” says 2+2=4, therefore I don’t agree we should do “this”
Persons “B” and “C” are both correct that there is no evidence to support doing “this” even when “B” was incorrect as to the reason why.
Andrew, you are right, Solomon, gave good advice to his people. It even holds true today.
Rob, I’m frankly utterly confused about what you’re trying to say here.
And it’s not just that I’m involved here primarily as a journalistic investigator of the Sky Dragon Slayer’s dubious and in some cases fraudulent credentials, rather than to debate the calculations of climatologists.
Your use of math doesn’t seem to make any sense. However, it did remind me of the math used by legendary folk singer Pete Seeger, which inspired earlier generations of people to fight against corporate oppression and the privileged class:
One man’s eyes can’t see the future clear
Two men’s eyes can’t see the future clear
But if two and two and fifty make a million
We’ll see that day come round
We’ll see that day come round.
One man’s voice can’t shout to make them hear
Two men’s voices can’t shout to make them hear
But if two and two and fifty make a million
We’ll see that day come round
We’ll see that day come round.
One man’s strength can’t roll the union on
Two men’s strength can’t roll the union on
But if two and two and fifty make a million
We’ll see that day come round
We’ll see that day come round.
Now that math I like: If two and two and fifty make a million. I grew up with that wonderful line in my head I hear it still and it tells me that all the oil and coal industry tycoons, the politicians who work for them, and all their hired guns like Tim Ball, are not going to prevail once the public gets pissed off enough to bother to learn the truth. If you’re paying attention to what’s happening now in cities across this great, you’d know the sleeping giant is waking up.
Andrew
If you are not able to follow my point you are probably not able to walk and chew gum at the same time. You seem to be someone who does not want to let facts and data to get in the way of your conclusions
Rob. I’m sitting in front of my computer trying to decipher your boggling comment. I’m neither walking nor chewing gum.
A reasonable person would attempt to restate his or her point more clearly. You apparently are not one of those.
When you post facts and data in a more reasoned way, I’ll consider them.
Andrew, are you talking about the US? Or that O’l Dragon, China?
You’re apparently thinking of Napoleon Bonaparte pointing to China on a map and warning: “There, is a sleeping giant. Let him sleep! If he awakes, he will shake the world.”
I was referring to the citizenry of the United States and other nations under the thumb of the fossil fuel industry and their well-funded cronies.
Andrew
Your statements like ” the citizenry of the United States and other nations under the thumb of the fossil fuel industry and their well-funded cronies.” show that you how little link to reality. Be careful when you get up from your computer.
Rob, I’m suspect your concern for my safety getting up from my computer is as feigned as is your interest in reasoned inquiry.
Gottcha Andrew, thank you.
My pleasure.
Rob,
You will get nowhere trying to reason with Mr. Skolnick. He also doesn’t realize that Dr. Ball subsists on his modest pension and the small sums he makes from his speaking events. The details of which are required evidence as part of the discovery process in the ongoing two libel trials Dr. Ball defends against Dr. Michael Mann and Dr. Andrew Weaver.
We believe the David Suzuki Foundation and other green ‘charities’ subsidize both men in their vexatious lawsuits against the 72-year-old pensioner.
True to form Skolnick, just like all the liars working for the fascist green crusade, never substantiates his claims with actual evidence. Yet again we see a legal ruling make him look an utter fool yet again as it did when the Law Society of British Columbia dismissed all his complaints against me.
And here we have another whopper from the whopper king. The Law Society of British Columbia did NOT dismiss my complaint against John O’Sullivan. Because it found my complaint valid, it opened a formal inquiry (No. 20110595) into the conduct of Pearlman Lindholm’s attorney Michael Scherr for having employed a bogus attorney.
My complaint against John O’Sullivan was filed on June 17, 2011. Two months later, after verifying the facts of my complaint, the Law Society sent a letter on Sept. 14, to Mr. Scherr, informing him he was being investigated for possible violation of Chapter 8 Rules 1(e) and (h), and Chapters 12 and 14 of the Law Society’s Professional Conduct Handbook. The Law Society wrote:
“Mr. O’Sullivan is not a member of the Law Society of British Columbia, and as I understand it, prior to the above noted Response, Mr. Skolnick contacted you by email and telephone and advised you of his investigations failing to find any proof of Mr. O’Sullivan’s claim to be a lawyer in any jurisdiction.
“We have opened a complaint file to investigate concerns raised in the materials provided by Mr. Skolnick. At this point, I am seeking information to understand the relationship you and/or your firm has with Mr. O’Sullivan, as from a professional conduct point of view, the questions raised may fall under provisions in Chapter 8 Rules 1(e) and (h), and Chapters 12 and 14 of the Professional Conduct Handbook.”
Mr. Scherr’s defense was to deny his law firm employed O’Sullivan in any capacity and to claim he had no idea the humbug was passing himself off as working for the law firm or that he was claiming to be an attorney defending Tim Ball before the Supreme Court of British Columbia (or as the humbug wrongly calls it, “the Vancouver Supreme Court”)
The Law Society had to choose which one to believe, a licensed attorney in good standing with the society or a humbug with a long record of making false and fraudulent claims about his credentials. It chose to believe Mr. Scherr and concluded he had not violated the law society’s rules. However, it warned him in the future to verify the credentials of those he professionally associates with to avoid such embarrassment.
This is what the shameless humbug insists was the dismissal of all complaints against him. You can read the Law Society’s findings yourself. If anyone wants to see the letter the investigator sent to Mr. Scherr informing him he was under investigation for employing the con artist, let me know.
http://www.aaskolnick.com/global_deniers/BC_LawSociety_4-nov311_Skolnick.pdf
Andrew Skolnick says:
The Law Society of British Columbia did NOT dismiss my complaint against John O’Sullivan. Because it found my complaint valid,
Law Society of BC says:
The Executive Director is satisfied that the complaint … is not valid.
Good grief! Tallspeak did even worse than that. I looked at the Law Society’s letters to see what he was deceptively snipping and guess what? He’s made the quote up!
He said, “The Law Society of BC says “The Executive Director is satisfied that the complaint… is not valid.”
That’s a lie.
The society’s executive director said nothing in this letter. He or she probably wasn’t even aware the investigation. What this mendacious putz just tried to do was misrepresent a sentence from the society’s rule book as a statement from the executive director clearing O’Sullivan of any misdeeds.
Tallspeak, you’re a lying scoundrel and if you keep this up, you’re going to put John O’Sullivan to shame. Here’s the section of the Law Society’s summary letter containing the words Tallspeak so clumsily and dishonestly misrepresented:
“…I am satisfied that the concern raised in this complaint [O’Sullivan’s fraudulent claims] has been adequately drawn to Mr. Scherr’s attention through this process and does not support an allegation of professional misconduct on Mr. Scherr’s part that would warrant further action by the Law Society. I have no doubt that in addition to the professional embarrassment this complaint has caused him, it has also provided a valuable lesson which will cause him to reflect on when it is important to embark on a line of inquiry in the future [meaning check the credentials of people claiming to be lawyers before professionally associating with them].
“I am therefore closing this file under Rule 3-6(1)(a) of the Law Society Rules which states:
‘After investigating a complaint, the Executive Director must take
no further action if the Executive Director is satisfied that the
complaint (a) is not valid or its validity cannot be proved‘”
Oh boy, I agree, it’s important to check the credentials of anyone who claims to be a lawyer. See, we agree on something, Andrew.
Ken,
What Skolnick isn’t telling anyone is he knows I have never claimed to be a licensed law practitioner in Canada. I have worked as such ‘in house’ in New York under the supervision of licensed attorneys being that I possess a law degree and have taught law and have published many legal articles.
Skolnick deceitfully misrepresents what the LSBC actually stated about me. Nowhere did they determine I misrepresented my credentials. The only source of that claim is Skolnick who has NEVER provided any weblink or other verifiable evidence to show I claimed any such thing.
The issue was accepted by the LSBC as an innocent misunderstanding on the part of Mr. Scherr. Dr. Ball had introduced me to Mr. Scherr, his Canadian libel attorney, as his legal adviser. Thereafter, Mr. Scherr assumed I was licensed and in the various phone conversations and written correspondence between us the matter was never discussed.
Skolnick repeats the lie as if by repeating it somehow it will be accepted as true. Skolnick is a lying scoundrel who has misrepresented his own credentials and I have challenged him to sue me if he can prove my allegations against him are false.
He was fired from his journalism job with the AMA when they caught him in his lies. Others found that Skolnick lied when he claimed he was a “Pulitzer Prize nominee,” possessed a master’s degree and won two lawsuits he actually lost. The man appears to have built his whole career on lying. If anyone still takes him at his word without demanding verifiable proof of his claims, then more fool them.
Brevity Andrew, that’s what I always advocate.
You claimed that:
” The Law Society of British Columbia did NOT dismiss my complaint against John O’Sullivan. Because it found my complaint valid”
That’s a lie.
The Law Society of British Columbia investigated your complaint. They did not find it to be valid, as my truncated quote accurately shows.
tallbloke. seriously you are on the wrong side in this one.
steven mosher,
you claim TallBloke is on the wrong side on this one. Please explain to us YOUR opinion of what the court did!!!
Did it dismiss ASSkolnick’s complaint, uphold it, or…?
Please try and remember that this is NOT a question of radiative physics. The papers are filed and available from the court and have little to do with physics.
Steven, you may not have noticed, but that’s the side tallbloke prefers to be on. Had he been on the Titanic, he would have kept shouting, “It’s only a small leak!” until his hat floated.
Still, you have to admire his tenacity in making himself look stupid.
What I love most about the Dormouse Kumquat is how he can fall on his face without bothering to get off floor. Here he comes stumbling in to straighten everyone out about the Law Society’s findings by telling Steven:
“Please explain to us YOUR opinion of what the court did!!!”
In just 22 words, he shows us he hasn’t a clue what he’s talking about. There was NO court involved.
He then mumbles something about the “papers,” which “have little to do with physics,” being “available from the court.” If this blithering idiot had bothered to read those “papers,” he would know there was NO court involved in the society’s investigation.
Hey, Dormouse, you better go back to sleep before the Mad Hatter stuffs you back into the teapot.
I read the documents. Mr. Skolnick characterizes them accurately. O’sullivan does not.
O’sullivan is a detriment to Mr. Ball’s case. A serious detriment. The difference between you and me is this: I can read.
That means when I read the climategate mails I can clearly see the wrong doing. When I read the mann inquiry I can clearly see the shortcomings. When I read the law societies documents I can see that Skolnick gets it right.
Now, I happen to believe that Skolnick is wrong on a whole raft of matters. But the man is 100% right when it comes to O’sullivan. If you cannot see that by reading the documents for yourself, then me paraphrasing them for your hopeless ass will not help.
tallbloke, I have hope for. he’s a friend and can, unlike you, put two brain cells together
Yes Andrew, I spit my coke out when kuhnkat asked me to explain what the “court” found. Hilarious.
Since I know kuhnkat I can testify that his inability to understand a simple document doesnt stem from willful ignorance. he is, honest to god, that stupid.
Thanks Steven, I realize that our differences in opinions on some matters are honest ones and that you are in an utterly different class of people than the likes of O’Sullivan, Ball, and Coffman. I don’t recall if I’ve ever made any harsh comments impugning your honesty. If I did, I sincerely apologize. Being stupid is forgivable, being dishonest is not. You are neither.
As for Tallspeak and Kumquat, when people make such mind-bogglingly stupid claims, it’s hard to decide whether they’re dishonest or hopelessly stupid. In Kumquat’s case, I have a hard time believing anyone can honestly be so utterly stupid.
Mosher,
Man up and state precisely why Tallbloke is “on the wrong side.” If you have ANY evidence I have misrepresented my credentials I challenge you to cite them now otherwise you are another blowhard no better than the lying creep, Skolnick.
Actually wrt O’Sullivan they found that he had misled Ball’s lawyer, Scherr, as to his credentials, but held Scherr blameless because of O’Sullivan’s misrepresentation. They expressed the hope that Mr Scherr would avoid such professional embarrassment in the future by checking more carefully into the credentials of those with whom he associates.
Let’s be perfectly clear what the Law Society determined. It found O’Sullivan was falsely claiming to be an attorney representing Tim Ball in British Columbia court, even though he is not a lawyer who can practice in Canada (or apparently anywhere else).
And it found O’Sullivan has been falsely claiming to be employed by the law firm Pearlman Lindholm as a legal consultant when he was not.
Those were the charges I filed with the Law Society of British Columbia. After determining those charges to be true, the society began a formal investigation of Pearlman Lindholm attorney Michael Scherr’s role in this misconduct.
Mr. Scherr denied knowing his associate was making these false claims. He said Mr. O’Sullivan was assisting with Ball’s defense, but not as a lawyer or legal adviser. And he said, O’Sullivan was working for Ball, not for him or his law firm.
Not having any evidence to dispute Mr. Scherr’s claim of ignorance, the Law Society concluded he hadn’t violated the law society’s rules. But it warned him to be more careful in checking the credentials of those he professionally associates with in the future to avoid further professional embarrassment.
Phil,
as with the effects of CO2 you go a distance to far. Where in the decision did the board find that O’Sullivan misrepresented anything?? If you were a careful scientist you would have noted that they investigated just far enough to assure themselves that O’Sullivan did NOT misrepresent himself to Scherr, according to Scherr’s testimony, who IS obliged to be aware and can be held responsible before the court.There is nothing released that indicates they investigated one smidgen past that legal point.
The language used would indicate they had doubt, due to the complaint, but could only investigate to the point they did.
This leaves you and ASSkolnick, Moshpup, and the puppet Ridley a little dangly. You must still present some evidence that O’Sullivan actually presented himself as a lawyer to Ball, Scherr or someone else connected to the case. Old history does not prove current activity any more than my felony arrest for assault on a police officer in the 70’s is applicable to any current discussions.
Yes Phil. any sentient being who reads the document understand what you and Andrew say about it.
Phil,
Notice that ASSkolnick first claims that they found that O’Sullivan was misrepresenting himself to Ball in the Court and then found he was claiming to be employed by the law firm. He also states that they found O’Sullivan misled Scherr as to his credentials.
You can start by pointing out where these findings were stated in the document that ASSkolnick has presented as evidence of his delusions.
http://www.aaskolnick.com/global_deniers/BC_LawSociety_4-nov311_Skolnick.pdf
Once you have failed at this, you MIGHT start to appreciate how ASSkolnick might be exagerating just a wee bit in many of his other claims. Unless, of course, you can manage to extract actual evidence of this alledged misrepresentation from ASSkolnick other than his flagrant assertions??
AHH Moshpup,
stepping in again with NOTHING!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Moshpup,
while we are on the subject of how stupid I am, have you decided wheher CO2 radiatively functions primarily as a reflector or an absorber of LW yet??
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Kumquat, you’re utterly hopeless.
“Notice that ASSkolnick first claims that they found that O’Sullivan was misrepresenting himself to Ball in the Court”
This is nonsense. I claimed no such thing. The Law Society made no finding as to whether Ball believed or did not believe O’Sullivan’s false claims. And no one said O’Sullivan misrepresented himself in court. O’Sullivan neither appeared in court or filed any claims or answers. Indeed, there hasn’t even been a judge assigned to hear the case.
“He also states that they found O’Sullivan misled Scherr as to his credentials”
I never stated that. The Law Society concluded that there was no evidence Scherr knew O’Sullivan was lying about his credentials. That’s NOT the same thing as concluding Scherr had been misled.
Kumquat, why are you so eager to show off your hopeless idiocy like this? You can’t comprehend even simple sentences, yet you habitually bray like a jackass on matters you show absolutely no understanding.
Why do you keep paraphrasing people instead of quoting them? You have no ability to comprehend written language so stop putting your nonsensical comments into other people’s mouths.
You’re unbelievable.
.
Andrew Skolnick | November 19, 2011 at 2:46 am |
Quoting Kuhnkat:
“He also states that they found O’Sullivan misled Scherr as to his credentials”
I never stated that. The Law Society concluded that there was no evidence Scherr knew O’Sullivan was lying about his credentials.
The Law society concluded no such thing, and you are repeating the lie that Kuhnkat pointed out.
The Law Society asked Scher if he took steps to determine if John Sullivan is a lawyer, and whether he has proof that he is.
This demonstrates that the Law Society has reserved judgement on the question.
ASSkolnick chas told his lawyer lie so many times I am confused!!. From above:
“Andrew Skolnick | November 19, 2011 at 1:32 am |
Let’s be perfectly clear what the Law Society determined. It found O’Sullivan was falsely claiming to be an attorney representing Tim Ball in British Columbia court, even though he is not a lawyer who can practice in Canada (or apparently anywhere else).”
and just now:
“Andrew Skolnick | November 19, 2011 at 2:46 am |
Kumquat, you’re utterly hopeless.
“Notice that ASSkolnick first claims that they found that O’Sullivan was misrepresenting himself to Ball in the Court”
This is nonsense. I claimed no such thing.”
You are rignt, I misconstrued THIS statement. Still, your claim was that O’Sullivan presented himself as an attorney in this case. The Society stated:
“There is no evidence that Mr. Scherr acted in a supervisory role over Mr. O’Sullivan’s actions or was responsible for the false assertions published by Mr. O’Sullivan.”
or how about:
“Despite the “warning” you provided to Mr. Scherr as to your doubts about Mr. O’Sullivan’s claims that he was a lawyer, the evidence does not support an allegation that he, “knowingly asserted something for which there is no reasonable basis in evidence” or that he “knowingly allowed a party or witness to be presented in a false way.”
They didn’t give us much to go on as to precisely what they think O’Sullivan may have falsely published. Additionally it would appear that your compulsive accusations of O’Sullivan claiming to be a lawyer just may NOT have been the reality among Scherr and Ball, confusing your interpretation of the letter. Yasee, your warning Scherr that O’Sullivan is not a Lawyer is MEANINGLESS if he DIDN’T claim to be one to O’Sullivan and Ball!!! You have to ASSume Scherr is LYING to the society to make anything out of that!!! Is that an accusation you wish to make official??
Here is another of YOUR misrepresentations:
“Mr. Scherr denied knowing his associate was making these false claims. ”
Yasee, you are trying to smear things past what has been presented. Where did Scherr ever state that O’Sullivan was his associate?? Tch, Tch .Yeah, if I am to be held to explicit facts so shall you.
So where does that leave us other than your imagination running rampant and firing up the Climate Scam brigade of Phil, Moshpup and your puppet Ridley.
Where is the evidence that O’Sullivan claimed to be an ATTORNEY or LAWYER working on this case in ANY position? I ASSume you can post your letter to Scherr and your complaint to the Society so we can see the quality of your evidence? You may have posted that somewhere in this huge thread, but, I am not going to hunt for it.
While we are here, why didn’t you report this scam to the police?? That is, you were accusing him of falsely claiming to be an attorney and collecting money illegally. That would be a police matter. The Society has no jurisdiction over someone only CLAIMING to be an attorney. I guess it was more important to you to disrupt the Ball case than to get O’sullivan huh?? Wouldn’t the police have been better? Or was the FACT that you could be charged with filing a false police report somewhat unsettling to you??
Phil,
That is another lie. The LSBC did not find that I made any claims to be a licensed attorney because none exist. If you disagree then please cite the evidence that persuaded them I lied. I suggest you stop taking Skolnick’s word on anything and actually start demanding some verifiable proof of the facts.
Phil,
Your assertion that I “misled Ball’s lawyer” is easily proved to be a lie. The LSBC passed no judgment on me whatsoever. The investigation ruled there had been no wrongdoing by anyone. Mr. Scherr was accepted as innocently acting upon his misunderstanding; he admitted he never asked and ascertained the particulars of my professional standing and that was the sole root of the “embarrassment” that Skolnick sought to trumpet.
The key here is that Skolnick failed to adduce any evidence for the LSBC. Thus they could not rule that I actively misrepresented my credentials. Despite my subsequent challenges, Skolnick still hasn’t shown us any proof that I lied about anything.
It is increasingly obvious to anyone who follows related events in Virginia (Attorney General, Cuccinelli’s success with a ruling granting access to the hidden Mann emails) and at Penn State (Sandusky scandal proving top level culture of cover ups) that Michael Mann is heading for a very bad defeat unless he can force Tim Ball to quit before trial.
Mann’s attorney, Roger McConchie is likely behind Skolnick’s botched attack because it echoes McConchie’s amended complaint now naming me. In response I have formally offered Dr. Ball a “hold harmless” indemnity in the event the B.C. Supreme Court rules I acted unlawfully.
The Skolnick gambit was to disrupt the good relations between Mr Scherr, Dr Ball and myself but it utterly backfired. Ball’s legal team is more united than ever and we are even more confident seeing the way Mann and McConchie’s attack dog has been humiliated by recent events.
ASSkolnick,
after jumping on me for partially misconstruing one of many of your accusations you now do this:
““Tim Ball has been wise enough to engage the services of lawyers entitled to represent him in the BC court. If he wants John Sullivan on his team too, that’s fine. The LSBC concurs it seems.
He could try to plead insanity to explain these falsehoods, but honest stupidity wouldn’t be enough. How is it possible for even a hopeless idiot to read the Law Society’s findings and then claim the society “concurs” that O’Sullivan is a lawyer who is entitled to represent Tim Ball in court?!”
As your usual MO, you are laying on the LAWYER label. Tallbloke stated “on his team”. It is only in your twisted mind that it becomes O’Sullivan is a LAWYER for Ball’s team. You really need to get over this mania of yours ASSkolnick.
And to help you get over it, where is the evidence that O’Sullivan ever represented himself as a LAWYER or ATTORNEY representing or consulting in this situation??
Because the editor of Climate Change Dispatch threatened to block me and delete further comments refuting John O’Sullivan’s defamatory attacks, I’m posting here what I just reported on the global warming deniers’ website.
The New York County Lawyers’ Association finally got back to me with a statement that verifies John O’Sullivan compounded his fraud by sending in a membership application almost 2 weeks AFTER I had exposed his fraudulent claim of being an NYCLA member! Can you believe the chutzpah of this con artist?
Here’s what I posted and suspect may soon be deleted:
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/9557-canada-bar-association-rules-no-misconduct-by-tim-balls-legal-team
“I just received confirmation from NYCLA’s director of membership marketing that John O’Sullivan sent in his membership application nearly 2 weeks after I reported he was lying about being a member of the New York County Lawyer’s Association.
“Around the beginning of October, Mr. O’Sullivan began falsely claiming NYCLA membership in his online bios. On Oct. 11, the NYCLA membership director confirmed to me that Mr. O’Sullivan was not a member. I immediately began reporting yet one more example of his fraud and deception.
“In response, about 2 weeks later, Mr. O’Sullivan sent in his application for membership.
“You can see NYCLA’s welcome letter, which CDC’s editor posted, is dated Oct. 28. I therefore inquired with the NYCLA when it received O’Sullivan’s application. I finally received an answer 15 minutes ago: O’Sullivan applied for membership nearly two weeks after I had exposed his fraudulent claim of NYCLA membership.
“Because he may not have realized this is just another clumsy fraud by Mr. O’Sullivan, I won’t blame CDC’s editor for participating in this foolish deception. Clearly he needs to act more responsibly by being more careful.
“While CDC’s editor may follow through with his threat to block me and delete this information, he will have to bear the ignominy of his act of censorship, which will be widely reported elsewhere.“
Skolnick,
Clearly, you like to keep a moving target. I wonder why? Now you make a fresh bogus claim that I “applied for [NYCLA] membership nearly two weeks after I[Skolnick] had exposed his[O’Sullivan’s] fraudulent claim of NYCLA membership.
This is an easily refuted lie. I applied to join the NYCLA online in mid October and was immediately accepted as a member so that bogus claim that I was not a member until October 28th is easily debunked.
Be advised that along with 48 other NYCLA members I was invited to attend a committee meeting on Monday, 24 October 2011 by Richard B. Friedman. Below is a copy of Friedman’s email to me that controverts your claim. Why not contact Richard at the NYCLA to verify he sent me this:
Richard B. Friedman | Partner
McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP
230 Park Avenue, Suite 1700 | New York, NY 10169
Tel: 212.905.8331 | Fax: 212.905.8381
rfriedman@mlalaw.com
Hello All. My co-chair Jordan Kanfer and I are very much looking forward to meeting many of you prior to, during, and after the inaugural meeting of our committee tomorrow at 6:30 p.m. at the House of the Association, 14 Vesey Street, Room 6. I have attached the current draft of our agenda along with some documents that we intend to address during the meeting. I would particularly urge each of you to glance at the list of four proposed subcommittees and give some thought to whether you agree with those proposals and/or have suggestions for additional subcommittees. I envision much of the work of the committee being done through our subcommittees.
See you tomorrow night!
Rich
LOL! O’Sullivan wants readers to accept email addressed to “Hello All” as evidence of his membership
Never mind the actual letter dated Oct. 28, addressed not to “Hello All,” but to John O’Sullivan, Esq.” [sic] — and not from some unknown person, but the president of NYCLA welcoming him to the association:
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/images/stories/NYCLA%20letter.jpg
Yesterday afternoon, NYCLA’s director of membership marketing confirmed by phone that, “Mr. O’Sullivan joined towards the end of October after you had talked with Harriet” [Astor, NYCLA’s membership director.].
That was on Oct. 11, I called Ms. Astor to confirm my suspicion O’Sullivan was lying about his NYCLA membership. Ms. Astor confirmed he was NOT a member and I began reporting yet another example of O’Sullivan’s chicanery. Later in the month, Mr. O’Sullivan applied to the association, in which he had been falsely claiming membership.
The NYCLA is now investigation the credentials O’Sullivan cited in his application. He applied as a “Provisional Member” (no membership fee!). Provisional members are recent law school graduates living or working in NY City who are not yet admitted to the bar. In his latest online bios, he claims he earned his law degree in 1984. http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=64434874&authType=name&authToken=0rq9&locale=en_US&pvs=pp&trk=ppro_viewmore Yet it appears he told NYCLA he graduated in 2010.
I’m eager to see the results of NYCLA’s investigation.
n 2010. I’m eager to see the results of NYCLA’s investigation.
application. application. Stay tuned.
Andrew Skolnick | November 19, 2011 at 3:20 am |
How is it possible for even a hopeless idiot to read the Law Society’s findings and then claim the society “concurs” that O’Sullivan is a lawyer who is entitled to represent Tim Ball in court?!
I didn’t make such a claim. I said it’s Fine for Tim to have John as part of his defence team, Which is what I’ve been telling you since August. You demand that Kuhnkat quote what is said rather than (mis)characterise, then perpetrate the same falsehood on others. You are a joke.
I call that dishonesty.
Call it what you like, just don’t call me early in the morning.
I note you have wisely chosen not to contest my assertion that you lied about the LSBC finding your complaint valid.
Do us all a favour and crawl back under your rock.
Skolnick has devoted the last 6 months of his life seeking to discredit me but has failed. I have fully responded to his false claims and called him a scurrilous and inveterate liar. In response he has made empty threats to sue me for libel.
Skolnick’s great humiliation came after he reported me to the Law Society of British Columbia claiming I was representing myself as a licensed attorney when I wasn’t. He offered the LSBC no actual proof and thereupon his complaint was dismissed in its entirety.
He then appeared on my Friends Reunited page and contacted everyone on there who knows me, most of whom have been friends since I was a child. Not one of them disputed that I was trained at the University of Surrey’s School of Law.
Then he claims I could not possibly be a member of the NYCLA but the NYCLA confirmed to him that I am. Now he is reduced to the trivial claim that I jumped the gun by claiming membership too early because the NYCLA did not manually process my application after their online system had already approved me.
Such are the straws that are clutched by this former AMA journalist fired from his employment for continual misrepresentation; boasting he was a “Pulitzer Prize nominee” and “master’s degree graduate.”
I’m now quaking in my boots awaiting his “libel suit.”
john you discredit yourself.
“Not one of them disputed that I was trained at the University of Surrey’s School of Law.”
trained as what?
“John, you discredit yourself.”
Not as much as he’s going to be discredited in court when I’m done with him.
Please God, don’t put me on this jury. Give me something simple like climate to settle.
==============
But Kim, you are the only unbiased one here who could give both sides a fair shake!! 8>)
…by the neck? ;-)
I studied law. How does that discredit me?
Mr. O’Sullivan, if you would give me your mailing address as I requested, you would not have to wait as long.
You were put on notice that you will be held liable for continuing to make defamatory statements with clear and intentional malice after you were warned to cease. Yet you continue.
I’m going to enjoy handing you a badly needed lesson in libel law.
PO Box 65
Delhi,
New York
13753
Bring it on, Skolnick. I look forward to having the court affirm you are a liar.
MoshPup,
I see that you are paying attention when O’Sullivan writes. Why do you not pay as much attention to what ASSkolnick writes? Bias confirmation?
I can admit when I get something wrong. Can you?
kuhnkat | November 19, 2011 at 1:45 am |
Phil,
as with the effects of CO2 you go a distance to far. Where in the decision did the board find that O’Sullivan misrepresented anything??
In their questioning of Scherr:
“Were you aware of representations being made by Mr. O’Sullivan regarding his involvement as a lawyer or legal consultant for your firm on the Ball case?”
He still represents himself as a lawyer in the case in his public profile:
“John, a member of the New York County Lawyers Association (NYCLA) is currently litigating in two major climate science lawsuits, one of which involves prominent climatologists, Dr. Michael Mann versus Dr. Tim Ball (O’Sullivan is Dr. Ball’s legal consultant).”
If you were a careful scientist you would have noted that they investigated just far enough to assure themselves that O’Sullivan did NOT misrepresent himself to Scherr, according to Scherr’s testimony, who IS obliged to be aware and can be held responsible before the court.
Actually they were investigating whether Scherr knew of O’Sullivan’s misrepresentations.
Phil,
Your grasp of the English language is either very shaky or you are intentionally and maliciously seeking to defame me. To demonstrate the point look very closely again at the LSBC question in their letter you copied and pasted:
“Were you aware of representations being made by Mr. O’Sullivan regarding his involvement as a lawyer or legal consultant for your firm on the Ball case?””
You then deceitfully apply the trick of adding MIS onto ‘representation’ to concoct your own distorted alternative reality with this statement:
“Actually they were investigating whether Scherr knew of O’Sullivan’s misrepresentations.”
But nowhere does the LSBC state that I made MISREPRESENTATIONS. I fairly represented myself as a ‘legal consultant’ as Mr. Scherr affirms in the letter by stating we had a ‘professional relationship.’
You are a shameless liar if you don’t fess up that it is you who has ‘misrepresented’ the statement. So either you immediately apologize or cite precisely in the LSBC letter where there is any specific finding that I made “MISREPRESENTATIONS.”
On the contrary, the letter from the LSBC shows Mr. Scherr affirmed that his firm, Pearlman Lindholm, paid me for my legal advice. It is a matter of record that Mr. Scherr authorized his firm’s accounts department to transfer monies to my bank account as part of our “professional relationship.”
Try reading the entire letter more carefully. The facts are this plain: I was paid via his firm for giving Mr. Scherr and Dr. Ball advice concerning matters of law in regards to the Michael Mann and Andrew Weaver cases.
Therefore, please explain how anyone can credibly argue that lied when I reasonably stated that I worked as a “legal consultant” paid by Pearlman Lindholm?
I am clearly part of Dr. Ball’s legal team and we are happily working together with Mr. Scherr litigating on the two libel suits as stated.
LOL! The make-believe lawyer John O’Humbug says “nowhere does the LSBC [Law Society of British Columbia letters] state that I made MISREPRESENTATIONS. I fairly represented myself as a ‘legal consultant’ as Mr. Scherr affirms in the letter by stating we had a ‘professional relationship.’” and that he was paid for his “legal advice.”
Which gave me a great idea. I am sending Tim Ball a note advising him to settle Dr. Mann’s and Dr. Weaver’s libel suits. I’ll follow up by sending an invoice to Pearlman Lindholm for my legal services.
Hey Johnie, what’s the going rate for advice from make-believe lawyers?
ROTFL! The mendacious clown doesn’t mention why he had to scurry and remove all mention of his “employment” as “Legal Consultant at Pearlman Lindholm. from his online resumes and bios!
johnosullivan | November 19, 2011 at 8:01 am |
Phil,
Your assertion that I “misled Ball’s lawyer” is easily proved to be a lie. The LSBC passed no judgment on me whatsoever.
Since you’re not a lawyer under their jurisdiction why would they?
It is increasingly obvious to anyone who follows related events in Virginia (Attorney General, Cuccinelli’s success with a ruling granting access to the hidden Mann emails)
As far as I’m aware this is not true, Cuccinelli failed to gain access to the emails back in August.
Phil,
“He still represents himself as a lawyer in the case in his public profile:
“John, a member of the New York County Lawyers Association (NYCLA) is currently litigating in two major climate science lawsuits, one of which involves prominent climatologists, Dr. Michael Mann versus Dr. Tim Ball (O’Sullivan is Dr. Ball’s legal consultant).””
Where does he claim to be an attorney?? This is the same misrepresentation by YOU as ASSkolnick makes. Where are the words ATTORNEY or LAWYER used referring to himself?? Go back and read my anecdote about Morrison and Foerster, LLP and how their employees talk. The legal assistants, secretaries, and IT support people with the Attornies talked of litigating cases. You CANNOT use that term as evidence that O’Sullivan is claiming to be an Attorney. Claiming to be a “legal consultant” also does NOT prove your point.
I would further suggest you look at the requirements to become a member of the NYCLA. There is no requirement for being a Lawyer/Attorney for any of the 4 memberships.
What you and others ASSume makes no difference. ASSkolnick nor you have presented any evidence that O’Sullivan has presented himself as an attorney/lawyer in connection to this proceedings or Tim Ball’s proceedings.
When are you and Moshpup going to realize that ASSkolnick is NOT acting in an honest fashion himself. Is it just about whose side of the Climate Debate they are on?
From the Free Online Dictionary:
lit·i·gate Pronunciation (lt-gt)
v. lit·i·gat·ed, lit·i·gat·ing, lit·i·gates
v.tr.
To contest in legal proceedings.
v.intr.
To engage in legal proceedings.
Where in the definition does it indicate any requirement for being an attorney or any certification etc?? Where does it indicate any narrow definition that would apply to the accusations that O’Sullivan misrepresented himself as a Lawyer or Attorney??
Moshpup and ASSkolnick are eager to call names but can’t pull their own heads out!!
As you indicate, the Society said NOTHING about whether they FOUND O’Sullivan had done anything wrong. O’Sullivan makes the same type of mistake as ASSkolinck and Moshpup when he claims they FOUND him blameless. None of this says ANYTHING about whether he presented himself as an attorney. WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE!!!!
I would further suggest you look at the requirements to become a member of the NYCLA. There is no requirement for being a Lawyer/Attorney for any of the 4 memberships.
I have, you’re wrong!
“Active Member:* Member of the bar of the State of New York who practices or resides in New York City.”
http://www.nycla.org/siteFiles/sitePages/sitePages176_0.pdf
Phil,
that’s so sweet, but, I believe that O’Sullivan claimed that he used the online application that is processed immediately which would be:
https://www.nycla.org/index.cfm?section=Membership&page=Member_Application
The rules still apply regardless of the method used to apply!
Phil,
You missed that I conceded the point. The NYCLA does apparently have Lawyer only levels of membership. Of course they also have non-lawyer levels so we still are not at the point where ASSkolnick or anyone else can claim that O’Sullivan claimed to be a lawyer/attorney based on saying he is a member of the NYCLA. Then again, what was the information that O’Sullivan has a particular level of membership? ASSkolnick continues to play his games using statements that could be CONSTRUED to be a claim of being a Lawyer/Attorney when there has been no actual claim made.
I will concede this more important point as soon as some evidence is presented that O’Sullivan falsely claimed to be an attorney within the last 5 years. Going back to his childhood doesn’t work.
Kumquat concedes making false statements about NYCLA membership, and then bounces back to make some more.
He says, “Of course they also have non-lawyer levels so we still are not at the point where ASSkolnick or anyone else can claim that O’Sullivan claimed to be a lawyer/attorney based on saying he is a member of the NYCLA.”
The mendacious moron is completely immune to facts and reason. Anyone who reads the NYCLA’s bylaws will see that ONLY ONE of the seven membership categories is for non-lawyer members — and it’s the one for law school students on their way to becoming lawyers!
http://www.nycla.org/index.cfm?section=Giving%20To%20NYCLA&page=By-Laws
All the other six membership categories are for lawyers, contrary to Kumquat’s repeated denials. Since O’Sullivan is NOT a law school student, only a pathological liar like Kumquat would continue claiming that O’Sullivan never said he was a lawyer.
And then of course, there are the words right out of the humbug’s mouth that prove he’s been falsely posing as a practicing attorney. For example:
“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 be able to demonstrate to the court damning and contradictory evidence that refutes the hot air you keep blowing.”
And this:
“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.’”
Or how about this:
“As and when Dr. Ball wins both his libel suits I will certainly benefit from our conditional fee agreement (CFA). If Ball loses, I won’t. Attorneys never entertain a CFA unless they are utterly convinced they have a strong case.”
Or this:
“Andrew, you illustrate superbly well why you are not a lawyer and I am. Thanks!”
Kumquat, I wish you could feel even an iota of shame, but that’s the worst thing about pathological liars, they cannot.
Mr. ASSkolnick continues his wild accusations with absolutely no FACTS involved in his imbecilic rants. Mr. ASSkolnick needs to show:
1) What level membership O’Sullivan has
2) What evidence or statements O’Sullivan used to obtain that level of membership
3) Whether this statement or evidence is somehow false
I see some possibilities as O’Sullivan actually IS enrolled somewhere to complete an advanced Law degree as he already holds an LLB.
Then again, since he has an LLB they may have granted him an associate membership anyway.
He may have snuck in one of those Internet papers and be an Attorney somewhere that is acceptable to the NYCLA.
Or, he has actually passed a bar or recieved approval by some group acceptable to the NYCLA.
This may not be the full range of possibilities that would show Mr.
ASSkolnick to be a ranting buffoon. Which one will he pick is the question.
One wonders if Mr. ASSkolnick has sent his usual accusatory letter to the NYCLA insulting them for allowing O’Sullivan to become a member when ASSkolnick thinks he doesn’t qualify.
Phil,
I concede the point as, idiot that I am, I looked at the requirements for the wrong legal association.
Of course, since O’Sullivan IS a member of the NYCLA as evidenced by ASSkolnick making a big deal about WHEN he became a member and making sure we saw the welcome letter, what does that say about his status in the legal field? He apparently did qualify. It would seem that he couldn’t qualify as a student as he is not enrolled anywhere. What does that leave us as possibilities? Are we back to accusing someone of lying about something? That NYCLA is not capable of vetting their members?
It would appear that this might be ASSkolnicks waterloo. He must now convince the NYCLA that they have accepted O’Sullivan as a member based on false or incorrect information, or, be shown to be a person who is casting aspersions based on poor research or malicious intent. As he has refused to believe O’Sullivan or accept his presentations, it would seem to be leaning toward the malicious rather than just shoddy research.
Hi Vernon (Kuhns-kat), it takes a man to admit that he has erred. What a shame that we are not all prepared to hold our hands up when found to be in the wrong.
In my opinion you have correctly pointed out that John O’Sullivan has never said that he was a lawyer, simply that he has litigated, for which claim there appears to be available evidence. This same point was discussed on Professor Curry’s “Slaying a Greenhouse Dragon” (http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/31/slaying-a-greenhouse-dragon/). On 8th July (at 2:12 pm NOT TO BE SENT) I said QUOTE: .. . 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 .. UNQUOTE.
On 9th July Andrew responded with some choice expressions but later that day did provide a link to a relevant comment by John during exchanges on Andrew’s review of the “Slayers” unorthodox-science publication “Slaying the Sky Dragon” (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). On 14th June one of those many John O’Sullivan’s (or someone pretending to be such) declared there “ .. 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 .. ”.
Andrew then pointed out to that John O’Sullivan that “ .. I already have a copy of the court record that shows he is NOT representing Tim Ball. Here is the legal response to Prof. Mann’s claim filed by Ball’s attorney in the Supreme Court of British Columbia:
http://aaskolnick.com/global_deniers/2011%2004%2021%20-%20Response%20to%20Civil%20Claim-1.pdf .. ”.
That FAX copy of the “Response to Civil Claim” (by Professor Mann against Dr. Ball) sent from the offices of Pearlman Lindholm on 26th April makes no mention of any John O’Sullivan and as Andrew pointed out, was “ .. signed: “Michael R. Scherr, Lawyer for Defendant Timothy Ball .. ”
On the other hand it would not surprise me in the least if John had made a significant contribution towards the preparation of Section 2 “Defendant’s Version of Facts” and I have asked Mr Scherr if he cares to comment about that.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Peter Ridley, says “In my opinion you have correctly pointed out that John O’Sullivan has never said that he was a lawyer, simply that he has litigated, for which claim there appears to be available evidence.”
Your opinion could NOT be more wrong, Peter. O’Sullivan has claimed to be an lawyer over and over again on many forums. I could point you to websites or provide you with screenshots, but frankly I’m tired of providing stuff that you continue to ignore.
In his online resumes and bios, and in many posts on many web sites, the humbug says he’s “a member of the New York County Lawyers Association (NYCLA).” So let me ask you this and I’ll just relax as you try to answer this without making yourself look like a big fool:
What did O’Sullivan join the Lawyers Association as? I’ll make it simple for you with multiple choice answers:
1) a glockenspiel;
2) a greenhouse window pane;
3) a Thanksgiving day turkey;
4) a volunteer fireman;
5) a lawyer.
O.K. maybe that was too hard a question. So I;ll let John O’Sullivan help you with a big fat clue:
http://www.aaskolnick.com/global_deniers/OSullivan_lawyer_ABA_member.5.17.2011_9.21am.jpg
Oh, my gosh! HE say HE’S a LAWYER. (Though I’m pretty sure he’s lying.)
Pete Ridley, in any of the emails you received or in online discussions you had with John O’Sullivan, are there any where he resorted to nasty name calling or other expressions of malice towards me? I mean other than just calling me a “liar” or disparaging my credentials or my work. I’m looking for examples of nasty name calling, like calling me “a creep,” “lying blowhard,” “aligned with criminals and pedophiles,” “lying scoundrel” — vile nasty stuff like that that clearly demonstrate his malice. Thanks.
Hi Andrew, (November 19, 2011 at 1:06 pm) I am not aware of any particularly malicious statements made by John or any other “Slayer” about you – certainly nothing that in my opinion compares with what you have said about John. The worst appears to me to be “ .. – I understand he is a pro-green environmental journalist .. ” (see my comment October 24, 2011 at 5:17 pm).
You should know by now that John is usually very careful about how he words his statements and claims. No matter what any of us think about him he is not a fool.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Skolnick,
You don’t even need to beg or borrow emails from anyone concerning my statements about you. All you need do is file your libel suit and New York’s CPLR requires that I provide you with all such emails from my hard drive (likewise I can demand yours, too!). Production of such documents is a requirement as per Section 3102(a) of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR).
The CPLR is there to allow you (and me!) full disclosure of information between us as Plaintiff and Defendant. There must be full disclosure of all evidence material and and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action regardless of proof. Section 3101(a). In case you missed my posting elsewhere in this thread of my address for serving court papers here it is again:
PO Box 65
Delhi, New York
13753
Except I would expect ASSkolnick to get rid of all his old e-mail as a matter of course, also called, having a Jones to do the Mann!!
I think that most of us recognise that lawyers and lesser individuals involved in legal proceedings can make some peculiar interpretations of fact, with the same facts allegedly supporting two opposing interpretations. “Slayer” John O’Sullivan seems to be insisting that the Law Society of British Columbia’s 4th Nov. decision (File Number 20110595) is confirmation that he himself has been cleared of misleading statements about his status – see “Canada Bar Association Rules ‘No Misconduct’ by Tim Ball’s Legal Team” (http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/9557-canada-bar-association-rules-no-misconduct-by-tim-balls-legal-team) in which John says “ .. The Law Society of British Columbia (LSBC) has now ruled that .. Andrew Skolnick’s official complaint concerning Dr. Tim Ball’s libel attorney, Michael Scherr and science writer, John O’Sullivan, was baseless. .. ”.
Andrew Skolnick and others here have made a different interpretation of that decision and I find it impossible to come to the same conclusions as John has done. In his LinkedIn promotional page on 3rd July John made the claim to be “ .. Legal Consultant at Pearlman Lindholm Swansea, United Kingdom .. O’Sullivan, a member of the American Bar Association (ABA), is currently litigating in two high-profile climate science lawsuits. He acts as Consultant to prominent Canadian law firm, Pearlman Lindholm, Vancouver, Canada .. John O’Sullivan’s Experience Legal Consultant Pearlman Lindholm .. As of April 2011 I have been engaged by Vancouver law firm, Pearlman Lindholm as Legal Consultant to advise on matters relating to libel suits involving prominent international climatologist, Dr Timothy Ball .. ”.
That statement (which was still there on 29th Sept.) about his status suggests to me that he was claiming to be engaged by Pearlman Lindholm as a Legal Consultant. On 4th Nov. the Law Society of British Columbia confirmed with Andrew Skolnick that “ .. neither Mr Scherr nor his firm Pearlman Lindholm, retained nor contracted with Mr. O’Sullivan to provide legal services .. There is no evidence that Mr Scherr .. was responsible for the false assertions published by Mr O’Sullivan .. ”.
So, what could be those “ .. false assertions published by Mr. O’Sullivan .. ” to which the LSBC’s Ruth Long, Staff Lawyer, Professional Conduct was referring? Mr Scherr, a partner in Pearlman Lindholm (http://www.pearlmanlindholm.com/bios/scherr.htm) is clearly reported to have confirmed with the LSBC that “ .. our firm did not engage Mr. O’Sullivan to provide any services to our firm .. ”. On the other hand, John claimed “ .. I have been engaged by Vancouver law firm, Pearlman Lindholm as Legal Consultant .. ”.
So, a Pearlman Lindolm partner says John was not engaged but John says that he was and the LSBC says that Mr. Scherr was not responsible for “ .. responsible for the false assertions published by Mr O’Sullivan .. ”! Please John, explain to me how I am mistaken to have the opinion that you lied about being a “ .. Consultant to Pearl Lindholm .. ”.
That claim by John had been removed from his LinkedIn entry by 25th Oct., as had his claim to being “ .. a member of the American Bar Association .. ”. Andrew Skolnick seems to have shown that John is merely an Associate of the ABA, a class of membership open to anyone who is prepared to pay the annual fee (I went through the motions of applying and there appeared to be no reason why I wouldn’t be accepted once I’d paid up).
John’s 25th Oct. LinkedIn entry had been changed to say “ .. CEO of Principia Scientific International Albany, New York Area .. O’Sullivan is a member of the New York County Lawyers Association (NYCLA) and is litigating in two high-profile international lawsuits involving climatologists, Dr Michael Mann and Dr Tim Ball .. John O’Sullivan’s Experience Legal Consultant Principia Scientific International .. April 2011 – Present (7 months) United Kingdom CEO of Principia Scientific International. Also Acting Internal Legal Counsel .. ”. Those more recent claims seem to more accurately reflect John’s status but he still claims that “ .. his work features in the National Review, America’s most popular and influential magazine for Republican/conservative news .. ”. I understand that Andrew has claimed that “Slayer” John O’Sullivan is falsely claiming to have written articles authored by John O’Sullivan the Editor at Large at the National Review.
On 30th Sept. I E-mailed John, the rest of the “Slayers” (past, present and pending), Professors Curry and Petty et al. on several issue including the dwindling “Slayer” numbers (36 down to about 32 at best) since his pathetic January Gofunme appeal (http://www.gofundme.com/1v39s) and about the derogatory comments about you made by Andrew Skolnick and Gareth Renowden (http://sciblogs.co.nz/hot-topic/tag/osullivan/). In that E-mail I said “ .. John, please can you once and for all shut up Andrew, Gareth and any other vile detractors by providing links to irrefutable evidence of your educational, academic and professional claims and telling us precisely which articles of yours featured in the National Review and which appeared in China Daily and The India Times. It is common practice for accredited academics to give full details of their achievements so why don’t you? In my opinion the information provided in Friend Re-united and Linked In doesn’t really adequately support the claims that you make elsewhere .. ”.
John never did provide any evidence to refute the claims made by Andrew and Gareth. In my opinion all that has been offered is hand-waving and diversionary tactics. Come on John, now is your opportunity to convince everyone that those contentious claims you have made about your achievements are not lies but the honest truth.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete,
Round and round you go and still you fail to provide any tangible evidence that I have done anything untoward and yet you keep asking the same questions that have been asked and answered many times before. Mr. Scherr made it clear that there were “misunderstandings” but no wrongdoing, as affirmed by the law society’s investigation.
As a positive outcome the professional relationship between the parties has been more tightly worded as I have been explaining to you. Indeed, the personal relationship between Tim Ball, Michael Scherr and myself is more solid as a result.
So I’m not going to endlessly repeat myself because I have stated my position many times already on this site and elsewhere as you know full well. I view the defested Skolnick LSBC gambit as a cynical attempt to waste our time and valuable resources that are far better spent exposing the fraud Michael Mann has perpetrated. I’m glad Skolnick’s complaint has been dismissed in full so Tim’s legal team can move forward.
Although Skolnick has yet again threatened me with a libel suit so I shall now wait to see if that is another one of his idle threats. So, for now, excuse me if I don’t waste any more of my time on this dead issue.
In my comment on 15th November I drew attention to QUOTE: .. “The O’Sullivan Hall of Fame IV” (http://www.osullivanclan.com/halloffamegalleryiv.html) with the declaration .. that “ .. The world’s leading global warming theory debunker is an O’Sullivan .. UNQUOTE. Under that declaration is a somewhat less glowing biography than appears in his more recent personal promotions (e.g. at LinkedIn) but is does include that claim “ .. In the U.S. his work features in the ‘National Review,’ America’s most popular and influential magazine for Republican/conservative news .. ”. Above that declaration and the (now obsolete) photo’ of John is a portrait and mention of John O’Sullivan, the National Review’s ex-Editor at Large of.
I wonder if the proud sponsors of that O’Sullivan Clan site have taken up my suggestion about getting confirmation of “Slayer” John’s claim from “National Review” John (http://osullivanclan.wordpress.com/2010/03/20/hello-world/#comment-93).
It seems that chief “Slayer” John applies different standards for CACC sceptics to what he does for CACC supporters. In his comment of 17th November he complains about what he calls my “ .. cherry picking of many dozens of private email correspondence .. ” when in fact those E-mail exchanges were no more private than were the leaked E-mails that led to the Climategate disclosures. I have searched high and low for anything by John expressing such objections in relation to those leaked UEA CRU E-mails but found nothing.
Professor Michael Mann’s “Hockey Team” at Realclimate incorrectly claimed that Climategate correspondence to be private, saying “ .. As people are also no doubt aware the breaking into of computers and releasing private information is illegal, and regardless of how they were obtained, posting private correspondence without permission is unethical. We therefore aren’t going to post any of the emails here .. ” (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/).
Instead of agreeing with the “Hockey Team” that those leaked CRU E-mails were private, as recently as April John was revelling in them. “ .. Mann has been skating on thin ice ever since November 2009 when he and a clique of global warming colleagues were caught personal fouling freedom of information (FOIA) requests in the Climategate scandal. Leaked emails proved global warming climatologists had been getting away with cynically hiding unfavorable key data concerning past global temperature proxies for years . . ” (http://co2insanity.com/2011/10/04/michael-%E2%80%98climategate%E2%80%99-mann-suffers-three-legal-blows-in-court-escapade/).
Of course, I may be doing “Slayer” John O’Sullivan a disservice by assuming that the co2insanity article was written by him. There are so many John O’Sullivan’s around that it is easy to mistake one for another and mix up their achievements, claims, publications, misdemeanours, etc. Maybe it was the past Editor at Large of National Review who wrote that article – then again!
I am not leaking any private E-mails when discussing the “PSI & Due Diligence”, PSI & Politics” and “John O’Sullivna’s specious claims” E-mail exchanges. What I am doing is providing the transparency about the “Slayers” and their PSI organisation that the “Slayers” seem to be so reluctant to do. As I said in my comment of 22nd October QUOTE: ..
I repeatedly attempted to get the “Slayers” to discuss this issue of political motivation using Chapter 21 of “Slaying the Sky Dragon” and the “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mails of Dec/Jan. as a basis but to no avail. In the spirit of transparency that is claimed to be so important to PSI I also tried to persuade the “Slayers” to discuss the issue on their PSI web-site but there were no takers .. UNQUOTE.
Not being prepared to discuss the matter on the PSI blog, the “Slayers” have left me no alternative but to do as I said in my E-mail of 28 Sep. “ .. In my opinion the most appropriate place to make them available for public scrutiny is on the PSI web-site, however, you may for some reason prefer them to be made available elsewhere. Perhaps Professor Curry would be prepared to make them available .. ”. I reminded them of this in a “PSI & Politics” E-mail on 8th Oct. with “ .. I’ll take the discussion elsewhere because in my opinion there will be others who wish to talk about it .. ”, which I’d told the “Slayers” on 8th Oct.
There is a relevant article on The O’Sullivan Clan Archive for May 1, 2010 Volume I, Issue 17, “Sullivan feels private e-mails are public” (http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2010/4/30/email-law-school-students/) about a student at Harvard Law School in which Professor Ronald S. Sullivan said “ …. The student assumed the risk of her e-mail being widely circulated as soon as she sent it to multiple people .. ”. It seems that not all of the O’Sullivan clan agree with John about E-mails, privacy and wide circulation.
Of course one-to-one exchanges are a different thing altogether, especially when it is agreed between the parties that they are “Private & Confidential”.
As for your latest comment, the song “Run Rabbit, Run Rabbit, Run Run Run” springs to mind.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
I made the mistake of looking in here to see what the big deal is, between Skolnick and O’Sullivan. A brief perusal reveals no big deal. It seems that Skolnick and O’Sullivan are well matched. I predict a noisy, 15 round pillow fight, ending in a draw.
Hey Don, aren’t you the one who said this about the Sonny Liston fight against the 7-to-1 underdog challenger Cassius Clay?
I’ll just quote what the young Mohammed Ali told everybody: “If you wanna lose your money, bet on Sonny.”
It took just 6 rounds of punishment from this brash young kid before the criminally-inclined Liston had had enough. He sat in his corner and refused to get up. It was poetry in motion.
The next round rings:
Hey Andrew
Best idea you’ve had in a lifetime.
Judith sets up a real 15 round contest between you and John.
Marques of Queensbury rules apply
I would pay good money for a ringside seat.
The funny thing is how similar both are to each other.
Its because they are both ambulance chasers.
BREAKING NEWS:
If you want to lose your money, bet on O’Sonnyvan not getting kicked out of NYCLA
Around the end of September or beginning of October, John O’Sullivan removed the bogus American Bar Association membership claim from some of his bios and replaced it with his claim of membership in the New York County Lawyers Association.
As a result, I checked with the association’s membership director, Harriet Astor on Oct. 11. She confirmed he was NOT a member, so I began reporting this latest fabricated credential.
Sometime between a week to 2 1/2 weeks later, O’Sullivan applied for membership. He received a welcome letter from the NYCLA dated Oct. 28 and began accusing ME of being the liar.
On Nov. 18, NYCLA’s director of membership marketing confirmed that Mr. O’Sullivan applied for membership towards the end of October, NOT when I had begun reporting his bogus claim — and well AFTER he had begun falsely claiming NYCLA membership in his resumes and bios.
I have asked the NYCLA membership marketing director to verify the credentials O’Sullivan claimed in his application. There is little doubt that they are false.
Indeed, I just found the NYCLA rule and evidence that should compel the Association to strip O’Sullivan of his recently acquired membership.
Late last month, O’Sullivan applied to become a Provisional Member of the NYCLA — which is a free membership category only open to lawyers who graduated from law school within the past 3 years and are not members of the bar.
However, O’Sulivan, has been claiming in his online bios and resumes that he earned his law degree in 1984, which, if I did my math correctly, is 27 years ago, not three!
Mr. O’Sullivan appears to have lied in his application by claiming he graduated last year.
But that might turn out to be true in an even more embarrassing way: I believe he may have purchased a degree from a bogus online diploma mill and cited that as his law school.
You can verify his claim of earning a law degree in 1984 in his LinkedIn bio: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=64434874&authType=name&authToken=0rq9&locale=en_US&pvs=pp&trk=ppro_viewmore
You can verify NYCLA’s membership requirement from its By Laws: http://www.nycla.org/index.cfm?section=ABOUT_NYCLA&page=BY-LAWS
“Provisional Members. Graduates of law schools who have not been admitted to the Bar of the State of New York but intend to practice law in the State of New York shall be eligible for provisional membership. Such membership shall continue until the member is admitted to such practice, but no longer than the earlier of (i) the date on which such person discontinues seeking admission to practice in the State of New York and (ii) three (3) years after graduation from law school.”
And you can verify that he applied as a Provisional Member by calling NYCLA at 212-267-6646
Hi Andrew, comments that you made on 15th & 16th October relate to my query of Mr. Scherr. In the first one you said “ .. Ball and his attorney Michael Scherr filed a response to the allegations in Dr. Mann’s defamation suit alleging that the communications between Ball and O’Sullivan are not actionable because of their attorney-client privilege. .. ” but I haven’t spotted you providing a link to that particular response document. I may simply have overlooked it so please can you do that?
It seems from the definitions that I have read of “lawyer” or “counsel” that, just as for “litigate”, anyone may be able to perform those services (but it is worth considering that “you get what you pay for”). Did I not litigate when making a claim to an Industrial Tribunal against a previous employer? If so then I could also reasonably claim that I litigated successfully since I was able to pursue my case through application, interlocutory hearing, Tribunal hearing and Appeal and achieved what I wanted to achieve. This process occurred over a period of several years so I can honestly claim to have litigated successfully for several years in the UK. That is a similar claim to what “Slayer” John O’Sullivan makes about “ .. successfully litigating for over a decade in the New York State courts and U.S. federal 2nd circuit .. ” (http://www.slayingtheskydragon.com/en/meet-the-authors).
Of course I would have no intention of misleading others into thinking that I was a lawyer but I don’t know for certain whether or not that was the intention behind John’s statements. I, like others, must draw our own conclusions from the available evidence.
Similar questions arise over the original proposals made about PSI during those “PSI & Due Diligence” exchanges. As I have mentioned here already, John’s opinion just after Xmas about how to defeat the AGW fraud was “ .. in the courts-its the only serious game in town .. ”. At that time John was calling for funds to “ .. file a mandamus petition to challenge NOAA .. based in Washington DC. I am happy to work with one of my contacts in the DC area to file a mandamus in the federal court in D.C. on behalf of PSI .. To do this we need to pay filing and court fees, paralegal costs land office expenses. A typical mandamus petition will ordinarily cost a client $3,000 .. The legal skills .. are at the ready so now the ball is in our court and that of our supporters to raise the $3,000.There is no fear of a counter suit so we cannot be sued for frivolous or malicious filing. This is as cheap a way to score a legal victory as I can suggest.”.
(Once again there is that question of why “ .. a group of 36 respected international scientists and related professionals. Mostly we are the authors of ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon .. ” (http://www.gofundme.com/1v39s) couldn’t raise less that $100 each in order to make that legal challenge).
On 1st January John said “ .. Suing corrupt govt science agencies is something we know we must do but it cannot be an express aim when applying to set up either as a charity or a CIC. .. ” yet he continued to extol the merits of setting up PSI as a CIC. I’m puzzled as to how it was proposed that PSI could pursue “ .. the only serious game in town .. ” and sue corrupt government agencies while still making a declaration to the UK’s CIC Regulator that PSI would comply with the requirement that as a CIC it must not be involved in “ ..
– The promotion of (or opposition to) changes in the law or changes in the policy of any governmental or public authority in relation to any matter
– The promotion of (or opposition to) any proposed policy of a governmental or public authority in relation to any matter .. ”
(see my comment of 24th October at 5:17 pm).
Could PSI carry on its intended activities and still abide by the requirement that it is not an “excluded Company” as defined in the Regulations, described in the Reguklators guidance document Section 2.7 “Excluded Companies and political activities” (http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/bispartners/cicregulator/docs/guidance/11-951-community-interest-companies-guidance-chapter-2-preliminary%20considerations.pdf).
Best regards, Pete Ridley
“I haven’t spotted you providing a link to that particular response document. I may simply have overlooked it so please can you do that?”
I thought I posted it. Maybe not on this site:
http://www.aaskolnick.com/global_deniers/Ball_reply_Aug3.pdf
And for crying out loud, stop your long-winded, nonsensical convoluted arguments whether O’Sullivan ever claimed to be a lawyer. You seem to be the last one left on earth who some how missed all of his statements claiming to be a lawyer. You must think New York County Lawyers’ Association is an association of brick layers.
Hi Andrew, you really should try to relax a little and perhaps try reading a bit more carefully what people say. I try very hard to be sure of the facts when discussing a contentious topic. I do not know of any instance where John O’Sullivan has said “I am a lawyer”. If you have clear irrefutable evidence of him saying that then please share it. If you already have done so then I apologise for either missing it or forgetting about it. You may have a photographic memory but not all of us do. Please jog my memory when necessary.
I have not seen any application form that John has made to any association and am not prepared to make rash statements based upon what others tell me. If you have a copy of any such application then please make it available. I have copies of John’s earlier claims to be a member of the ABA and recent ones about membership of the NYCLA but do not interpret that as him stating that “I am a lawyer”. In the copy of the LinkedIn comment of John’s to which you kindly provided a link (http://www.aaskolnick.com/global_deniers/OSullivan_lawyer_ABA_member.5.17.2011_9.21am.jpg) John does not say “I am a Lawyer” although it is possible to take that inference. He did specifically say “ .. I am a member of the American Bar Association .. ” which is not the same thing as saying “ .. I am a lawyer.. ”. You may come back with a comment such as I am splitting hairs but isn’t that what lawyers do when prosecuting and defending libel (and other) cases? Unless I am in possession of irrefutable evidence that John has said “I am a lawyer” then I am not going to say that he has done so. It’s called being sure of the facts.
I’ve already explained to you on Professor Curry’s “Slaying the Sky Dragon” thread why John could reasonably claim to being a member of the ABA (e.g. see http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/31/slaying-a-greenhouse-dragon/#comment-84758). I commented there that I had gone through the motions of applying for membership as an Associate Member and would have been accepted if I’d paid the annual fee, even though I made no claim to being a lawyer.
The issue of “membership” versus being a “Member” is a debatable one that I am sure John has covered himself on. The ABA claims over 400,000 members but I speculate that a large proportion of those are Associate Members like John was. The ABA refused to confirm of deny this when I asked them but I pointed out on 9th July that on QUOTE: .. 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 .. UNQUOTE. Note that “.. 400,000 members .. from Lawyers to Law Students to Associates .. ”.
Despite that clear statement you refused to accept that the ABA itself calls those within lesser grades “members”.
Now John says that he is a member of the NYCLA and has provided evidence in support of that claim. You said that “ .. Mr. O’Sullivan appears to have lied in his application by claiming he graduated last year .. ” but have not substantiated that. Can you do so? If not then I remain unaware of any evidence that John lied in his application.
I have another suggestion for you. Please try to engage in discussion without hurling insults all the time. I know that we all fall into that trap now and again but you seem to find it hard to resist the temptation. It only makes you look petty and vindictive instead of seeking the truth, which I have no doubt you are.
Thanks for the link to Tim Ball’s “Response to Amended Notice of Civil Claim” which confirms what you said about “ .. the communications between Ball and O’Sullivan are not actionable because of their attorney-client privilege. .. ”.
BTW, that’s an interesting set of exchanges on Lucia’s “Do Industrial Countries Absorb CO2?” thread (http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/do-industrial-countries-absorb-co2/#comment-85914). I like most of her comments, including that today at 8:24 am. I also agree with much of what Fred P. said on 11th Nov. at 12:34.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete Ridley says, unless I can point to where John O’Sullivan says these exact words, “I [John A. O’Sullivan] am a lawyer,” then I have no proof he’s falsely passing himself off as a lawyer.
Now I have a ton of evidence proving the humbug has been falsely passing himself off as a lawyer, including postings where he refers to himself as a “libel lawyer,” and statements like this:
“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.’”
And this:
“As and when Dr. Ball wins both his libel suits I will certainly benefit from our conditional fee agreement (CFA). If Ball loses, I won’t. Attorneys never entertain a CFA unless they are utterly convinced they have a strong case.”
Or how about this:
“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 be able to demonstrate to the court damning and contradictory evidence that refutes the hot air you keep blowing.”
Or this:
“Andrew, you illustrate superbly well why you are not a lawyer and I am. Thanks!”
But Pete’s right, I cannot show him any document where the con artist proclaims, “I am an lawyer.” Pete, I guess you got me. Just as I am unable to prove to you Mr. O’Sullivan is not a Neanderthal, because I can’t find a document in which he says, “I am a Homo sapien,” I can’t prove to you that he said, “I am a lawyer.”
Of course, Pete knows that O’Sullivan just joined the New York County Lawyers’ Association and he knows — if he had bothered to look — that NYCLA membership is ONLY open to lawyers who are members of the NY bar, or who are recently graduated waiting to join the bar, or law students. To any rational human being, the fact that O’Sullivan is NOT a law student would mean that he claimed to be a lawyer in order to join this association OPEN ONLY to LAWYERS.
Pete, I’d call you an idiot for playing such word games, but I’d only be repeating myself.
I meant to say, maybe I didn’t post the link on this site. HERE it is: http://www.aaskolnick.com/global_deniers/Ball_reply_Aug3.pdf
http://tbirdnow.mee.nu/of_dragons_scorpions_and_climate_change_deniars#c2
Hi Professor Curry, I see that you have a mention in the Climategate 2.0 E-mail release. “ .. Mann: I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she think’s she’sdoing, but its not helping the cause .. ” (http://wattsupwiththat.com/).
This release couldn’t have come at a better time, just ahead of the UN’s COP17 disaster in Durban.
It is claimed that in those newly released E-mails Dr. Mann repeatedly makes reference to “the cause” which presumably is referring to ensuring as far as possible that his “Hockey Team” wins.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Hi Andrew (21st November at 7:10 pm), thanks for your prompt response to my comment. Only one of your four quotations appears to me not to allow John any wriggle-room. The item of direct relevance to my point was “Andrew, you illustrate superbly well why you are not a lawyer and I am. Thanks!” so I Googled it to confirm that the statement was made by “Slayer” John O’Sullivan. Nothing was picked up. Please would you be good enough to provide a link to the origin of that quotation.
As I said before (November 21, 2011 at 5:36 pm NOT TO BE SENT) “ .. Unless I am in possession of irrefutable evidence that John has said “I am a lawyer” then I am not going to say that he has done so. It’s called being sure of the facts .. ”.
You came back with your carefully considered opinion (which is of course nothing but the truth – as you see it) that “ .. I’d call you an idiot for playing such word games, but I’d only be repeating myself .. ”. Well Andrew, I’m in good company.
I see that you have repeated those four quotations for Vernon’s (Kuhns-kat) benefit and couldn’t resist throwing in your usual insults. Calm down Andrew. It is far better to debate in a rational but respectful manner. You’d have a far more positive impact if you dropped the invective and simply stuck to facts and opinions (with maybe even a little gentle flavouring of sarcasm now and again). Your determination to get to the bottom of an issue is to be commended but your manner of presentation needs some honing. Perhaps a refresher course is due. After all it is 30 years since you studied at Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. Standards in respected professions change a lot in that time, but maybe not in journalism (thinks News International scandal – http://www.economist.com/node/18958553).
I’m surprised that you haven’t been back to Lucia’s Blackboard (http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/do-industrial-countries-absorb-co2/#comment-85992) in the last couple of days. I’m sure that they would love to hear from you again. Your name has been mentioned 94 times and you’ve only commented twice. John O’Sullivan’s has been mentioned 88 times so his ears must be burning but he hasn’t put in an appearance since his 4th comment on 17th. Maybe he’s too tied up acting as Dr. Ball’s attorney or acting as Legal Consultant at his “Slayers” unorthodox-science association Principia Scientific International (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/john-o-sullivan/19/6b4/84a).
Best regards, Pete Ridley.
Pete, don’t know why I even bother, considering your unique ability to find “wiggle room” in any statement you want:
http://www.aaskolnick.com/global_deniers/screencapture_5.17_9.21.jpg
http://www.aaskolnick.com/global_deniers/screencapture_5.22_6.02A.jpg
http://www.aaskolnick.com/global_deniers/screencapture_5.23_4.35.jpg
http://www.aaskolnick.com/global_deniers/screencapture_no.1_5.22_6.02.jpg
Considering your penchant, Pete, I’m sure you could convince yourself that the sparrow never admitted his crime:
Who killed Cock Robin?
I, said the Sparrow,
with my bow and arrow,
I killed Cock Robin.
Hi Andrew (ref. 23rd Nov. at 9:18 am) thanks for the links. I had already seen the first three and as I said earlier, only the fourth was relevant. Now I have a copy of the evidence showing John to have effectively said “I am a lawer” – wonderful. Now all that you need to provide me with is irrefutable evidence that John O’Sullivan does not have a relevant qualification entitling him to make such a claim.
I’m sorry if my refusal to simply accept your say-so is causing you aggravation but as I kept telling my children those decades ago “Don’t believe everything that you are told, no matter how convincing might be the person telling you. Ask for the evidence”. It caused me an awful lot of hassle because they wouldn’t just do as I told them, but they aren’t easily conned (and neither am I).
Best regards, Pete Ridley
No sir, you are wrong. When a person publicly claims to be a physician or a lawyer, it is his responsibility to provide evidence of his medical or law degree. The public is now prevented by privacy laws from getting any information from colleges and universities about whether someone is or is not a graduate.
The passage of these privacy laws unfortunately have made it possible for a lot of humbugs to go into business.
Show me Pete, where Mr. O’Sullivan identifies the law school that awarded him a law degree. And I don’t mean the bogus online diploma mill Hill University that will sell anyone any degree he wants, promising “delivery within just 15 days!”
I provided you with a lot of compelling evidence that O’Sullivan is a humbug who’s been lying about his law degree and other credentials.
What evidence have you seen showing O’Sullivan has a law degree from anywhere, but an online bogus diploma mill?
He first claimed in May or June that his law degree was from University College, Cork.
In the latest versions of his resumes and bios, he claims he earned his law degree in 1984 from the University of Surrey — which would be quite hard if not impossible since he was actually attending West Surrey College of Art and Design, where he earned an art degree in 1983 (he says 1984 on his LinkedIn profile).
Hi Andrew, you continue to miss the point. I do not take the words of others as gospel, no matter how convinced they may be. I look at whatever evidence that I can get my hands on.
You say (3rd Nov.at 12:10 pm) that “ .. When a person publicly claims to be .. a lawyer, it is his responsibility to provide evidence of his .. law degree. .. ” but in which piece of legislation is this requirement stated? Further, I have seen no convincing evidence that John O’Sullivan does not have a degree in law from a bona-fide institution. The again I have seen no convincing evidence that he has. For me the situation remains uncertain. Neither have I seen evidence that it is unlawful or dishonest to describe oneself as a Lawyer if one is engaged in litigation. If you have such convincing evidence, rather than simply circumstantial laced with speculation then please share it.
BTW, thanks for the complement on Lucia’s Blackboard (http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/do-industrial-countries-absorb-co2/#comment-86021).
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete,
I have a bridge yu may be interested in.
ASSkolnick has posted a link to a jpg from his own site he claims to be a screen capture of a conversation with the O’Sullivan of the Slayers. ASSuming it is a real conversation and not a total fraud, when was it made, what was the rest of the conversation, and was this the same O’Sullivan we are arguing over.
If this is the level of evidence ASSkolnick stoops to then he has lost without O’Sullivan breaking a sweat. It becomes obvious why the group in Canada didn’t pursue his complaint any further. There is nothing but assertions by ASSkolnick. Maybe ASSkolnick could ask O’Sullivan to vouch for the conversation and give his impression of it??
Almost forgot Sock Puppet Ridley,
go back in YOUR posts and find how YOU referred to me!! It is well to find out who you are smearing beforehand.
SockPuppet Ridley,
My name is Vernon Kuhns. Come by my facebook page and say hi. Anything you need to know just ask. That will leave you more time for your internet searches on more important issues, if you actually are trying to address any.
By the way, your apparent mania to know people’s backgrounds and slip a little at a time is unsettling to people. You will not make many friends with that approach.
Hi Vernon (ref. 23rd Nov. at 11:48 pm), in my opinion you have made some reasonable suggestions for Andrew to consider but don’t you think that it is a bit much for someone who acknowledges that he himself is an idiot (20th Nov. at 1:42 am.) to accuse another of being a buffoon?
Andrew has no qualms about providing his real name and details of his education and achievements and from that point of view alone deserves to be shown respect for having the courage of his convictions, whether we agree with them or not. Can you say the same about yourself? According to the person who hides behind a Telescope you “ .. never finished college .. ” (2nd Nov. at 1:13 pm). Of course it is unwise to believe anything that is said by those who are cowardly enough to hurl insults from behind false names.
Ref. 24th Nov. at 12:54 am. I know you are Vernon Kuhns – why do you think I’ve been calling you Vernon since 31st Oct. at 5:13 pm. As for visiting you on Facebook, no thanks. One visit to a “ .. Smart Aleck, humorous, know-it-all .. ” (http://www.myspace.com/kuhnkat) is enough for me. As for unsettling people and making friends, that has never been a major concern for me with regard to the CACC debate. I feel not the least bit upset if people check up on me. I consider it to be a complement that they are sufficiently interested. Discussing contentious issues does cause tension but in my experience the friends that are made are far more important than the enemies.
I doubt very much if Andrew is upset by the attention that he has attracted during his decades of investigative journalism.
As for your ludicrous notion that I am his sock puppet –wise up. Pay a return visit to Professor Curry’s “Slaying a sky dragon” thread (http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/31/slaying-a-greenhouse-dragon/#comment-81873) starting at Andrew’s comment of 3rd July at 8:04 pm. You would seem not to have bothered reading the exchanges between us there. I described Andrew and my relationship with one word on Lucia’s “Do Industrial Countries Absorb CO2?” thread (http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/do-industrial-countries-absorb-co2/) 23rd Nov. at 4:46 pm. and Andrew did not disagree with me.
After due consideration I find that I have to agree with the opinion of yourself that you offered us on 20th Nov. at 1:42 am. – “ .. idiot .. ”
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete Ridley,
if ASSkolnick had not started calling me names I would have maintained a higher level of communication with it. Unfortunately ASSkolnick, like so many true believers on a mission apparently has not time to actually present a full, coherent story and starts with the ad hom before the conversation gets very far. Of course, what we have seen so far is ASSkolnick throwing numerous accusations with little substance and the failure of his complaint in Canada is typical of his approach. Throw enough mud and some who WANT to believe will.
PS: ever hear the childish phrase, it takes one to know one???
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Whatever you say sock puppet.
I love this Climategate Release 2.0 extract, which relates to the discussion on the Mann-Ball-Scherr-O’Sullivan discussion “ .. Is the PCA approach robust? Are the results statistically significant? It seems to me that in the case of MBH the answer in each is no Wilson .. ” (http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/breaking-news-foia-2011-has-arrived/). I wonder if the politicians etc. will be able to whitewash this release as they did the first one. Maybe they should just cancel COP17 and find some other scam to hit us with.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Hi Max(Annacker) I don’t know if you have had any dealings with Professor Petty but I speculate that you haven’t. I invited him into the exchanges with the “Slayers” in early September and despite the pressure of entering a new semester he spent a lot of time trying to enlighten them. Despite the insults that he received in return he stuck it out trying to help the “Slayers” for another 4 days after sending on 14th October that “ .. final message to the Slayers .. ” quoted by Professor Curry.
Although I totally reject the CACC hypothesis (and Professor Petty does not claim to support any “catastrophe” arguments) I have enormous respect for him. As well as trying to help the “Slayers” and others involved in those exchanges he spent a lot of his time helping me and other CACC sceptics. Please don’t show him any disrespect.
Pete Ridley
Dr. Grant Petty is a known expert on satellite remote sensing of the atmosphere and atmospheric radiative transfer. His letter was apparently directed specifically at the “slayers”, who questioned his specific field of expertise.
However, by extension, it really applies for all those who are rationally skeptical of the “mainstream consensus” paradigm on AGW, which Judith has summarized in bullet form:
Petty admonishes the “slayers” for being uninformed and close-minded.
He asserts that climate science is not ”some old-boys’ club, everyone covering each other’s rear”, although Climategate has provided some evidence that this is at least partially true.
In my personal opinion, he goes off the rails when he suggests that climate change skeptics:
Petty describes how science should work in a perfect world, where it has not been corrupted by politics and large sums of money.
This was certainly true in the case of the Mann et al. “hockey stick”, but it took two outsiders and a fairly long time until the errors were found and this could be corroborated. Unfortunately, the “fraudulent claims” (i.e. that ”the warmth of the last half century is unusual in at least the previous 1,300 years”) live on in IPCC AR4 WG1 SPM (p.9).
A further point raised by Grant Petty:
There is the popular perception that funding often depends on conforming to the “consensus” paradigm. The perception is that those who support this paradigm get funding, those who oppose it do not.
Is this true in actual fact (i.e. is “perception = reality” in this case?)
The line that ”any moderately successful doctor or lawyer makes way more money than most climate scientists” may be true, but is silly and beside the point.
All in all, I found Petty’s letter too defensive (“circle the wagons?”) with a bit of the elitist approach of admonishing the unwashed idiots for daring to question the “mainstream paradigm”.
If I think it was directed at me (and others who might think, as I do, that the current hysteria on AGW is exaggerated and not based on sound science), rather than just the “slayers”, then I think it over the top.
But that’s just my personal opinion.
Max
Climate science is a “fuzzy” science with lots of chaotic data. It relies on things that are tough to conceive, measure and quantify like TOA Radiation Balance and positive feedback mechanisms. Many of the “consensus” conclusions depend on the output of computer models (ensembles) which can be manipulated to make any case you like. The conventional climate wisdom has the appearance of science, but often it is not. Mixed with good folks like our host Madam Curry and Dr. Petty, there is a certain type of person drawn to unrigorous fields like women’s studies and political science. So far, these people have enjoyed a happy home in climatology.
Ken, the reason you think climate science is a “fuzzy science” is because you’re such a fuzzy thinker. Ideas, facts — even moral principles — are just blurry clouds to you.
It’s how you justified professionally associating with a con artist, who deceives people with bogus credentials, to being a matter of taste, like “liking broccoli or garlic.”
http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-140267
Andrew Skolnick
Sure climate science is a “fuzzy science”, for several reasons, of which I will list a few:
– it is a new science with considerably more “unknowns” than “knowns”
– it relies too heavily on computer models, rather than on real-life empirical data
– it attempts to “predict” the future – hundreds of years out
– it has gotten too heavily tangled up with politics and big money
– it has moved from studying our planet’s climate to providing “proof” to help IPCC sell its agenda
– it appeals to the emotion of fear
– we have sociologists, economists and psychologists moving into the climate debate
I could probably come up with several more, but I think you get the gist.
Max
PS The “good news”: I think there are several people, including our host, who recognize the “fuzzy” nature of climate science today, and who hope to be able to move it to a sounder scientific basis.
Fuzzier than QM, String Theory, studies of Dark Energy and Dark Matter in Astrophysics, Genetic Engineering…?
All of your descriptions in one way or another (with suitable replacements) apply more to these than to good ol’ Earth and Atmosphere Sciences.
Hi Max(annacker) – ref. 23rd Nov. at 7:09 pm. – I wouldn’t want to argue against any of that.
Ref. 23rd Nov. at 6:51 pm. – even though that other bunny (Josh Halpern) is misguided his arguments do have some substance based upon what appears to be a sound scientific background in an appropriate discipline. In my opinion this cannot be said of all of the “Slayers”, who offer some most unorthodox scientific and mathematical analyses.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
How’s this for a perfect illustration (from the Climategate 2.0 emails)? Nice work, Dr. Haimberger.
It is interesting to see the lower tropospheric warming minimum in the tropics in all three plots, which I cannot explain. I believe it is spurious but it is remarkably robust against my adjustment efforts.
–Dr. Leopold Haimberger, Department of Meteorology and Geophysics, University of Vienna
Here’re a few more regarding the models, plus Dr. Mann mentioning “the cause”.
QUOTE: ..
there is no individual model that does well in all of the SST and water vapor
tests we’ve applied.
Barnett:
[IPCC AR5 models] clearly, some tuning or very good luck involved. I doubt the
modeling world will be able to get away with this much longer
Hegerl:
[IPCC AR5 models]
So using the 20th c for tuning is just doing what some people have long
suspected us of doing […] and what the nonpublished diagram from NCAR showing
correlation between aerosol forcing and sensitivity also suggested.
Jones:
Basic problem is that all models are wrong – not got enough middle and low
level clouds.
Jones:
GKSS is just one model and it is a model, so there is no need for it to be
correct.
/// The Cause ///
By the way, when is Tom C going to formally publish his roughly 1500 year
reconstruction??? It would help the cause to be able to refer to that
reconstruction as confirming Mann and Jones, etc.
Mann:
They will (see below) allow us to provide some discussion of the synthetic
example, referring to the J. Cimate paper (which should be finally accepted
upon submission of the revised final draft), so that should help the cause a
bit.
Mann:
UNQUOTE (http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/breaking-news-foia-2011-has-arrived/#comment-9736).
I loved this mention of Dr. Mann’s propaganda site Real Climate “ .. the important thing is to make sure they’re loosing the PR battle. That’s what
the site [Real Climate] is about.
Ashton/co2.org: .. ”.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Hi Andrew, it seems that you may have missed an earlier change to kick-start your career but still may be able to find some work with Dr. Mann. Blogs reporting on Climategate Release 2.0 have the following QUOTE:
.. “I (Mann) have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose McIntyre, and his thus far unexplored connections with fossil fuel interests. Perhaps the same needs to be done w/ this Keenan guy.”… UNQUOTE (e.g. see http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/11/22/climategate-2.html?currentPage=2#comments).
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Regarding Climategate 2.0, you may find this site of interest http://junkscience.com/2011/11/22/climategate-2-0-is-here/
Best regards, Pete ridley
Hi Andrew, have you seen yesterday’s comment by John O’Sullivan QUOTE:
.. Commenting by email Dr. Ball said: “These comments are even more damaging than the last. They show the political bias, the control of publications and the fact they were very aware that what they were doing was wrong. I am taking it to my lawyer this morning.” .. UNQUOTE (http://co2insanity.com/2011/11/22/climategate-2-sensational-email-release-durban-conference-derailed/).
You may find that ” .. taking it to my lawyer .. ” bit most intersting.
Best Regards, Pete Ridley
I no more believe in what Tim Ball or John O’Sullivan say than I do in the Easter Bunny.
How about the other Rabett?
Hippety-hop!
Max
Manacker,
I find it very interesting that ASSkolnick has now admitted to believing in the Easter Bunny!!
Why not?
Hi Vernon (Kuhns-kat) – ref. 24th Nov. at 7:25 pm – I would expect a “ .. Smart Aleck, humorous, know-it-all .. IT-guy .. ” like you (http://www.myspace.com/kuhnkat) would understand that providing links to sources of information is a great help to others. Am I correct in assuming that you are referring to a claimed exchange of opinions on the LinkedIn site under the subject of “Has Global Warming Propaganda Killed off Science Journalism” (see Andrew’s comment of 25th October at 10:38 am)? If so I expect that Gareth Renowden would back up Andrew’s claim (http://sciblogs.co.nz/hot-topic/2011/07/04/so-many-lies-%E2%80%93-and-the-liar-who-tells-them/).
As for your comment of 24th Nov. at 7:33 pm. are you trying to say that someone else has had the audacity to use your false name – what a cheek. Sorry, but I remain unconvinced, until you provide some convincing evidence.
Your comments of 24th Nov.at 7:30 pm. and 25th at 1:24 am. show that you have not progressed beyond the schoolyard. I suggest that you now start considering yourself in terms of being not just an “idiot” but a childish idiot.
Dammit, now you’ve reduced me almost to your level!
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Well sock puppet,
I have no idea what mental problem you are having. To my knowledge there is no other person posting with my label of KuhnKat. Maybe you should see your therapist.
With all of the excitement over the opportune Climategate Release 2.0 ahead of the latest UN/WMO/UNEP COP shindig (AKA the Disaster in Durban) I’ve neglected many of the E-mails coming in from other CACC sceptics. One that I decided to have a quick look at one from Australian CACC sceptic Anne Easby and it talked about Agenda 21 and the Precautionary Principle.
While seeking information about this I came across a quotation that could have been written specially for John O’Sullivan and his “Slayers”. In 1990, just about when John started “ .. successfully litigating for over a decade in the New York State courts and U.S. federal 2nd circuit .. ” (http://slayingtheskydragon.com/en/meet-the-authors) Professor Harold W Lewis (University of California) a nuclear industry risk assessment expert, said “Beware of pseudo-experts with a mission and a grudge, especially if they are lawyers pretending to be scientists” (“Landmark essays on rhetoric and the environment” By Craig Waddell, Page 44.
One comment responding to an article by Anne Easby mentioned a possible solution to John’s problem of having to beg for charitable donations to help Dr. Ball’s defend himself against Dr. Mann’s libel action – “Dissimulatione tollitur injuria”. I’m sure that John will understand the merits of that approach if Andrew follows up on his threat (11th November at 9:43 am.) and maybe Steven Mosher can use it too if John follows up on his (16th November at 10:37 am.).
Vernon (Kuhns-kat) I will from now push the “ignore” button on your childish comments. I have more than enough of those from my 8 & 6-years old grandchildren.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
In his comment of 17th Nov. at 6:26 am. John O’Sullivan talked about Andrew Skolnick’s dismissal from Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). What John omitted to mention is that Andrew had successfully held a position as associate editor with JAMA pretty-well throughout the 1990s when that journal was highly regarded globally under the leadership of George Lundberg (http://www.bmj.com/content/318/7178/210.extract).
Investigative journalist Andrew has never had any hesitation in providing evidence to substantiate his claims about his qualifications, his achievements and his articles. On the other hand I am still waiting for lead “Slayer” John O’Sullivan to provide “ .. links to irrefutable evidence of your educational, academic and professional claims and telling us precisely which articles of yours featured in the National Review and which appeared in China Daily and The India Times .. ” (see my comments of 25th Oct. at 9:27 am and 19th Nov. at 2:43 pm.
On 10th Nov. John O’Sullivan said “ .. The Law Society of British Columbia (LSBC) has now ruled that green activist Andrew Skolnick’s official complaint concerning Dr. Tim Ball’s libel attorney, Michael Scherr and science writer, John O’Sullivan, was baseless .. ” (see http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/41331.html and numerous other sites). John then provided a link to the copy of the LSBC decision that Andrew made available on his web-site (http://www.aaskolnick.com/global_deniers/BC_LawSociety_4-nov311_Skolnick.pdf).
My interpretation of that LSBC decision is somewhat different to John’s, as it apparently found that there was no misconduct by Mr Scherr. In its “Analysis” the LSBC said that “ .. There is no evidence that Mr Scherr .. was responsible for the false assertions published by Mr O’Sullivan .. ”. That does not seem to me to support John’s claim that the “ .. lies filed against me with the British Columbia Law Society has now been dismissed in its entirety .. ”. It appears reasonable to me to understand the LSBC to consider that Mr. O’Sullivan made false assertions. Of course I could be misreading what the LSBC said and if so I will apologise to John.
Before doing that I’ll await the response that Andrew gets from the LSBC to what appears to be his complaint about John (not Mr Scherr). As Andrew has advised us (29th Nov. at 12:23 am.)
QUOTE: ..
John O’Sullivan spins another whopper: “Skolnick and Ridley need to face the facts that the British Columbia Law Society thoroughly investigated all the above allegations against me and then dismissed them all as baseless.”
The Law Society of British Columbia confirmed today that the complaint I had filed against John O’Sullivan – not Michael Scherr – was NOT closed. It is still being investigated:
“As we are in the midst of reviewing a complaint of unauthorized practice, we cannot comment specifically. … The Law Society investigates complaints of people who aren’t lawyers engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. These investigations are based on specific facts and circumstances. Where there is a question of public protection the Law Society seeks undertakings from unauthorized practitioners that they cease. If someone refuses to sign an undertaking we may seek an injunction from the courts.”
.. UNQUOTE.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
I commend Peter for bringing this up and providing the link to that wonderful British Medical Journal editorial lambasting the American Medical Association for firing JAMA’s renowned editor, Dr. George Lundberg, to appease the AMA’s Republican friends in Congress.
It was a great honor to work under Dr. Lundberg for 11 years. My colleagues and I gored a lot of sacred cows and pissed off a lot of powerful people. Without his political savvy, courage, and strength to defend us and the integrity of the journal, I would have probably been fired by my second year as an associate news editor. However, near the end of 1998, when I wrote a series of articles for JAMA and for the St.Louis Post-Dispatch that pissed off the largest for-profit provider of health care in the nation’s jails and prisons, Dr. Lundberg was in too much trouble himself to save me from being shoved under the bus. He was fired just two months after I was.
Thanks Pete for helping to expose O’Sullivan’s clumsy attempt at rewriting history. The humbug says I was fired for “misrepresentation” and “lying.” The record shows that after the AMA satisfied Correctional Medical Services’ demands by firing me, my articles exposing the company’s wrong doing were honored with a bundle of humanitarian and journalism awards, including Amnesty International USA’s “Spotlight on Media Award,” Harvard University’s Goldsmith Prize for Investigative Journalism Finalist Award, a couple of Missouri Associate Press and Managing Editor awards, and a Pulitzer Prize for Investigative Reporting nomination from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. The following year, the American Medical Writers Association honored me with its John P. McGovern Award for Preeminence in Medical Communication. I then served as a special contributor for the Post-Dispatch reporting and writing some 20 articles for the newspaper. That’s hardly the record of a journalist who “was fired for lying” or “misrepresentation,” as that shameless liar claims.
As Pete correctly points out, the only one lying about the Law Society of British Columbia’s investigation of my complaint against John O’Sullivan, is John O’Sullivan. The humbug says the Law Society has ruled my complaint against Michael Scherr and him “was baseless.” It did nothing of the sort.
First, I never filed a complaint against Mr. Scherr. My complaint was filed against John O’Sullivan for unauthorized practice of law. As a result of my complaint, the Law Society also opened an investigation of Mr. Scherr’s role in helping O’Sullivan promote his unauthorized practice of law in British Columbia. And while its investigation of Mr. Scherr was completed, its investigation of O’Sullivan’s misconduct is still underway — despite all his claims to the contrary.
Yesterday, I received the following statement from the Law Society of British Columbia, concerning my complaint against Mr. O’Sullivan:
“As we are in the midst of reviewing a complaint of unauthorized practice, we cannot comment specifically. … The Law Society investigates complaints of people who aren’t lawyers engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. These investigations are based on specific facts and circumstances. Where there is a question of public protection the Law Society seeks undertakings from unauthorized practitioners that they cease. If someone refuses to sign an undertaking we may seek an injunction from the courts.”
On 17th Nov. John O’Sullivan commented to Lucia at her Blackboard site (http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/do-industrial-countries-absorb-co2/#comment-85830) QUOTE: .. You have all too easily taken Skolnick’s word on everything as if he is a trustworthy source. Yet he fails to advise you that he was fired from his journalism job with the AMA for misrepresentation. It appears he lied when he claimed he has a master’s degree, won two lawsuits that he actually lost and faked his “Pulitzer Prize nomination.” .. UNQUOTE.
Andrew, like John, does not shy away from making claims about his qualifications, his achievements and his articles but John has not provided any evidence to disprove Andrew’s claims. I have no reason to believe that Andrew would not be able to provide evidence to substantiate his claims. I do not agree with everything that Andrew says however, despite his aggressive style, I have no reason to believe that he is dishonest.
In that comment of 17th John went on to say of himself “ .. By contrast, I have truthfully stated I possess a law degree and have considerable related teaching and litigating experience to warrant my position. .. I also have published online numerous legal articles addressing climate science fraud in the last 3 years .. ”.
We can all make claims but the acid test of honesty is verification. As I indicated in my comment on 28th Nov. at 2:31 pm. I am still waiting for John to provide “ .. links to irrefutable evidence of (his) educational, academic and professional claims and telling us precisely which articles of (his) featured in the National Review and which appeared in China Daily and The India Times .. ”.
On 12th Nov. in another of the many appearances of John’s article “Canada Bar Association Rules ‘No Misconduct’ by Tim Ball’s Legal Team” (http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/9557-canada-bar-association-rules-no-misconduct-by-tim-balls-legal-team) Andrew commented “ .. John, it’s great to finally see you stand and try to defend your credentials instead of running off and hiding. I’ll make this simple. Here’s what you have to do to stop me from accusing you of being a humbug and pathological liar: .. ” listing 6 items, including “ .. — Cite the title and date of publication of the articles you published in National Review and Forbes magazine. Be careful, John. If you try to pass off articles written by the National Review’s editor-at-large again, they might take action this time .. ”.
John provided an immediate response but completely ignored the matter of those claimed articles in the National Review and Forbes magazine. I find it very puzzling why John remains so reluctant to provide links to irrefutable evidence about those articles, others in China Daily and The India Times and his claimed qualifications. To do so would remove any doubt about whether John or Andrew are distorting the facts but his refusal may simply increase suspicion.
As I commented in an E-mail to John and the rest of PSI’s “Slayers” on 28th Sept. QUOTE: .. You no doubt remember the exchanges with Andrew Skolnick .. on Professor Curry’s thread “Slaying the Sky Dragon” .. Andrew (and others involved) were never satisfied that you had responded properly to his questions about your claimed academic and professional credentials .. There are also some interesting comments made and links provided in “So many lies – and the liar who tells them” by Gareth Renowden .. I get the impression that Andrew Skolnick (and other like-minded individuals) might consider the claims made .. about the credentials of its principal founder are just another .. brand of BS .. I expect that you are aware of what is said in “Criminal Justice: Does Silence Mean Guilt?” (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,899502,00.html).. “ .. silence can still leave a strong suspicion of guilt in the minds of the lay public .. ”
.. UNQUOTE.
On 30th Sept. I E-mailed John et al. on .. the dwindling “Slayer” numbers .. and about the derogatory comments .. made by Andrew Skolnick and Gareth Renowden (http://sciblogs.co.nz/hot-topic/tag/osullivan/). In that E-mail I said “ .. John, please can you once and for all shut up Andrew, Gareth and any other vile detractors by providing links to irrefutable evidence of your educational, academic and professional claims and telling us precisely which articles of yours featured in the National Review and which appeared in China Daily and The India Times. It is common practice for accredited academics to give full details of their achievements so why don’t you? In my opinion the information provided in Friend Re-united and Linked In doesn’t really adequately support the claims that you make elsewhere .. ”.
In my opinion John never did provide any evidence to refute the claims made by Andrew and Gareth, offering only hand-waving and diversionary tactics, despite all of the opportunities that he has had to convince everyone that those contentious claims he has made about his achievements are valid.
Getting back to John’s comment about “ .. addressing climate science fraud .. ”, some of his most interesting comments about that were made in those numerous “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mails during Dec./Jan. after John had declared on 28th December “ .. I’ve staked my reputation, sweat and own money on beating the AGW fraud in the courts-its the ONLY SERIOUS GAME IN TOWN .. ” (my emphasis added). See my comment of 22nd October for more about that E-mail.
John had outlined his plans in his Chapter 21 “Legal Fallout from False Climate Alarm” in “Slaying the Sky Dragon” and filled in much of the detail during those “PSI & Due Diligence” exchanges. Nearly a year later it seems that John has now changed his opinion of 4th Jan. about “ .. how the law will need to be used by our lawyers in English common law nations to win climate cases .. ”. PSI is now declared to be simply “ .. an active commercial publisher of science articles, compendiums and books. We share the financial rewards from sales .. ”.
On 2nd Jan. John said “Personally, I have no time to not earn a living. I know from my own private conversations that my coauthors may also not have time to devote unpaid to setting up and running a charity .. ”. Taking that into consideration alongside the difficulties that established publishers like Bloomsbury and McFarland & Co are facing I don’t see much future for a minuscule publisher like PSI with such a large management team and stakeholders (http://principia-scientific.org/about-us/why-psi-is-a-private-assoc) apparently looking for income.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
On Climate Change Dispatch, John O’Sullivan began bizarrely accusing me of “aligning” myself “gleefully with pedophiles.” I was blocked from answering those nasty and utterly bizarre slurs by the web site administrator.
Because of the Sky Dragon Slayer leader’s habit of always accusing others of his own sins, I started to wonder whether pedophilia may have been a problem HE faced. Turns out, I really hit that nail on the head.
Mr. O’Sullivan was accusing me of charges that HE faced, which ended his teaching career. In 2004, he stood trial in the UK for sending obscene text messages to a 16 y.o. school girl and soliciting sex from the minor. The testimony was not consistent enough to convince the court of his guilt beyond a doubt, so he was acquitted. Here’s the newspaper story of his trial and acquittal:
[url]http://www.thefreelibrary.com/SIR+CLEARED+OF+SEX+TXTS.-a0113713467[/url]
Mr. O’Sullivan then self-published a soft-porn book, which is largely an autobiographical account of the trial, and how his character had been hopelessly obsessed with lust for his step-daughter’s 16-y-o friend. In it, he argues with his alter ego over society’s unfair and oppressive laws against sex with children. Here’s the entire novel he self-published:
[url]http://cupboard55vanillagirl.blogspot.com/2008/03/cupboard-55-novel.html[/url]
Warning: It’s graphic, obscene, and — worse — awfully bad turgid prose.
Hi Andrew, are you able to provide convincing evidence that the John O’Sullivan involved in that paedophile case in Lowestoft is “Slayer” John O’Sullivan? There are thousands of John O’Sullivan’s in the world and it is too easy to jump to conclusions like this. I haven’t been able to find many John O’Sullivan’s in the Beccles area, other than the highly regarded John O’Sullivan, Chief Executive, St Johns Housing Trust (http://www.stjohnshousing.org/aboutus/), so I respectfully suggest that it is very easy to draw incorrect conclusions.
.. There currently exist only two factual novels so far penned in the ‘Cupboard 55’ genre: ‘Vanilla Girl’ and ‘Summit Shock’ written by English author, John O’Sullivan .. ” (http://cupboard55summitshock.blogspot.com/2008_03_01_archive.html). I understand that Summit Shock was indeed based upon the experience of his wife Barbara while a Correction Officer and John’s and Barbara’s attempt to get compensation out of the New York prison service (http://www.dhr.state.ny.us/pdf/Court%20Orders/bracci_v_nysdhr.pdf).
I agree with your comments about the book “Vanilla Girl” and it does appear to have been written by “Slayer” John as a “true story” but can you be absolutely sure that it was based upon “Slayer” John’s own experiences?
Others have the same opinion of “Summit Shock” as we do of “Vanilla Girl” (http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6946676711957841103&postID=1616184549949291196), e.g. “ .. “Summit Shock” is far from a factual novel. It is sensationalism mixed with porn. The only thing left factual is the name William Peek. His accuser Barbara Bracci’s name is changed as was mine in a veiled attempt to prevent litigation. Gerald J Skrocki, 21 January 2010 23:30 .. ”. The other comments are worth reading too.
I speculate that John has not sold many of his books and would be surprised if the “Slayers” have sold many of theirs either. I did ask John for the sales figures but he declined to give them..
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Yes I can. And if Mr. O’Sullivan would like me to provide it, he can take me to court. I’d love him to give me the power to subpoena all the court records involved in these cases — although I don’t think I’d have the stomach to view the video exhibits involved in the “Summit Shock” court case.
Others can find a ton of online evidence for themselves, such as this:
http://www.blogger.com/profile/04719257903632828427
and this: http://www.blogcatalog.com/blogs/summit-shock-american-court-corruption and this: http://renegadeconservatoryguy.co.uk/is-anthropogenic-global-warming-really-a-hoax/
and this: http://cupboard55summitshock.blogspot.com/ and this:
http://www.webook.com/member/JohnAOSullivan
and of course this:
http://cupboard55summitshock.blogspot.com/2008/03/and-what-is-cupboard-55_31.html — I quote: “There currently exist only two factual novels so far penned in the ‘Cupboard 55’ genre: ‘Vanilla Girl’ and ‘Summit Shock’ written by English author, John O’Sullivan.
Posted by John O’Sullivan at 11:59”
But NOT one single demand from the John the Sky Dragon Slayer O’Sullivan telling his “impersonator” to stop creating all these web sites and publishing all these documents using his photograph and claiming that he’s the author of these soft-porn confessionals? LOL!
Tell me Pete, how many “John O’Sullivans” did you find living in the Beccles area, whose wife was also an American named Barbara, who was also a school teacher, who was also born in 1961, and whose school teaching career also ended around the time the Beccles school teacher John O’Sullivan, in The Mirror news report, was tried for text messaging obscene propositions to a 16 y.o school girl?
Nice work.
but you and pete need to lose the phoney conversation.
Actually, I find the psuedo-politeness pretense of people making chargers back and forth of slander to be pretty fascinating.
Joshua, you ass, I put up with a lot of accusations, but there are a few I simply won’t tolerate. I am NOT polite. I won’t stand for such slander.
P.S. you need to look up “slander.”
Andrew –
I didn’t say that people are slandering each other, I’m saying that people are accusing each other of slander.
Am I wrong about that? I haven’t been paying particularly close attention, but that was my impression.
Sorry for calling you polite. I should have known better than to have been so rude.
Your apology for rudely calling me polite is accepted.
Slander is the oral communication of false statements that are harmful to a person’s reputation. Even if a person were to post defamatory statements here, holding his computer mouse in his mouth, it would not be slander.
Libel is published or broadcast speech that is false and harmful to a person’s reputation. It’s a more serious tort than slander.
You can use the word “defamation” to describe any false statement harmful to a person’s reputation, whether oral, written, or broadcast.
I think “psuedo-politeness pretense” is a perfect description, Joshua.
Its also funny that andrew thinks he is rude, he really has a thing or two to learn about being insulting. These fake conversations (he and pete do it on Lucia’s as well ) is rather odd for somebody dedicated to the truth. I also like the way he tried to redefine ordinary language to have legal meaning. Linguistic nazi. Still, I look forward to the full truth coming out about O’Sullivan. I don’t think it will change a single mind, but it’s good seeing people who overstate their credentials being brought to accounts.
Hi steven (mosher – 12th December at 1:35 am) what is all of this nonsense about “ .. These fake conversations (he and pete do it on Lucia’s as well ) .. ”. Sorry but it is you who “ .. really has a thing or two to learn .. ”.
As for your “ .. I look forward to the full truth coming out about O’Sullivan. I don’t think it will change a single mind .. ” – keep watching!
BTW, you may find my blog http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.com/ a bit different from Andrew’s.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
While I hate to harp, when a hopeless idiot piles more nonsense on top of a previous stupid statement, he leaves little choice.
Steven Mosher accuses me of being a “linguistic Nazi” for pointing out that “slander” is the oral communication of defamatory statements. The ignorant buffoon says, I “tried to redefine ordinary language to have legal meaning.” Yes, just like Steven Moser’s parents tried to redefine “human being” by having him.
I’ll let Merriam-Webster speak for itself:
“SLANDER: Noun.
1: the UTTERANCE of false charges or misrepresentations which
defame and damage another’s reputation
2: a false and defamatory ORAL statement about a person”
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slander
When it comes to deciding the “ordinary” meaning of words, it’s best to trust an authority like Merriam-Webster rather than a stubbornly ignorant, loud-mouthed schmuck, who never picks up a dictionary before accusing others of “redefining” words.
Asholnick
Dictionaries do not capture “ordinary” language.
Steven, go get yourself a Yiddish dictionary and turn to the word “Putz.” Then look in a mirror. NEVER underestimate the use of dictionaries in helping people to understand the meaning of words.
I gotta a brand new
Pair of dictionaries, you
Getta brand new word.
============
Just this morning, i was listening to The Police, Don’t Stand so close to Me. Great song.
Hi Ken (Coffman – 11th Dec. at 1:06 pm)
“ .. Don’t Stand so close to Me .. ” is perhaps a song that anyone should reflect upon when mud is being thrown. As I said in my E-mail to the “Slayers” et al. yesterday QUOTE: .. As I warned the “Slayers” in the PSI & Due Diligence E-mails in Dec./Jan. e.g. 4th, 14th and Jan 20th. (at 06:40 PM 18:20 and 18:35 NOT TOP BE SENT) QUOTE: .. each if us must be squeaky clean in what we say and do .. what is there about any of us that could seriously undermine PSI’s standing? As I’ve said before, we have to be seen to be squeaky clean. Are we all happy that we can achieve this? .. PSI must be seen to be “squeaky clean”. No matter the degree of truth behind any such challenges, mud not only sticks when thrown but also splashes whatever is next to the target .. UNQUOTE.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
The creep-factor of you SkyDragons is way too much.
The reference to the Police song is a thinly veiled reference to perversion. That first album has a few references to creepiness, which is why lots of new wavers disliked them, along with disliking The Knack double that amount. Coffman is a creep as well and is apparently condoning the actions, however obliquely. But that’s the way that creeps work.
Have to thank Andrew Skolnick for his investigative journalism.
As to the Sky Dragon lair, I am splitting from any further discussion of whatever anti-science you are trying to promote. You frankly disgust me.
Well Web, then you probably don’t care much for the Sky Dragon Slayer’s motto: “Anyone who loves carbon dioxide emissions and sexy children can’t be all bad.” Perhaps Ken Coffman can find someone to put the motto to music. It could be a hit in global warming denier circles.
It absolutely boggles my mind that O’Sullivan’s publisher would come to his defense by bringing up and praising a song about the lustful feelings between a school girl and her teacher. Coffman, that sure helps to explain everything. Everything.
Andrew Skolnick says;
“Anyone who loves carbon dioxide emissions and sexy children can’t be all bad.”
Unfortunately Andrew mixes up two things here.
The effect of CO2 emissions and someones character.
Andrew knows almost nothing about science or he would realise some quite unsavory characters like Heisenberg (Nazi) were still able to make a significant contribution to science.
To put it another way, the fact that Andrew is clearly unhinged does not automatically mean the IPCC have got it all wrong
Webby, you seem a bit confused. Please Don’t Stand so Close to Me appears on The Police’s third record: Zenyattà Mondatta. This song was a huge hit for The Police and, though Sting (Gordon Sumner) was a school teacher, this song is not autobiographical–it is loosely based on Nabokov’s lovely novel Lolita. In spite of morons from history and today, these are cautionary tales and do not glorify or promote exploitation of children. Need I say this? I don’t like people who abuse or exploit children. I would like to see repeat offenders hanging from a gallows.
In addition, to anyone who asked for my advice, friend or foe, I would strongly urge them to make sure their resume or CV is 100% accurate. There is nothing to be gained from lying or fudging. Build your house on rock, not sand. Just one man’s opinion.
As is his habit, Bryan misrepresents any facts he finds inconvenient. I didn’t “mix up” the love of carbon dioxide emissions with pedophiliac lust, I merely summarized Ken Coffman and John O’Sullivan’s published views on the subjects.
As for Bryan’s knowledge of science and science history, you could put the little he gets correct in a thimble and still find enough room to take a bath. He’s an idiot for calling Heisenberg a “Nazi.” The Nobel laureate was NEVER a member of the Nazi Party — indeed, he came under serious attack as a “White Jew,” for his defense of Jewish scientists — until Heinrich Himmler, head of the dreaded SS — fearing the loss of the great physicist, called off his attack dogs and got Heisenberg to keep his mouth shut.
It’s hardly surprising someone like Bryan, who spends so much time rewriting current events, would also try to rewrite history.
Andrew Skolnick
Niels Bohr who knew Heisenberg reports that he was looking forward to a German victory.
Any scumbag who makes excuses for Nazi sympathises gets on the wrong side of me.
http://nba.nbi.dk/papers/docs/d11ctra.htm
Ken says he would “strongly urge [any friend or foe] to make sure their resume or CV is 100% accurate.”
So what did John O’Sullivan reply when you told him this?
Your explanation what The Police’s song is about, is a load of crap. It is NOT based on Nabokov’s novel Lolita. The song is about “a schoolgirl’s crush on her young teacher and the teacher’s nervousness about the situation.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolita
There’s a one-line reference to Lolita in the song, but Nabokov’s novel is about an old man who began raping his 12-year-old step-daughter the day after her mother is fatally run over by a car!
The fact that you call this a “lovely novel” explains an awful lot.
Nabokov wrote what is regarded as one of the greatest novels of the 20th Century, but it was not a “lovely novel” to most people who heap praise upon it. A novel about the repeated rape of a motherless 12-y-o girl by her step-father is NOT “lovely,” by any stretch of the imagination.
The more you and and John O’Sullivan keep talking about this, the more you creep us out.
Bryan, no one in his right mind could take your faux outrage over “Nazi sympathizers” seriously. You’re such a putz.
And when I say putz, I’m speaking it in Yiddish, not German — just so you know and not start screaming “Nazi! Nazi! Nazi!”
Same thing goes when I call you a schmuck, you schmuck.
Andrew Skolnick says
….”And when I say putz, I’m speaking it in Yiddish, not German “..
You don’t need to be German to be a fascist there are plenty in Israel.
For instance Benjamin Netanyahu comes pretty close.
Is there no limit to Andrew Skolnick’s knowledge and wisdom? Rock music. Literature. Science. He’s one of the great scholars of our generation. He knows the nooks and crannies of our minds and souls.
Well, there’s one thing I know. He’s one of the world’s great experts on books he has not read. At least tell me you saw one of the Lolita movies, Andrew. Or, perhaps you saw a poster somewhere or studied the book’s back cover before tossing it in the fire in one of your neighborhood book burning sessions–or does your fountainhead of knowledge miraculously enjoy a virgin birth and spring forth from empty-nothing?
Asholnick now has made himself into a literary critic. Lolita is actually a joke on people exactly like Asholnick. Having studying the novel at the feet of one of the best Nabokov scholars (Alfred Appell author of the Annotated Lolita.. http://www.amazon.com/Annotated-Lolita-Revised-Updated/dp/0679727299) I would have to say that Andrew doesn’t have the faintest idea what he is talking about when he discusses the novel.
Alfred wrote a wonderful essay on this called Nabokov’s Puppet show.
http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/nabokovs-puppet-show-part-1
http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/nabokovs-puppet-show-part-ii
If you take the story seriously, if you actually believe in the narrator, then you have fallen into Nabokov’s wonderful little trap. Of course he gives the intelligent reader clues all along that this is a work of fiction written by an untrusty narrator. At it’s heart most of his work can be seen as a parody. (Actually, John Sullivan is the perfect Anti Nabokov, writing thinly veiled autobiographical novels )
To understand the effect, and meaning, of a Nabokov novel I would direct you to the second half of that essay and Alfred’s description of the puppet theatre. And then consider that the great man himself endorse this approach to understanding his craft.
Andrew, stick to investigative journalism and leave literature to those who’ve spent a few years in it.
My most favorite book is Pale Fire, but I have the Annotated Lolita. How many times have I read Despair? Love it. Speak Memory? Look at the Harlequins!? I will confess that I found Ada a tough slog.
Syllable monarch,
Nabokov contains four.
King, Queen, and the Knave.
=============
For revealing glimpse
Of ardor read in Turgenov:
Fathers and Children.
==============
Pete, it doesn’t appear O’Sullivan ever published these soft-porn “based on a true story” novels on paper. It seems he just self-published them on blogs. You can’t find them on Amazon.com or other book seller web sites.
As for sales, I wish I had a thousand dollars for every dime people spend on Slaying the Sky Dragon :-]
I just checked Amazon sales ratings for O’Sullivan’s magnum opus — it’s currently ranked a dismal #223,695 in sales — which means about one book being sold every few days or so. By comparison, take a look at Michael Moore’s “Here Comes Trouble: Stories from My Life,” which is ranked more than 223,000 books higher — at # 651 in sales.
Above, Stephen Moshet tells us, “Having studying [sic] the novel [Lolita] at the feet of one of the best Nabokov scholars… I would have to say that Andrew doesn’t have the faintest idea what he is talking about when he discusses the novel.”
Putting aside the disturbing image of Moset’s pose while receiving instruction from his teacher on “Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul,” I would like to know what I said he disagrees with.
Was it that I called it “one of the greatest novels of the 20th Century,” or that it was “not a ‘lovely novel’ to most people who heap praise upon it”?
And where did I ever offer a critique of the book? Nowhere. I merely said it’s regarded as one of the greatest novels of the 20th Century and that it’s not called a “lovely” novel by most people who praise it. Both of which are fact, not a critical opinion.
I know, you’re into the game of disagreeing with everything I say Stephen, because you’re a schmuck. But games have rules. Kindly tell me what I said about Nabokov’s novel that you think is so wrong that you have to conjure up that image for us of you receiving instruction at your tutor’s feet.
Neither you nor O’Sullivan have Nabokov’s qualities to pull it off.
I don’t believe you’ve read the book, Andrew, though I might believe you if you said you’d seen one of the movie adaptations. The prose is lovely. Masterful, erudite, lush and lovely. Anyone who has read the darned thing would agree. The subject matter is bizarre, but you won’t find a single word out of place.
Hi Andrew, in my comment of 11th Dec. at 5:49 am I asked QUOTE: .. are you able to provide convincing evidence that the John O’Sullivan involved in that paedophile case in Lowestoft is “Slayer” John O’Sullivan? . .UNQUOTE.
Well, we have just received an E-mail (12th Dec. at 15-03 UK time) circulated to all of the “Slayers”, Professor Curry, Professor Petty and others in which John admits that it was indeed he and he was the author of book “Vanilla Girl” which was based upon his experience resulting from his involvement with the young girl who his wife Barbara had fostered. John claims that QUOTE: .. The child .. became a nightmare. She was a sociopath who stole from us, smeared our names and made numerous accusations against us. .. As the child’s behavior degenerated one of her false allegations was that I made sexual advances to her and she reported it to the police whereupon my first wife, a local police officer still with antipathy towards me after our failed marriage, unduly influenced the investigations .. ”.
John goes on to explain how “ .. the whole thing was a pack of lies and was accepted as such in court .. I was acquitted on all six charges. Nonetheless, by then the matter had ruined my teaching/lecturing career .. ”.
Effectively John O’Sullivan has confirmed much of what you said in your comment here on 11th December at 12:18 am. and more that was presented to the “Slayers” in my E-mail that day. In this E-mail John also insists that he “ .. studied law at the university of Surrey from 1979-82 (as I have long stated on my online web pages). But when I realized how mundane and monotonous a legal career for me would be I opted to go no further and followed my heart, took on an arts degree and then drifted into teaching and lecturing .. ”.
He makes no mention of having graduated in Law in 2010 (Jan?) but you have claimed on several sites that it is QUOTE: .. a “law degree” from Hill University — that bogus, online diploma mill, where anyone can purchase his degree of choice, along with a package of impressive looking academic documents, with “delivery promised in 15 days! .. http://www.hilluniversity.com/Hill/online-degrees/accredited-degree.asp .. He should then explain why O’Sullivan would need to buy a “law degree” from the bogus diploma mill in the beginning of 2010 .. UNQUOTE (see http://co2insanity.com/2011/11/10/canada-bar-association-rules-%E2%80%98no-misconduct%E2%80%99-by-tim-ball%E2%80%99s-legal-team/ and elsewhere).
That particular “university” proudly states that “ .. The two major accreditations that have been granted to Hill are from the following recognized institutes:
• International Online Education Accrediting Board (IOEAB)
Awarded the status of accreditation
• Organization for Online Learning Accreditation (OKOLA)
Awarded the status of accreditation .. ” (http://www.hilluniversity.com/Hill/online-degrees/accredited-degree.asp).
Here’s what The Consumers Guide to On-line Colleges has to say QUOTE: ..
Consumers Beware – NONE of these accrediting agencies are recognized as college accreditors in the U.S. by the Council on Higher Education Accreditation or the U.S. Department of Education. As such, colleges claiming “accreditation” by these agencies are not accepted as valid providers of online education or degrees and should be approached with great caution if online college credibility is important to you.
Remember — Most diploma mills and degree mills are accredited — but by fake or phony agencies that the degree mills themselves own and operate! . UNQUOTE (http://www.geteducated.com/diploma-mills-police/college-degree-mills/204-fake-agencies-for-college-accreditation) then goes on to list about 50, including the two mentioned by Hill “university”.
I pointed this out to John, the “Slayers” et al. on 8th Dec. but John still refuses, despite repeated requests to do so, to provide a copy of his law degree showing from where and when he obtained it. It puzzles me why he doesn’t settle this once and for all by simply putting his degree into the public domain, just as he did with his letter from the New York County Lawyers Association (http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/9557-canada-bar-association-rules-no-misconduct-by-tim-balls-legal-team see the first link in the “editor’s note”)
In that same E-mail I asked John QUOTE: .. At the same time perhaps you would also clear up the uncertainty about which of your “ .. work features in the ‘National Review,’ America’s most popular and influential magazine for Republican/conservative news. Among other internationally esteemed publications he has appeared in ‘China Daily,’ the Number One English portal in China, as well as ‘India Times,’ the prime source of business news in India .. ”. I recall asking some time ago about this but have had no direct response .. UNQUOTE.
Despite providing a long and detailed response about the hassle over his wife’s foster-child John stubbornly refuses to provide clarity over the issues covered in those last two paragraphs. These are arguably of more relevance regarding his leadership of the “Slayers” and PSI. In my opinion he owes it to the few remaining “Slayers” to remove any doubt about his claims otherwise suspicions will hang like a dark cloud over them all and over their dwindling association PSI.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
I wouldn’t have said John O’Sullivan was the teacher who stood trial in 2004 for sending obscene messages to a 16-y-o school girl, was acquitted for insufficient evidence, and then wrote a book telling how much he lusted over the young girl, unless I had PROOF he was the same John O’Sullivan.
That O’Sullivan now agrees is a nice surprise, since he so rarely admits the truth.
Hi Ken (Coffman), I see that you (along with Stephen Mosher and Kim) are doing your best to divert attention from the important issue here, the extent to which others can rely upon “Slayer” integrity. Let’s bring you in directly on one of those issues. At the 2010 Climate Fools Day gathering arranged by Sammy Wilson (the only British politician with the guts to speak out against this CACC nonsense) in a meeting room at Westminster PSI proudly presented the first “Ernst-Georg Beck Award for Scientific Integrity and Competence”.
You will recall that I pointed out in my E-mail to the “Slayer” et al. on 8th Dec. QUOTE: ..The award was heralded on numerous Web-sites across the globe, by e.g: ..
– Climate Realists with QUOTE: .. John O’Sullivan will inaugurate an annual scientific award: the “Ernst-Georg Beck Award for Scientific Integrity and Competence” (BASIC). .. A cheque for US$10,000.- will be presented to the first recipient of the Award, Mr Piers Corbyn .. The main donor is Ken Coffman .. (http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6536). .. UNQUOTE
I also poionted out that Piers Corbyn had recently told me that QUOTE: .. Last year’s “$10k” was in fact “$10k of which we are giving $9k to our own things and you can have $1k” .. It’s hard to imagine Ken Coffman, John or the other “Slayers” knowingly giving such a false impression to the general public globally .. After all, it is a bit unusual for an award to be made then the majority of it withheld by trhe donor – and that is the impression that your comment gives. UNQUOTE.
Would you like to explain to us all what Piers was talking about when implying that he only received $1,000 of that $10,000. Also, who won the award this year?
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete Ridley
Unlike you my only knowledge of the ‘slayers’ is from reading Postma’s papers and Claes Johnsons ideas expressed here and in his blog.
However its not hard to figure out answers to your questions.
1. They are a shoestring organisation, money from ‘big oil’ have they none.
2. The award to Piers Corbyn appears to be recycled money he was due anyway and in fact $1,000 was the only new money.
3. The presentation was an obvious publicity stunt to promote the idea that the greenhouse effect is science fiction.
4. Anyone who thinks joining the ‘slayers’ will bring financial reward is seriously deluded and they all realise that.
5. In contrast the real money goes to the IPCC promotion agencies. Example being the recent £150,000 award to skeptical science.
6. The hounding of John O’Sullivan and his family is sickening all sides in this debate.
If its money that motivates O’Sullivan (as you imply) then why does he not join the IPCC promoters?
Pete my question to you are;
1. Would you like to see the PS I project wound up and the work of Postma, Piers Corbyn, Claes Johnston and others left unpublished?
2. You seem to have a very personal antipathy to the ‘slayers’ which goes well beyond their ideas about the climate.
Perhaps you should tell us what really motives you?
Chris Ho Stuart on another thread says the real importance of the ‘slayers’ is their opinions on climate science.
He disagrees with the science (more that you) but keeps to the battle of ideas.
He expressed total contempt for the attacks made on personalities and their families associated with PSI.
I think Chris speaks for the vast majority of decent readers and posters on both sides of the debate.
What I like most about Bryan’s apologetics and rationalizations is that they’re so transparent.
To rationalize the fraud of the Sky Dragon Slayers’ public presentation of a $10,000 award to Corbyn, $9000 of which they allegedly secretly took back, Bryan tells us:
“The award to Piers Corbyn appears to be recycled money he was due anyway and in fact $1,000 was the only new money.”
So they didn’t commit fraud by taking back 90% of the reward money presented to Corbyn in their publicity stunt. No, they committed fraud by telling the public it was an award when it really was money “due” to him “anyway.”
Nice rationalization Bryan. You’ve got such a way with words.
Andrew Skolnick
Fraud is a word usually reserved for a financial deceit where the victim is unaware of what is going on.
In this case apparently nobody involved was in any doubt of the process involved.
If Pete’s account is correct what the transaction shows is an attempt to create a false impression in the public domain.
A bit like the IPCC proponents claiming a 33K greenhouse effect or Mann’s Hockey Stick.
Regrettable but it seems all too common in the climate debate.
Bryan again tries to redefine words to prove his point. Fraud means “Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.”
Soliciting contributions and promoting themselves and their group through such deception (if Peter’s allegations are correct) would clearly be fraud. Except to Bryan. Surprise surprise.
Andrew Skolnick
As I said;
“A bit like the IPCC proponents claiming a 33K greenhouse effect or Mann’s Hockey Stick.
Regrettable but it seems all too common in the climate debate.”
If you consider these to be examples of fraud then who am I to argue with you.
Both yourself and Pete seem incapable of taking on the slayers in an discussion of science.
So smears, personal attacks, attempts to derail the discussion to the level of gutter journalism fools no one.
A thin attempt at stifling free speech.
Pete’s accusation of PSI short changing Piers Corbyn is hilarious.
I get the impression that Piers is a smart cookie with a short temper.
He is about the last guy I would try to short change.
However Pete’s concern for poor Piers is laudable.
Bryan says, ” Pete’s accusation of PSI short changing Piers Corbyn is hilarious.I get the impression that Piers is a smart cookie with a short temper. He is about the last guy I would try to short change. However Pete’s concern for poor Piers is laudable.”
Bryan completely misrepresents what Ridley wrote. I guess readers here must be used to his misrepresentations by now.
Hi Bryan, as you acknowledge, your conception of the “Slayers” is through those papers you have read. Mine is through my close involvement with them as the grew from April 2010 and my research into each of them during my PSI & Due Diligence activities. My conclusion was that I did not wish to be associated with the “Slayers” as a group or with their unorthodox science publishing organisation Principia Scientific International (what a pretentious name for such an organisation and I speculate that it was dreamed up by its pretentious leader, John O’Sullivan.
It is because of your ignorance of the factas that for you “ .. its not hard to figure out answers to your questions .. ”. I respond to each of those answers.
“1. They are a shoestring organisation, money from ‘big oil’ have they none” and you have evidence to prove that, because even with my close dealings with them I certainly don’t and I’m sure that it isn’t mentioned in the articles (not “papers” as you call them) by Professor Johnson and Jo Postma.
“2. The award to Piers Corbyn appears to be recycled money he was due anyway and in fact $1,000 was the only new money” and again, you have the evidence, because I don’t..
“3. The presentation was an obvious publicity stunt to promote the idea that the greenhouse effect is science fiction”. That’s an opinion but mine (from a position of better knowledge of the “Slayers” and PSI, is that it was a publicity stunt purely and simply to promote PSI.
“4. Anyone who thinks joining the ‘slayers’ will bring financial reward is seriously deluded and they all realise that” is fair comment but were you aware that the “Slayers” have been appealing for charitable donations? Unless you’ve read more about the “Slayers” and PSI that those articles by Johnson and Postma you remain very ignorant about them.
“5. In contrast the real money goes to the IPCC promotion agencies. Example being the recent £150,000 award to skeptical science” has nothing whatsoever to do with the “Slayers” and PSI.
.
“6. The hounding of John O’Sullivan and his family is sickening all sides in this debate.
If its money that motivates O’Sullivan (as you imply) then why does he not join the IPCC promoters?” again stems from your ignorance. It is the “Slayers” who are being investigated and John is included in that investigation because he is their leader. His family are not being hounded by anyone that I know but unfortunately they are being exposed to scrutiny through John’s activities.
You ask “ .. Would you like to see the PS I project wound up .. ” but that again stems from your own ignorance. There is no need for another organisation in which papers that are sceptical of the CACC hypothesis. I put this point to the “Slayers” back in January during the “PSI & Due Diligence” exchanges with them. At that time the only justification given by John O’Sullivan for another such organisation was in order to take legal action against government agencies “ .. the only game in town .. ” as he put it in early Dec.
PSI is now simply another publishing organisation and an insignificant one at that. Unfortunately there may be some people around who are thinking of joining them and pay their subscription. Before doing so they need to be aware of what motivates the “Slayers” and what is PSI’s background. PSI’s promotional web-sites claim that transparency is very important for the organisation. I am providing as much transparency as I can because the “Slayers” declined to do so.
Before spouting off on a topic may I respectfully suggest that you learn as much as you can first. This thread is a good starting point but there are others.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Bryan (comment 14th Dec. at 2:01 pm) once again you demonstrate your ignorance of pertinent facts. Let’s look at your pronouncement that Andrew Skolnick picked up on “ .. The award to Piers Corbyn appears to be recycled money he was due anyway and in fact $1,000 was the only new money ..”. I’ve already asked you if you have the evidence and you offer none. Do you use facts before forming and expressing an opinion or do you just blurt out the first thing that comes into your head?
Here is the evidence that I have, provided to me by Piers Corbyn himself QUOTE:
From: Piers Corbyn
To: peter.ridley@talktalk.net
Sent: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 0:54
Subject: CFD 2011
Mr Ridley .. 2. Last year’s “$10k” was in fact “$10k of which we are giving $9k to our own things and you can have $1k” and note this was before the Slayer’s book in which I was not involved. Your remarks on this are nothing to do with CFD 2011.
PC
UNQUOTE.
My response QUOTE:
.. To: piers@weatheraction.com Sent: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 16:23 Subject: Re: CFD 2011
Hi Piers, .. You say of your receipt of the $10,000 “Ernst-Georg Beck Award for Scientific Integrity and Competence” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/oct/25/climate-fools-day-sceptics-parliament) that ” .. was before the Slayer’s book in which I was not involved .. “. You may not have been involved in the Slayers’ book but you were certainly involved in the “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mail exchanges in Dec/Jan. and in the recent “PSI & Politics” and “John O’Sullivan’s specious claims” exchanges in May, Sept and Oct. As you know, on 29 Sep John O’Sullivan stated that ” .. I can say that currently the most active/influential members of the Slayers team are Hans Schreuder, Alan Siddons, Joe Olson, Joe Postma, Dr Nasif Nahle, Dr Tim Ball, Dr Martin Hertzberg, Derek Alker, plus our publishers, Ken Coffman and Philip Foster .. Other highly valued contributors include .. Piers Corbyn .. “.
Not only that but you were also involved with John and the other Slayers back in July 2010 (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/co2isplantfood/message/279).
Are you, like Professor Claes Johnson, trying to dissociate yourself from the “Slayers”. I can understand why you might wish to do that but I expect that you, like Professor Johnson, are going to find it rather difficult. Are we not all judged by the company that we keep?
You should recall John saying on 2nd January that ” .. As a CIC we may, for example, give a loan or a grant to Piers Corbyn to advance both the science of long-range weather forecasting and help Piers expand a business that has boundless potential but which is much maligned by the advocates of junk science principles .. “. At present I am posting on Professor Judith Curry’s “Letter to the dragon slayers” thread (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/) my opinions on the motivations of the “Slayers”. It looks to me as though you too may have a financial motive. It also starts to make sense as to why you were the lucky recipient of that 2010 award.
BTW, perhaps you’d like to expand on your QUOTE: .. Last year’s “$10k” was in fact “$10k of which we are giving $9k to our own things and you can have $1k” .. UNQUOTE because I can find no mention of it using Google.
I see nothing in our E-mail exchanges that is to be kept private and confidential so propose to put the comment and our exchanges onto Professor Curry’s thread unless you get back to me straight away with a reasonable objection.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
UNQUOTE.
Piers Corbyn never responded to that E-mail so the questions remain, why did he imply that he only received 10% of that $10,000, what happened to the other 90% and who are the “we” that he was talking about???
In my E-mail and in the comment that I submitted to Piers Corbyn’s blog about the 2011 Climate Fools Day fiasco I was talking about the “Slayers” so I’m inclined to believe that he was too, including the source of the $10,000 (or was it $1000?) award.
The person here to whom on 13th Dec. I specifically addressed the question about that award “ .. The main donor is Ken Coffman .. ” should be able to resolve this uncertainty very quickly. Why is he being so coy about responding? He has been only too eager recently to try to shift the topic of this thread away from the “Slayers” to a discussion of other literary works. Is this another skeleton that the “Slayers” have locked away in their “Cupboard 55”? Come on Ken, come clean on this one just as John O’Sullivan came clean about his change of career from school-teacher to artist to author.
My comments here on 10th and 11th November talk about this so Bryan you must have missed (or chose to ignore) them. I have not come across anyone called Bryan during my exchanges with the “Slayers” so wonder why you are so keen to give them your support instead of being eager to find the facts behind this organisation. Are you really interested in relevant facts or are you actually a “Slayer” sock puppet?
I don’t suppose you are aware, even though the fact has been put into the public domain, that like me (but later) Professor Claes Johnson has dissociated himself from the “Slayers”. In exchanges with the ”Slayers” et al. John O’Sullivan declared to me on 26th Sept. “ .. Peter, .. your unsubstantiated claim ( in effect, a lie) about the Slayers being in decline is laughable and I can only assume to be an unfulfilled wish of yours and Dr. Curry’s .. ”.
That doesn’t square with the fact that as well as Professor Johnson, two more recent recruits also appear to have dissociated themselves from the “Slayers” and PSI, one of whom being among the 10 that John named in his E-mail of 29th Sep. as being the most “ .. active/influential members of the Slayers team .. ”.
In that continuing gofundme appeal by John O’Sullivan for charitable donations he claims that “ .. We are a group of 36 respected international scientists and related professionals ,, ” (http://www.gofundme.com/1v39s) while in September he appeared to be able to name at best 32 and now one of those has dissociated himself. That fits my definition of dwindling “ .. becoming gradually less .. ” (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dwindling) but I expect that you weren’t aware of those facts either and have your own interpretation of “dwindling”.
I await an apology from John for accusing me of lying about those dwindling numbers (but won’t hold my breath).
Of course, if I am shown to be wrong about any of what I say then I shall apologise where necessary. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
BTW, all this talk of money and fraud reminds me of the PSI & Due Diligence exchanges in Dec./Jan. Those words figure large, with the first mention being by John on 28th Dec. “ .. Thus $3,000 and less than 12 month’s work will win us this important victory and I strongly urge you and all our most influential scientists and advocates to back Principia Scientific International (launching January 2011) to win subscribers, build the necessary fighting find and finally nail these warmist fraudsters misappropriating tax payer monies ..”. After I raised my doubts about this John came back with “ .. I’ve staked my reputation, sweat and own money on beating the AGW fraud in the courts-its the only serious game in town. My legal associates and I are ready and waiting to take the battle on .. ”.
Bryan, you have an awful lot to learn.
Best Regards, Pete Ridley
Look what I just dug up a few minutes ago on the Helium.com web site. It’s one of the earliest bios of Slayer John I’ve found and it is certainly his most honest:
“J Daley O’Neal is 46 years old and for most of the year resides at Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, England. He is a graduate of the West Surrey College of Art & Design where he obtained a First Degree in Fine Art in 1983 and then subsequently completed his post-graduate studies qualifying as a high school teacher in 1985. He most notably won the WSCAD Creative Writing Award for Excellence for his Bachelor’s dissertation on James Joyce’s Ulysses.’
“For twenty years the author has taught in public schools and colleges throughout England. Since 1998 J Daley O’Neal has been married to a New Yorker, a legal advocate and the couple live between homes in New York and England. In 2004 Daley O’Neal successfully defended himself in a well-publicised criminal case. Since then he has assisted wife in her legal advocacy work in the American civil courts while pursuing his creative writing interests.
“O’Neal enjoys writing about unrequited love, the criminal justice system and dares to apply his literary talents to contentious hot topics such unlawful police practices, sexual harassment and paedophilia.”
http://www.helium.com/users/208604
Glaringly absent from his bio is any claim of a law degree or practice of law. Note especially his admission of earning “a First Degree in Fine Art” from the West Surrey College of Art & Design in 1983 — which is the time he now claims he earned a law degree from the University of Surrey.
All of this is exactly what I have been reporting. I am grateful that Mr. O’Sullivan agrees — back in June 2007.
Andrew Skolnick
Who is this J Daley O’Neal?
This guy: http://www.myspace.com/mrdarrk
and this: http://www.writers.net/writers/54740
Him as well: http://john-o-sullivan.suite101.com/
Andrew Skolnick
Its indeed a strange world where folk with genuine scientific qualifications and credibility like Postma, Peirs Corbyn and Claes Johnson seem to need a front man without any formal scientific training and who requires name changing from time to time.
Al Gore, Chris Huhne, Lord Monckton and Lord Lawson have set a pattern here.
C P Snows “Two Cultures” perhaps explains why scientists generally are sidelined
O’Sullivan seems to be a bit like yourself and indeed makes similar accusations about you.
Its hard for the onlooker to form any judgement since I guess both of you can make it up as you go along .
Yet both of you have ended up on opposite sides of the climate debate!
Its interesting to speculate why, because neither of you have the training to form an opinion based on the science.
Perhaps you think that the IPCC drawing on international support from the statutory bodies is the best bet.
Most of the time you would be correct but not always.
Did you happen to see the film called “The Inside Job narrated by Matt Damon”?
It explains why all the worlds legislators, banks, regulators, rating agencies and virtually all the Professors of Economics got it spectacularly wrong.
Consensus Science also advocated eugenics at one time.
On the question of AGW a number of scientists (particularly physicists) have serious doubts.
I find I agree with the scepticism and pursue the evidence to see where it leads.
If IPCC science proves more rational then I will no longer be an AGW sceptic.
Why O’ Sullivan/O’Neal is a sceptic is also a mystery it cant be for the money since there is much more dosh punting the IPCC case.
Hi Bryan, I repeat, you have an awful lot to learn. For goodness sake take off your blinkers and look at the facts about the “Slayers” as presented. Haven’t you spotted the connection between money, scepticism, legal action, ” . the only game in town .. “?
A career as an out-of-work supply teacher or a retired geographer, chemist, preacher or urban designer would be considered by many as being rather less lucrative than being e.g:
– the Chairman, CEO, CFO or Compliance Officer of a large and successful international science/publishing organisation,
– a.successful Lawyer.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete Ridley says
“Haven’t you spotted the connection between money, scepticism, legal action, ” . the only game in town .. “?
“Chairman, CEO, CFO or Compliance Officer of a large and successful international science/publishing organisation,”
.
“Money”? …….what money! your evidence shows about the Piers Corbyn prize claw-back shows there is very little of that.
“scepticism “? …….why not!
“legal action” ….. I don’t see any of that directly involving PSI
“Chairman, CEO, CFO or Compliance Officer of a large and successful international science/publishing organisation and a successful Lawyer.”
You do have a sense of humour after all!
Bryan, says, “O’Sullivan seems to be a bit like yourself [Andrew Skolnick] and indeed makes similar accusations about you. Its hard for the onlooker to form any judgement since I guess both of you can make it up as you go along.”
It’s clear Bryan is a blind idiot. It’s a shame he’s not also mute.
I wonder if the idiot would care to back up his defamatory assertion that my resume is full of bogus credentials. I’ll make it easy for the mendacious maroon: If he can name even ONE credential in my resume that’s false, I’ll stop calling him a shamefully dishonest scoundrel.
And he might not have to join John O’Sullivan behind the defense table in court.
Hi again Bryan (your comment 15th Dec. at 1:43 pm) don’t you think it’s time that you stopped feigning stupidity. I have a sense of humour but in my opinion there is nothing funny about the “Slayers” and their ambitions (which are far removed from reality).
As for your QUOTE: .. “legal action” ….. I don’t see any of that directly involving PSI .. UNQUOTE, again you appear to pour forth nonsense from a position of ignorance. You obviously haven’t read the “PSI & Due Diligence” exchanges that I have placed in the public domain. If you wish to read “Slayer” comments detailing their plans for taking legal action against government agencies using PSI for protective cover then give me an E-mail address and I’ll send you a copy of the main E-mails that were exchanged during Dec./Jan. In the spirit of transparency that is declared as being so important to PSI I tried to persuade the ”Slayers” to make these E-mails available on their web-site but they do not seem to want any such transparency.
Were you silly enough to buy the hodge-podge collection of “Slayer” articles that were hurriedly cobbled together during April to October 2010 and published as what John O’Sullivan claimed to be “ .. In an unprecedented achievement 24 international experts (over 2 volumes) have worked tirelessly to compose the definitive masterpiece of skeptical science. .. ”. If so then you can find an outline in Chapter 21 “Legal Fallout from False Climate Alarm” of John’s ambitious plans for PSI when he appealed for charitable donations in January (http://www.gofundme.com/1v39s). Following the glaring failure of that ludicrous appeal John’s equally ludicrous plan would seem now to have been scrapped, his ambitions dashed.
Of course there are other ways of raising money, like forming an association (http://principia-scientific.org/) and inviting others to subscribe to it. “ .. We welcome membership requests from non-science professionals who have a particular interest or working relationship to science and support the concept of non-politicized scientific endeavor. .. To achieve our goals it is essential for us to seek to form a large, international subscriber-based association .. ” and “ .. we will need to generate surpluses to support all our activities, maintain our vital assets, deliver our promised contribution to the community and in some cases make a limited return to investors .. ” and “ .. Benefiting the community is what PSI is all about .. ” but which community?
The sentiments expressed in those PSI promotional pages are very similar to the ones expressed during Dec./Jan. in those “PSI & Due Diligence” exchanges, with talk of raising money from those already involved starting very early on. After pursuing my due diligence activities and having detailed discussions about my reservations I conclude that the best course of action for me was to dissociate myself from the “slayers” and their PSI. Since then several of the “Slayers” have made the same decision, including two of the “ .. Founding Members .. ” Professor Claes Johnson and another whose name I cannot disclose because of confidentiality.
As the PSI promotional pages acknowledge “ .. no one disputes that science, like any profession is as likely to be prone to human failings leading to corruption, misconduct and criminality .. ”.
Wise up Bryan.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete Ridley
James Randi, a profession trickster had a very poor opinion of scientists.
He thought that because they followed rigid train track like logic the could not spot an easy con.
The major con artists push the AGW line.
Prestige fools the gullible like yourself.
The AGW theory is unsound.
The professional scientists supporting PSI know this.
Its not from financial gain that they oppose the consensus.
I personally think that Postma has made a positive contribution to the climate debate.
You have not dared to question his conclusions.
I think that this speaks volumes.
Nowhere in all the threads concerning the slayers will you find anyone quoting John O Sullivan as an authority.
He seems to be a front man like Al Gore.
You are preoccupied by personalities rather than science.
I guess you are fan of X Factor as well.
Bryan, I’m not going to waste any more time responding to your nonsense. If you are happy in your ignorance then so be it. From what you have said here you have not read “Slaying the Sky Dragon”. Don’t waste any of your hard-earned (I assume) money buying it because it is a cobbled collection of articles behind a very tacky cover (I suspect designed by John O’Sullivan) offering unorthodox scientific opinions.
You prefer to keep your blinkers firmly in place but others will benefit from carefully considering the facts about the “Slayers”, their motives and their publishing company PSI.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
John O’Sullivan was lying through his teeth when he published an article on Nov. 10 claiming, “The Law Society of British Columbia (LSBC) has now ruled that green activist Andrew Skolnick’s official complaint concerning Dr. Tim Ball’s libel attorney, Michael Scherr and science writer, John O’Sullivan, was baseless.”
I finally received a written statement from the Law Society of British Columbia’s Staff Counsel for Unauthorized Practice clearly stating that John O’Sullivan was not cleared of unlawful conduct — as the humbug claims in the article. Here is the letter:
http://www.aaskolnick.com/global_deniers/LSBC_2011-12-13-letter-Skolnick.pdf
When I’m informed of the results of the investigation, I will report it here.
If anyone thinks the Sky Dragon Slayer’s “company” Principia Scientific International is anything more than a facade should look at its “Upcoming Events” page:
Annual PSI Conference scheduled for London, England
First Annual PSI Conference set to take place in London, England, October 2011. Delegates from 12 countries expected to attend three-day event. Further details to be posted.
http://principia-scientific.org/component/content/article/48-upcoming-events/101-second-annual-psi-conference-set-to-take-place-in-boston-mass
It’s a shame how everybody missed it.
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/9691-desperate-climate-campaigner-sinks-to-criminality-to-smear-skeptics
Really? Were you a “sword for truth,” you wouldn’t be promoting a link to malicious libel. All but one of the web sites that republished John O’Sullivan’s malicious rant I contacted immediately removed it. (The administrator of the one that didn’t dared me to come to New Zealand to sue him. I’m certainly not going, but I will add his name to the libel suit.)
Lucia Liljegren created a webpage on her Rankexploits.com site that pokes fun at O’Sullivan’s ridiculous claim that I’m responsible for making web pages appear different when viewed with different web browsers:
http://rankexploits.com/protect/2011/12/not-proof-of-photoshopping/#comment-17
I don’t agree with Lucia that O’Sullivan is that stupid. Malevolent and mendacious, yes, that stupid no. I think he’s deliberately trying to use the difference in how web browsers view pages as “evidence” for his malicious charge that I’ve committed identity theft and other crimes.
So naturally I thanked O’Sullivan for handing me another great exhibit for the libel suit I’m preparing against him. And then sent warnings to web sites administrators clueless enough or malicious enough to republish O’Sullivan’s crackpot rant.
I just sent one to the administrators of climatechangedispatch.com. saying:
“Thomas Neveu and Thomas Richard, you and/or your employees have committed libel by republishing on Climate Change Dispatch an article written by John O’Sullivan that is full of defamatory statements he published with malicious intent to damage my reputation.
“You have aggravated this injury with a defamatory headline falsely accusing me of ‘Criminality.’
“Unless you immediately remove these and all other statements that maliciously defame me from your web site, your name will be added as co-defendant in the libel suit I’m preparing against Mr. O’Sullivan.
“This will be the only warning.
“Andrew Skolnick”
The last time someone sued Mr. Neveu, he was able to get a stay, in order to have a competency hearing and psychiatric evaluation, after which the plaintiff agreed to dismiss their suit against him, due to health concerns for Mr. Neveu: http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/nevada/nvdce/2:2010cv01674/76457/36/
I won’t be as easily suckered.
Climatechangedispatch.com’s administrators promptly removed O’Sullivans outrageously libelous article, for which I thank them. Their commendable response is evidence that they take their responsibilities to the public seriously.
Hi Andrew, your mention of Thomas Neveu reminded me of a comment that John made in an E-mail on 29th Sept. addressed to me and Ccd to the “Slayers” (including some of those who have now dissociated themselves from the group and from PSI), Professors Curry and Petty, et. al.
I had raised the fact that his silence over your request for him to disclose which cases he had successfully litigated on could be taken as admitting that he hadn’t had any success. His response was ” .. Skolnick has gone on to demand that I provide him with a list of cases and former clients to verify that I have litigated for 13 years at all levels of the New York State court system and the Federal Second Circuit. Naturally, I declined to do so because of client confidentiality and the fear that Skolnick intended to misuse such information to inflict injury on my reputation. However, as an indication of the truthfulness of my position one such client, Thomas Neveu, will gladly vouch for me.
I recently achieved for Mr. Neveu the favorable outcome he sought in a vexatious and potentially extremely costly copyright infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court, Nevada. All claims against Mr. Neveu were withdrawn (with prejudice) last week. See here:
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/nevada/nvdce/2:2010cv01674/76457/
For further verification Mr. Neveu can be contacted at this address: tom_neveu@comcast.net and is now added to this c.c. list .. “.
Once again what John claims appears to contradict the evidence that you make available although that court decision to “stay” for 6 months expired on 18th Sept. Do you have a link to anything that substantiates your claim that “ .. after which the plaintiff agreed to dismiss their suit against him, due to health concerns for Mr. Neveu .. ”.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Peter, here: http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/nevada/nvdce/2:2010cv01674/76457/42/
Hi Andrew, thanks for that link. As you claimed, the decision in that case dated 23rd September 2011 was “ .. WHEREAS. the parties have concluded that the continuation of this action may adversely impact Mr Neveu’s health and welfare and that it is in the best interests of the parties to resolve this matter .. IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED THAT .. the Complaint .. by Righthaven .. and the Couterclaim shall both be voluntarily dismissed .. each party to bear their own respective attorneys fees and costs .. ”.
That decision does substantiate John O’Sullivan’s claim in that E-mail on 29th Sept. (at 9:42 NOT TO BE SENT) that he “ .. recently achieved for Mr. Neveu the favorable outcome he sought in a vexatious and potentially extremely costly copyright infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court, Nevada. All claims against Mr. Neveu were withdrawn (with prejudice) last week .. ” if one considers such an outcome “favourable”, which of course is down to Mr Neveu to confirm. I’m happy to accept that he consideres it so but am surprised that John does.
It appears to me that Righthaven LLC, the complainant, had taken out numerous copyright infringement cases (e.g. see in which the courts found in favour of the defendants “ .. A website that lists the victims of Righthaven LLC ‘shakedown’ lawsuits that are causing irreparable harm to bloggers and advocacy websites. Righthaven LLC — a bottom feeding legal outfit — has teamed up with the Las Vegas Review-Journal and Denver Post to sue mom and pop websites, advocacy and public interest groups and forum board operators for copyright infringement. The strategy of Righthaven is to sue thousands of these website owners, who are primarily unfunded and will be forced to settle out of court. To date Righthaven has been ordered to pay $225,172.15 in legal fees and sanctions .. ”.
One law practice is preparing a class action against Righthaven LLC (http://righthavenlawsuits.com/ and http://bloglawblog.com/blog/?p=3404) and the information on those pages suggests to me that US courts ruled against numerous Righthaven claims. On that basis I would not expect any qualified lawyer who has been “ .. litigating for over a decade in the New York State courts and U.S. Federal 2nd Circuit .. ” to consider that outcome for Neveu to be a success. Even though the case was not “lost” it was not “won” either.
In Feb. 2010 John claimed “ .. I am a legal advocate, totally unpaid in relation to fighting these climate criminals. I have litigated against government corruption for over a decade in the U.S. federal Court Second Circuit as well as the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Appeal Court and Division of Human Rights. I have insight plus I still haven’t lost a case .. ” (http://www.climategate.com/how-i-now-debate-a-climate-fraud-denier , http://evil-klown.blogspot.com/2010/02/how-i-now-debate-climate-fraud-denier.html etc. etc. http://commonsensewonder.blogspot.com/2010/02/how-to-debate-climate-fraud-denier.html NOT TO BE SENT). I would expect a lawyer to base his claims to being successful on the number of cases won.
As I recall John says that he studied law at Sussex University. I too studied law, at Carlton University, Ottawa, Canda in 1973/4 and at Newcastle Polytechnic, England in 1977-8 (along with financial and management accounting and other business management subjects). I also litigated “successfully” from 1984 to 1991 in cases ranging from divorce, industrial; relations and conveyancing, however, I never considered myself to be a lawyer, or an accountant. I expect that I could apply for a PhD from Hill University (http://www.hilluniversity.com/) and as long as I paid the $499 it should be with me before the end of this year.
Perhaps I could then consider adding the claim to my LinkedIn profile (http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=67775605&locale=en_US&trk=tab_pro) that I have successfully “ .. litigated for almost a decade in the UK courts .. ”. Also, since I’ve been blogging about the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) hypothesis since March 2007 I may be justified in claiming “ .. Ridley has published over 500 major articles worldwide .. ”. Even more impressive I could claim to have had a successful career as a researcher and lecturer in automation at the School of Mechanical Manufacturing & Medical Engineering, Queensland (http://www.dspaceinc.com/shared/data/pdf/applex/a1_the_worlds_largest_industrial_robot.pdf)
But no, that would leave me open to reasonable accusations of lying about my achievements, which would totally destroy my credibility and I wouldn’t want that.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Oh, that’s hilarious! Thanks Pete for bringing this whopper to our attention:
“I am a legal advocate, totally unpaid in relation to fighting these climate criminals. I have litigated against government corruption for over a decade in the U.S. federal Court Second Circuit as well as the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Appeal Court and Division of Human Rights. I have insight plus I still haven’t lost a case.”
Oh yeah, humbug? How about explaining to Pete, me, and the rest of us how you lost this one – and then we’ll move on to the rest.
Barbara Bracci-O’Sullivan and John O’Sullivan
vs. the State of New York
Defendant’s attorney: Hon. Andrew M. Cuomo
Attorney General of the State of New York
By: Michael C. Rizzo
Assistant Attorney General
The plaintiff’s claim was dismissed by Judge James H. Ferreira on September 30, 2009 as shown in the court document:
http://vertumnus.courts.state.ny.us/claims/html/OSullivan.2009-039-142.html
“Still haven’t lost a case,” O’Sullivan? Man, you are truly the king of whoppers.
And then there was this loss in court that sent John O’Sullivan postal:
http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/ad3/Decisions/2009/506150.pdf
In response to the legal defeat he launched a letter writing and blogging campaign to attack the deciding judge as Gov. Patterson’s “corrupt puppet” and “lesbian scum.”
Hard to understand why a “lawyer,” who never ever lost a case, would go crazy posting scores of hateful diatribes attacking the judges and public officials of New York State all over the Internet — like this one on a Daily News blog:
http://personals.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2009/07/weekend-open-thread-24.html
Let’s just look at one line the humbug wrote:
“Just two weeks before the new hearing, from nowhere Governor Paterson puts a new justice in charge, lesbian Elizabeth A. Garry, of Chenango County. Sure enough, Paterson’s puppet illegally downgraded my wife’s Article 78 hearing into an ordinary appeal and on May 14, 2009 the case was thrown out.”
The case was thrown out?! Call me crazy, but I’m think John O’Sullivan is complaining about loosing a case.
Peter, Slayer John O’Sullivan lately claims he earned law degree from University of Surrey, not Sussex.
However, last May, the humbug told a LinkedIn discussion group that he earned it at University College, Cork. And in October he told the New York County Lawyers’ Association that he earned his law degree last year from “Hill University” — which is a bogus, online diploma mill that sells people any degree in any field they want with a “Promised Free Delivery in Just 15 Days!”
I stand corrected Andrew. John claims that ” .. Post graduate teacher training completed at Sussex University 1984-5 .. ” (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/john-o-sullivan/19/6b4/84a)
May I take this opportunity of wishing you all a very happy and healthy 2012.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
And then there was this appeal decision against O’Sullivan and his wife confirming the lower court’s dismissal and ordering them to pay court costs:
http://ny.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20000727_0049028.ny.htm/qx
I may indeed be crazy, but I’d count this as another of O’Sullivan’s lost suits.
While the above is quite a bit humorous, if you want a real good laugh, this should satisfy you. The Sky Dragon Slayer leader has entered himself in “The O’Sullivan Hall of Fame.” Be careful you don’t wet yourself laughing: http://www.osullivanclan.com/halloffamegalleryiv.html
I have just posted a suggestion on the O’Sullivan Clan blog that they reconsider John’s position on their Hall of Fame (http://osullivanclan.wordpress.com/2010/03/20/nominating-a-hall-of-famer/#comment-105). If you want to see it you’d better hurry because they have repeatedly removed my comments on the subject from their Discussion Board (http://osullivanclan.wordpress.com/2010/03/20/hello-world/).
Best regards, Pete Ridley
The thrust of what I and the “Slayers” are saying could be summarized as follows …
We don’t have to wait for the climate in the next few years to tell us who’s right and who’s wrong. Physics all along has been telling us. The warmists just don’t understand physics.
The most glaring mistake they make is in saying the atmosphere has warmed the surface (like a blanket) from -18C to +15C. The first figure is a theoretical temperature (call it small t) which is only related to the intensity of radiation via the S-B law which only relates to perfect blackbodies. Such blackbodies are usually other bodies in space which are perfectly insulated by space so there is no heat loss by conduction. In contrast the Earth’s surface is continually losing heat to the first millimetre of the atmosphere by diffusion (see Wikipedia “Heat Transfer” second paragraph) and also into the depths of the Earth’s crust or the oceans. So there is less energy left to radiate.
The actual temperature (call it capital T) is a totally different entity without direction for a start. So you cannot just subtract and get T – t = 33 deg.C, because t is not a real temperature. Without carbon dioxide and its colleagues, thermal energy would still diffuse from the surface into the atmosphere, greatly reducing the radiation, as it does. In fact the net radiation from the surface is probably less than 25 W/m^2, so what value of little t would that give you? Very cold I assure you.
This is why an IR thermometer cannot calculate temperature by measuring the intensity of the radiation and using S-B law. It can only do so by measuring the frequency and using Wien’s Displacement Law which says absolute temperature is proportional to the peak frequency.
So, given the major fallacy in the warmists “science” when they calculated and widely promulgated that 33 degree “difference” between apples and oranges, what confidence could we possibly have in any other deductions of theirs? They are also wrong in assuming radiation from a cold atmosphere can warm an already much warmer surface.
The atmosphere cools the Earth by reducing the amount of incident solar radiation which gets through. Hop out of a spacecraft and see how hot you feel in the sun’s rays. But radiation “temperature” is a very different thing from ambient temperature, both in space and, for example, at the top of a high mountain where the Sun’s rays might feel like 40C but the actual temperature of the air might be -15C.
It is important to remember that a measure of radiation is a measure of energy (Watts) transferred through a unit cross section (one square metre) and it is thus a vector with both magnitude and direction, nothing like a temperature. The only “connection” with temperature can be made if a true blackbody is emitting it, and that body is not also losing thermal energy by conduction, diffusion, convection, evaporation or any other means. If it does lose energy in such ways then, at the very least, you would need much more information before making any inferences about its temperature.
Yes, the whole Earth plus atmosphere system looks like a blackbody from outer space and some average radiating temperature could be calculated by remembering that it is a spinning sphere, not a flat disk as warmists treat it as being. But whatever temperature is calculated is merely an average temperature somewhere in the atmosphere.
Pete Ridley; Your reference to the net flux shows a lack of understanding of what Prof Claes Johnson proved in “Computational Blackbody Radiation.”
You cannot explain by your hypothesis why there is no experimental evidence of any backradiation actually warming anything, or even melting frost on the ground when it is shaded from the Sun all day. Nor can you explain with your hypothesis why a warmer gas does not absorb radiation from a cooler emitter, as shown by spectroscopy. Go and read my radiation page http://climate-change-theory.com to see what really happens and why your hypothesis is incorrect.
It is not a matter of counting scientists.
What matters is who is applying correct physics, mathematics or whatever, Nothing else matters.
It is incorrect physics to treat the Earth’s surface as if it were radiating as a blackbody in space would do. The surface is not insulated from its surrounds, namely the atmosphere and sub-surface crust, deep ocean waters etc.
Hence it is incorrect physics to apply Stefan-Boltzmann calculations to the surface as is done in the development of the AGW hypothesis.
Hence the AGW hypothesis is not grounded in correct physics. Need I make the final statement?
Hi Doug, thanks for your attempt to explain your hypothesis about why the estimated mean temperature of the earth is what it is (and differs from that on other bodies in space, such as the moon). I’m not a scientist but neither are you as far as I can ascertain.
I had a look at your article “How the IPCC got it wrong: Why the “Greenhouse Effect” is physically impossible” (http://climate-change-theory.com/) and am puzzled as to why you declared at the start “see this article first ” and linked to “That Bogus Greenhouse Gas Whatchamacallit Effect” by John O’Sullivan.
John O’Sullivan is no more a scientists than I am although he does seem to think that associating himself with others who have some understanding of some aspects of science and engineering makes him some kind of expert. Several of his fellow-“slayers” are no more scientists than you or I. He’s even fooled the O’Sullivan Clan blog administrator Gary Sullivan into thinking that “The world’s leading global warming theory debunker is an O’Sullivan” (http://www.osullivanclan.com/halloffamegalleryiv.html). I became aware of that ludicrous entry (see my comment of 15th November http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-138807) and I have repeatedly pointed out to Gary that he should reconsider whether or not John has earned a place alongside such respected O’Sullivans as the John O’Sullivan two entries above John the “slayer”.
Since you appear to have so much faith in John and his “Slayers” I have to wondered if I should spend time considering your arguments. In that article of John’s that you link to he quotes the following statement made by Latour “ .. solar radiation t is rather hot, about 120°C .. ”. As a retired electrical, radio and electronics engineer that statement leaves me stone cold (pardon the pun). During my years of designing telecommunications systems, including those involving the transmission and reception (emission and absorption) of electromagnetic radiation (radio waves) I never encountered the concept of e/m radiation having a temperature – “energy/power”, yes, “direction” yes, “polarisation” yes, but “temperature” – no.
You appear to have only “ .. B.Sc (Physics), B.A.(Econ), Dip.Bus.Admin.. ” (http://earth-climate.com/) yet give the impression of considering yourself to be more knowledgeable about physics and the impact of CO2 and other IR absorbing gases on the temperature of the earth/atmosphere system than are physicists who are better qualified than you and specialise in climate physics. For example there is atmospheric physicist Professor Grant Petty, Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison and author of the excellent text book “A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation” (http://www.sundogpublishing.com/AtmosRad/Excerpts/index.html). Professor Petty participated in numerous E-mail exchanges with the “Slayers” during the final quarter of 2011 trying to enlighten them on the physics of atmospheric radiation. I am more inclined to heed the arguments of a recognised specialist like Professor Petty than yours and even less inclined to heed the arguments of John O’Sullivan and his few remaining “Slayers”.
Never mind, you declare that “ .. The Physicists are right .. ” and you have clearly studied some physics at some stage so can no doubt explain how an e/m wave can have a temperature. I expect that at least some of the staff in the Physics Department of the University of Tennessee at Knoxville are knowledgeable about physics and they state that “ .. Temperature is a measure of the random motion (or energy) of a group of particles .. ” (http://electron9.phys.utk.edu/phys136d/modules/m2/temperature.htm), which is just what I learnt when I studied physics those many many years ago. Something else that I learnt is that e/m waves travel through a vacuum, which perhaps explains how we receive energy from the Sun (or do you disagree with that too?). If that physics is correct then I puzzle over how e/m waves can be considered to have a temperature (that’s the waves themselves, not the material from which they are emitted or into which they are absorbed).
It appears to me from what I have read of your articles and comments that you will fully understand the point that I am making about e/m radiation and temperature. If you can spare the time away from your scientific research perhaps you’d be so kind as to explain why you made no criticism of the Latour/O’Sullivan argument.
Your first comment leads me to think that you fully support the “Slayers”. If so then I have to assume that you have not read their “Slaying the Sky Dragon”, or at least not very critically. In your article “Why the “Greenhouse Effect” is physically impossible” (http://climate-change-theory.com/) you mention Professors Claes Johnson and Nasif Nahl but are you aware that they, like others, have now dissociated themselves from “the Slayers”?
You make use of the good old vacuum flask to help explain your argument and it is interesting that “Slayer” group co-founder Hans Schreuder does that a lot in his contribution to “Slaying the Sky Dragon”. For example in Chapter 13 he tells us that “ .. The insulation of the vacuum of space in which earth and its atmosphere finds itself acts like the most perfect insulator, just like the vacuum flask. .. ” (see Page 196 – USA version). I could spend ages pointing out what I see as flaws in the arguments that he and other “slayers” present but to be honest, I simply can’t be bothered. I have notebook full of them. Here’s a hint – that shiny surface of the vacuum flask.
I may come back to you on the points that you make but let me leave you with this. I have no disagreement that all that a vacuum flask does is reduce the rate of cooling of its hot contents, but the vacuum flask does not normally have energy flowing into it, does it. If it had what do you think would happen to the temperature of the contents?
It seems to me that most of the “Slayers” cannot think beyond heat transfer and consider heat to be the only form of energy that needs to be taken into consideration. Maybe I am not the only one of us here who “ .. shows a lack of understanding .. ”.
I do agree with you on one thing, “ .. What matters is who is applying correct physics, mathematics or whatever, Nothing else matters .. ”. The difficulty for thee and me is to decide who is achieving this.
BTW, can you provide a link to any of your physics papers (not articles or comments on blogs but peer-reviewed papers in respected scientific journals)?
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete Ridley
I have a degree in physics plus a further 45 years’ experience in tutoring it and additional study. I think that is quite enough to judge whether someone’s application of Stefan’s-Boltzmann’s Law is correct or not. The IPCC’s application of it to determine that -18 deg.C figure is totally incorrect because the Earth’s surface is nothing like insulated – a basic requirement for a blackbody.
Claes Johnson (one of the Slayers) is a well-published Professor of Applied Mathematics (in which I also majored) – a subject closely related to physics. I find no fault with his “Computational Blackbody Radiation.” My guess is that you haven’t understood it. His calculations and conclusions are line with standard physics, whereas the IPCC assumption that backradiation can warm the surface is contrary to physics.
When you can show me an experiment which proves there is backradiation which is warming things – like a metal plate or whatever, then we can take up this discussion.
Otherwise, your stand is contrary to physics and unproven.
Repected “peer reviewed jounrnals” in climate science? Cast your eyes beyond entitlement.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/01/30/1000-scientists-and-counting-boycott-elsevier-journal-publishing/
Maybe you, are here to create,“ .. a lack of understanding .. ”. We expect more of you than that.
“more knowledgeable about physics and the impact of CO2 and other IR absorbing gases on the temperature of the earth/atmosphere system than are physicists who are better qualified than you and specialise in climate physics.”
We have been hoodwinked by climate scientists whose expertise, is no more than an appeal to authority. It is a lazy, incorrect, path of reasoning.
You ask one of them this simple question.
How does Physics model greenhouses, when it hotter on the outside?
They cannot answer that very simple question Sir, it is from a child………
Hi Doug, first may I congratulate you on your 45 years as a teacher/tutor of physics. I hope that you have enjoyed the experience as much as I enjoyed my 41 tears as a Chartered Engineer designing computer/telecontrol/telecommunications systems. I note that you overlooked my request that you provide a link to any of your physics papers (not articles or comments on blogs but peer-reviewed papers in respected scientific journals) so I speculate that you have none.
Although we have no disagreement about Professor Claes Johnson’s status as a mathematician you appear to have missed his comment here on 15th October “ .. I am not a member of any group subject to group thinking, in particular not the slayers group .. ”. Professor Johnson seemed to consider that his way and the way of the Slayer is not the same and did not see himself as a Slayer and he should know. You were not a party to any of the numerous E-mail exchanges since Dec. 2010 involving not only the Slayers but also Professors Johnson, Curry and Petty and other well qualified individuals (see my comment here on 21st October – http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-125570). This included another physics teacher, award-winning Roger Taguchi, now retired after many decades of successfully educating Canadian students.
If you’d like to improve your understanding of radiative physics then I can send you a copy of my Word documents with those E-mail exchanges that have taken place on “Back Radiation” and “The Greenhouse Effect” but I warn you that there are about 100 pages. (I prepared a sanitised copy for Professor Jef Reynen, who John had hoped to get to join his dwindling group of “Slayers” in October). Perhaps you’d be better off getting a copy of Professor Petty’s “A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation” (http://www.sundogpublishing.com/AtmosRad/Excerpts/index.html) just to get you up to speed.
On the other hand, if you consider yourself a bit of an expert on the transfer of energy by e/m radiation perhaps you can give me a convincing answer to the question I posed in paragraph 5 of my comment on 21st October. None of the “Slayers” has done so.
You concluded with “ .. Otherwise, your stand is contrary to physics and unproven .. “ but what “stand” are you referring to? You seem to think that I argue somewhere that back radiation from greenhouse gases towards the earth directly heats the earth. I have never said this and if I have given that impression then let me make it quite clear that I believe that it is the sun that heats the earth through its emission of e/m radiation, some of which is absorbed by the geo-system of atmos/aqua/geo/cryo/bio-spheres. I do not accept the IPCC’s simple model which proposes what “Slayer” Hans Schreuder likes to call a perpetuum mobile.
Hi James, although most of your comment made little sense to me I will respond to your “ .. We have been hoodwinked by climate scientists whose expertise, is no more than an appeal to authority. .. ”. I can’t speak for you but think that it is not “we” but others, like some of our politicians, who have been hoodwinked – not by an appeal to authority but by an appeal to those crystal-ball computer models. Along with that is the invocation of a totally unjustified positive feedback effect that if it existed would have brought catastrophe upon life on earth as we know it long before now. I don’t believe that many of those who push the UN’s Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) propaganda actually believe it – they have other agenda than taking over Mother Nature’s job of controlling the different global climates. Promoting CACC is just a means to an end, but that’s an entirely different debate from what this thread was set up for – looking at “Letter(s) to the Dragon Slayers” and I have hundreds of those.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Peter, “we” are mankind.
Pete Ridley and others
Firstly, I refer you to my backyard experiment at the foot of the Radiation page at my site.
Regarding your questions about transfer of energy by radiation. If you read Johnson’s Computational Blackbody Radiation you will see that he explains that radiated energy is only transformed to thermal energy in a receiving body if the peak frequency of the emitted radiation is (significantly) above the peak frequency of the receiving body. The latter Johnson calls a cut-off frequency.
This explains why solar radiated energy is transformed to thermal energy, but radiation from a cooler atmosphere is merely scattered by a (significantly) warmer surface and thus sooner or later finds its way to space without warming that surface or slowing its rate of cooling. I tested this empirically and found no conflicting evidence. I add the word ‘significantly’ because there can be some small overlap of the plots of frequencies, although these are strongly attenuated around the peak frequency.
Your experiments with radio waves are different because the receiver adds energy and is merely seeking resonance and, in effect, reading frequency and intensity. This does not mean that the actual radiated energy is being converted to thermal energy by a warmer body.
And Peter, I am quite familiar with Radiative Transfer Theory. Moreover, I understand the prerequisites. You have not addressed the issue I raised, namely “the Earth’s surface is nothing like insulated” and thus acts nothing like a true blackbody. True or false? If false, then that 33 degrees is false.
Correction: Obviously I should have said if the statement that the Earth’s surface acts nothing like a true blackbody is true then that 33 degrees is false.
Let’s consider the physics to see if Prof. Claes Johnson is right in his Computational Blackbody Radiation…
Suppose you somehow placed a small metal marble-sized ball inside a hollow soccer ball-sized metal sphere and then sucked all air out to form a vacuum inside. Now, let’s assume the small ball was a few degrees hotter than the surrounding sphere. Further assume that the outer sphere is large enough so that there is much more radiative flux coming from it than from the smaller ball. This would be due to its greater surface area which would more than compensate for its cooler temperature.
So, we have a net radiative flux going from the cooler sphere to the warmer small ball inside it.
Will the small ball start to get warmer or start to cool?
Physics says that the flow of thermal energy can only be from hot to cold. But we have net radiative flux going from cold to hot. Hence the small ball must be rejecting (scattering and reflecting) the cooler radiation from the larger sphere. The large sphere will however absorb and convert to thermal energy the warmer radiation from the small ball. They each “detect” the temperature of the other because they detect the peak frequency and that frequency is proportional to the absolute temperature – see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien's_displacement_law
The significance of this fact of physics is that a warmer Earth surface does not convert radiation from a cooler atmosphere to thermal energy. So the radiative atmospheric greenhouse effect is debunked.
Finally, consider a patch of rock being warmed by the Sun in the morning. The IPCC says backradiation will add more thermal energy, so it must warm faster. (It is not just a matter of backradiation slowing the cooling rate – it must be consistent in whatever it does. Either it adds thermal energy or it doesn’t.)
At some time soon after noon the Sun will bring the rock to a maximum temperature before it starts to cool towards evening. When at that maximum will the backradiation cause it to warm more? How could it, because that would be transferring thermal energy from a cold source to a warmer body. It is simply against the laws of physics. It simply cannot and does not happen. Yet the IPCC “explanation” of the GHE says it does.
Prof Johnson has proven why it doesn’t in his Computational Blackbody Radiation. The GH theory is debunked.
‘The IPCC says backradiation will add more thermal energy, so it must warm faster. ”
Wrong. Wrong Wrong. you misunderstand the science you try to criticize
The GHG effect works like this.
SW radiation reaches the earth. We know this. we measure it.
That radiation is absorbed and re radiated to the sky as LW. We know this
we measure this.
The atmosphere consists of various gases and particles. All of these elements have known measured physical characteristics that are
defined in a database started by the USAF. That database is called
HITRAN. Some gases such as water vapor, C02 and methane absorb
and reflect EM in the LW window. Some gases “pass” LW . We know this and we measure it.
We use this understanding to create the weapons that defend our country.
in particular we know that C02 is opaque to IR.
Here is a video that shows how C02 “blocks” IR.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo
When we design IR seekers and satellites that view the earth, we use
this physics. It works and is verified. you cannot deny what you use every day. Do you use a cell phone? well the people who design the cell tower
know exactly how C02 and water vapor retard the transmission of EM energy. They have to otherwise they could not design a cell phone.
The atmosphere is relatively opaque to LW.
Eventually, however, as one goes higher in the atmosphere the concentration of GHG gases falls to a low enough level that the radiation
can escape to space. This height is called the EFFECTIVE RADIATING LEVEL. To a satellite earth will appear to radiate from this altitude/temperature. This is known. we measure it.
As we increase the concentration of GHGs the ERL moves to a higher altitude. Recall there is a concentration of GHgs above the ERL that
is low enough to allow transmission. As we increase the concentration
of GHG below the current ERL, it moves up so that the concentration
of GHG above the ERL is constant.
When the earth radiates from a higher altitude it radiates from a
COLDER place. It does because temperature decreases
with altitude. A colder body radiates at a SLOWER rate than a warmer
body. So, when the ERL is raised the earth radiates energy to space MORE SLOWLY. In order to compensate for this the surface
cools less rapidly. Less energy OUT at the top, mean that the surface
gets rid of its energy less rapidly. A clear night is colder than a cloudy night.
back radiation doesnt WARM the surface. Back radiation SLOWS THE RATE of cooling.
take a Thermos. Inside The thermos is a dual walled silver
container. Energy is conducted to the silver surface by two means:
conduction ( contact) and radiation. The energy transferred by radiation
cannot escape as the silvered surface reflects it back. The only way energy escapes is by conduction. The vacuum in the silvered container
( its dual walled) SLOWS the escape of energy by conduction.
The liquid in the thermos is “kept warm” by the re radiation of the sliver
walls. Energy is not added to the system, but rather the RATE of energy
escape is slowed. In the same way C02 and back radiation does not
warm the surface. Its slows the rate at which the surface cools.
Hi Stephen (Mosher) thanks for making the time to explain in simple lay terms what the greenhouse effect is all about. Maybe Doug will benefit from your contribution and review his hypothesis.
There is one thing that you are totally wrong about, “ .. we know that C02 is opaque to IR. Here is a video that shows how C02 “blocks” IR. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo .. ”.
CO2 is NOT opaque to IR, it is opaque to only a very narrow band of IR. Water vapour, which is opaque to much more IR than CO2 is not opaque to all IR. The set-up for the demonstration to which you linked, presented by Professor (then Dr.) Iain Stewart for the BBC’s “Climate Wars” programme was designed by Dr. Jonathan Hare. He was forcewd to rig the set-up in order to give the impression to the viewers that the IR emitted by the candle flame was prevented from reaching the IR camera by the CO2.
Without the use of a 4 micron filter the demonstration would have provided no indication whatsoever that CO2 absorbs any IR. See my comment here on November 6, 2011 at 9:01 am for further details (I’m surprised that you missed it).
Supporters of the CACC hypothesis can be just as devious as the sceptics.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Steven, ask yourself a simple question: how can a cubic centimeter of air increase the temperature of a cubic centimeter of water when the water has something like 3000X the heat capacity? What would it take for this to happen? Is this mechanism happening in our atmosphere?
CO2 molecules delay outgoing IR’s escape to space? Really? For how long? What is the peak distribution of time delay? A fraction of a second? A second? A minute? An hour? A day? A year? CO2 has the ability to trap, block or store outgoing CO2 for long periods of time? Really?
We agree that very nearly 1,000,000 PPM of air molecules have a temperature. How much is this overwhelming mass influenced by 390 PPM of CO2? Under what conditions could the temperature of 390 PPM of CO2 contribute anything measurable to the 1,000,000 PPM of the rest of the atmosphere? Is this mechanism at work in our atmosphere?
Hi Ken, its been a couple of months since you last commented here and its good to have one of the “Slayers” team back. Thanks for reminding us all about how insignificant is the effect of our use of fossil fuels on those different global climates. There is only one thing scary about the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) hypothesis. That is the fact that so few scientists have the courage to challenge the IPCC’s imaginary positive feedback effect, which if it existed would have wiped out life as we know it millions of years ago.
There is a couple of outstanding questions we were discussing back in December that you still haven’t answered for us. We were talking about the “Ernst-Georg Beck Award for Scientific Integrity and Competence” so proudly announced would be awarded annually by John O’Sullivan’s embryonic publishing company Principia Scientific International.
I’ll repeat the relevant part of my comment on 13th December at 6:59 which hopefully you will be good enough to respond to at last.
QUOTE: ..
You will recall that I pointed out in my E-mail to the “Slayer” et al. on 8th Dec. ..The award was heralded on numerous Web-sites across the globe .. John O’Sullivan will inaugurate an annual scientific award .. A cheque for US$10,000.- will be presented to the first recipient of the Award, Mr Piers Corbyn .. The main donor is Ken Coffman .. (http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6536). .. I also poionted out that Piers Corbyn had recently told me that .. Last year’s “$10k” was in fact “$10k of which we are giving $9k to our own things and you can have $1k” .. It’s hard to imagine Ken Coffman, John or the other “Slayers” knowingly giving such a false impression to the general public globally .. After all, it is a bit unusual for an award to be made then the majority of it withheld by the donor – and that is the impression that your comment gives .. Would you like to explain to us all what Piers was talking about when implying that he only received $1,000 of that $10,000. Also, who won the award this year?
UNQUOTE.
Please don’t shy away from clearing up this oddity. Either Piers is lying about not receiving the full £10,000 that you donated – and I can’t see what reason he’d have for doing that – or a member of John’s “Slayers” team has demonstrated once again that where money is concerned it pays to be cautious.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
It seems no one on any of the four forums I posted the above two “thought experiments’ on has been able to show any fault in the logic. Yet strangely there are some still accept the IPCC hypothesis which would lead to a different conclusion!
Get over yourself Cotton. No one wants to bother anymore talking to a delusional wall.
Hi Doug, you seem to have been unable to answer my simple question of 31st Dec. “ .. the vacuum flask does not normally have energy flowing into it, does it. If it had what do you think would happen to the temperature of the contents? .. ”
You also seem unable to respond to my point that e/m radiation does not have a temperature. As I said before, I puzzle over how e/m waves can be considered to have a temperature (that’s the waves themselves, not the material from which they are emitted or into which they are absorbed). Perhaps you need to do some further study of the subject rather than simply parroting what Professor Claes Johnson says. I again recommend for your enlightenment “A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation” (http://www.sundogpublishing.com/AtmosRad/Excerpts/index.html) by atmospheric physicist Professor Grant Petty, Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
BTW, you still haven’t provided a link to any of your physics papers (not articles or comments on blogs but peer-reviewed papers in respected scientific journals)!
You say that “ .. It seems no one on any of the four forums I posted the above two “thought experiments’ on has been able to show any fault in the logic .. ” so let me expand a little on Andrew’s suggestion. Have you ever considered the possibility that knowledgeable people on both sides of the CACC hypothesis debate are fed up to the back teeth of debating Claes’s hypothesis? If you do a little more research you’ll find that his ideas have been discussed at length, e.g. see http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/31/slaying-a-greenhouse-dragon/ – 2512 comments from others who have studied physics, as you claim to have done. Very early in the discussion on January 31, 2011 @ 5:18 pm one Harold made the comment that sums up my understanding. Harold followed up @ 5:35 pm with “ .. my thought experiment should convince almost any reasonable idiot your theory is wrong .. ”. As Claes said at 9:57 am “ .. I am not saying that my model is perfect .. ”.
During Dec. 2010/Jan. 2011 when John O’Sullivan was urging the “slayers” to go along with his proposal to set up his publishing company Principia Scientific International as a Community Interest Company at the earliest opportunity in order to pursue his fanciful notion of taking legal action against powerful government agencies like NOAA. Very early in those discussions John made an appeal for donations from the group to that end which led me to undertake a “PSI & Due Diligence” exercise. In his E-mail on the subject on 5th January 2011 Claes made the sensible suggestion that “ .. we write a joint slayers scientific article on our key subject of no-backradiation (and IR-instrument readings), which we submit to a major scientific journal. I could sketch such an article next week based on my blackbody chapter in the book, and send it around for discussion .. ”.
I don’t believe that anything came of that, so here’s a suggestion for you. Do some proper research, write your paper then submit it to a respected physics journal for peer review and publication, then get back to me. Perhaps you can include in that paper a clear explanation of your thought experiment (that no-one wants to discuss with you) of the physical mechanism used by the ball and sphere to detect the peak frequency of emission from the other. Alternatively, you could offer co-author a paper with Claes and help him get that Nobel Prize that he seems to hanker after – if Al Gore and the IPCC can do it why not Claes and you.
BTW, the PSI executive was to have at the helm Tim Ball (Chairman), John O’Sullivan (CEO), Hans Schreuder (CFO) and Philip Foster (Compliance Officer – although it appears that Philip was not aware of that), funded from charitable donations (, shareholder contributions and profit from book sales (wishful thinking)
Best regards, Pete Ridley
EM radiation has a frequency of course. Wien’s Displacement Law links an emitting temperature to peak frequency. In that sense frequency indicates temperature of the emitting source, assuming it is spontaneous emission, not electrically generated emission such as radio broadcast waves etc. If you had read Johnson’s note then you would have understood what I was talking about.
Whether you choose to believe him or not, Claes is correct in saying that spontaneously emitted (blackbody) radiation will not be converted to thermal energy when it meets a surface which is (significantly) warmer than the source of the radiation.
You cannot refer me to any experiment which proves the contrary for spontaneous emission, now can you? I am not interested in the “politics” – only in empirical evidence – which cannot be forthcoming because it cannot happen. Backradiation does not add thermal energy to the surface.
P.S. Yes Pete, I’ve posted a strong criticism of what JC has said on the thread http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/31/slaying-a-greenhouse-dragon/ – 2512 – it is dated just a few minutes before this one.
Hi Doug, I note that even with your “ .. 50 years of physics .. ” you have still refused to respond to my simple points:
– “ .. the vacuum flask does not normally have energy flowing into it, does it. If it had what do you think would happen to the temperature of the contents? .. ” !
– “ .. you still haven’t provided a link to any of your physics papers (not articles or comments on blogs but peer-reviewed papers in respected scientific journals) .. ” !
Also, your attempt to justify claiming that E/M radiation has a temperature by focussing on a black-body source seems to me to be rather far-fetched, but I’m not a physicist with 50 years-worth of understanding like you claim to have. Do you really believe that e/m radiation from CO2 or any other “greenhouse” gas is black-body? If so then this may be of interest (http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/images/irgreengas.JPEG) but read the whole article (http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/globalwarmA5.html).
You argue that “ .. EM radiation has a frequency of course. Wien’s Displacement Law links an emitting temperature to peak frequency. In that sense frequency indicates temperature of the emitting source, assuming it is spontaneous emission .. ”. Others might prefer the argument of Georgia State university physics specialists that “ .. Wien’s displacement law .. is useful for the .. determination of the temperature of any radiant object whose temperature is far above that of its surroundings .. ” (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/wien.html#c2). Their argument tells me that Wein’s Displacement Law is not applicable to e/m radiation from atmospheric greenhouse gases but perhaps your work with Professor Johnson can prove them wrong and contribute towards that Nobel prize.
BTW, you don’t need to shout about anything, including that “ .. Backradiation does not add thermal energy to the surface .. ”. I don’t swallow the IPCC’s simplified explanation of the “greenhouse effect” any more than you seem to do.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Peter Ridley, Judith Curry and others still don’t really understand what Prof Claes Johnson has proven computationally, so let me attempt to explain in yet more detail. Peter will be able to deduce answers to his own questions once he comes to grips with all this ….
Many AGW proponents tend to treat the energy being transmitted by EM radiation as if it were thermal energy itself. Not so, of course, and hence you can’t just take a difference between two beams of light or other radiation and talk about net radiation. For a start the beams are really at all difference angles and may or may not be polarised. They do not normally cancel out.
It is invalid to add or subtract any energy in radiation until it is converted to thermal energy. Then you can add that thermal energy to whatever is already there. But you cannot assume all radiation will be converted to thermal energy when it strikes something. It can be transmitted, reflected, diffracted, deflected or scattered. It will only be converted to thermal energy if its peak frequency is above the peak frequency being emitted by the surface it strikes. So it has to come from a warmer source.
Hence thermal energy is not carried along in both directions when there are opposing beams of radiation. Only radiated energy is carried along. Thermal energy merely appears to be transferred but in fact it simply reappears only in a colder surface when the radiated energy is converted to thermal energy. It is a bit like your voice being broadcast on radio waves and only appearing under certain conditions in a radio receiver.
[Laser emission is actually different, because it is stimulated emission. We do find that, for example, 10.6 micron lasers can melt metal when cutting it. This could not be done with normal spontaneous emission from carbon dioxide at atmospheric temperatures. Why is it so? My best guess is that it is because the intensity is such that the photons arrive faster than the resonating frequencies of the metal, so it can’t re-emit fast enough and has to convert to thermal energy because of the “chaos” created. Effectively the metal is then also undergoing stimulated emission, but the extra photons continue inwards and must cause warming.]
Because the energy in radiation from a cooler atmosphere cannot be converted to thermal energy when it strikes a (significantly) warmer surface, you have no thermal energy to affect either the rate of cooling each evening or the rate of warming each sunny morning.
So any such radiation from the atmosphere cannot in any way affect the temperature of the surface, or indeed the warmer areas of the atmosphere below the cooler level from which it was emitted. OK, there may be some rare weather conditions that result in warmer air a little above the surface, but these situations would be insignificant and have been happening since the Earth formed.
It should be clear from the above that a radiative greenhouse effect is a physical impossibility in the atmosphere..
If you don’t accept this, then you need to set up or find some experiment which actually demonstrates the opposite and actually shows thermal energy appearing to transfer from a cooler body to a warmer one. You could have metal plates isolated in a vacuum container or some similar set up. As far as I can determine, this has never been achieved, yet the IPCC are in effect saying it is happening all the time as their “backradiation” slows the rate of cooling of the surface, and must also increase the rate of any warming.
The IPCC propagates this garbage, so they should attempt to prove it empirically. Their faces will be the only things warming.
Peter –
(1) Reducing the adiabatic lapse rate just leaves extra thermal energy somewhere up in the atmosphere until the relative humidity reduces and the lapse rate increases. It cannot affect the temperature on the surface as explained in the above post. That answers your question about warming the vacuum flask.
(2) How do you think an IR thermometer measures the temperature of a cold cloud? Wien’s Displacement Law does apply it the atmosphere and it measures the frequency which is proportional to absolute temperature. How could an IR camera form an image of a man and also the background cooler objects?
I’ll just cut and paste this explanation ….
“Modern IR theory is based on the physical principle that all bodies
having a temperature greater than absolute zero (0 K, –273.16°C,
–459.69°F) radiate energy. The heat in such bodies causes molecular
vibrations that induce electron vibrations which in turn provide the
electromagnetic coupling to produce emission. The wavelengths of the
emitted radiation are temperature dependent; the amplitude is also
influenced by a surface characteristic–emissivity–of the radiating
body. Emissivity is the ratio of the energy radiated by an object at a
given temperature to that emitted by a perfect radiator (blackbody) at
the same temperature.”
Infrared Thermometers
http://www.sensorsmag.com/articles/1099/80/main.shtml
(the site appears inactive now)
Peter
(3) Even a drop of water as small as those in fog will emit as a blackbody (very close anyway.) Whilst CO2 molecules would not have a typical BB spectrum, they emit in the appropriate band which relates to their current temperature – strictly the temperature of the surrounding air. Remember, it is always frequency (wavelength) that indicates the temperature of the source of spontabeous emission.
(4) I am merely passing on what Claes Johnson, a well-published Professor of Applied Mathematics has calculated. My publication will be my book “Greenhouse Land” based on my private research.
If you choose only to believe professors with peer-reviewed publications, then believe Claes. It’s your choice and of no concern to myself. There are over 50,000 other people who have visited my websites, so why should I care what one person like yourself chooses to believe?
Peter – the link you provided http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/globalwarmA5.html is a joke. It implies all energy leaving the surface is by radiation and all energy absorbed by CO2 stays in the atmosphere. It does not explain how that energy goes back to warm the surface and it is totally different from the IPCC explanation involving backradiation, and also contrary to Trenberth’s energy diagram. If this represents your view of the GHE you have a lot still to learn my friend.
Doug, your silence on the points that I have made speaks volumes. You also make unfounded assumptions such as:
– “ .. Peter Ridley, Judith Curry and others still don’t really understand what Prof Claes Johnson has proven computationally .. ”. Professor Johnson has not proven any physical law. All that he has done is produce his own model to represent the earth system of atmos/aqua/cryo/litho/biospheres and deduced results from that model which have not been demonstrated by experiment to be of practical significance in the real world. He acknowledges that his model is not perfect
In Chapter 19 of “Slaying the Sky Dragon” Claes says “ .. A blackbody acts like a transformer of radiation; it absorbs highfrequency radiation and emits low-frequency radiation. The temperature of the blackbody determines a cut-off frequency for the emission, which increases linearly with the temperature. The warmer the blackbody is, the higher frequencies it can and will emit. While all frequencies are being absorbed, only frequencies below cut-off are emitted.
A blackbody thus can be seen as a system of resonators with different Eigen-frequencies which are excited by incoming radiation and then emit radiation. An ideal blackbody absorbs all incoming radiation and remits all absorbed radiation below cutoff .. ”. I understand this to be the basis of Claes’s model but is it really relevant to the practical situation where those theoretical black bodies do not exist?
– “ .. Many AGW proponents tend to treat the energy being transmitted by EM radiation as if it were thermal energy itself .. ”. That is precisely the conclusion that I came to, not about the CACC supporters but about those, like Doug, who support the arguments presented by John O’Sullivan’s “Slayers” – e.g. see my comment of October 21, 2011 at 5:07 pm QUOTE: .. Professor Johnson discusses in what he calls “A 2ND LAW OF RADIATION”. He says of this “ .. that radiative heat transfer is possible only from warmer to cooler .. ” ..
I find this somewhat puzzling for two reasons. One is the reference to “radiative heat transfer” rather than radiated energy transfer.. UNQUOTE. In his otherwise excellent book “Black-body theory and the quantum discontinuity, 1894-1912” Thomas Kuhn makes a similar confusing reference when saying “ .. When Kirchhoff wrote on cavity radiation .. he assumed only that radiant energy was propagated in waves, like light .. Thirty years later … both visible and thermal radiation were increasingly assumed to be electromagnetic .. ”. I cannot understand the need to distinguish between e/m radiation in the visible region and elsewhere because to me it is all simply energy transfer by radiation.
As Kuhn (a Physics professor with a sound pedigree whose books I am happy to spend time on) said “Thermodynamics .. an abstract quantitative theory of the role of heat in macroscopic physical processes .. ” whereas what is under consideration here is molecular physical processes.
In his article “Cutoff of Backradiation by Ockham’s Razor” Claes says “ .. where R is incoming absorbed radiation by a blackbody B .. We know that the spectrum of R carries its emission temperature, assuming it follows Planck’s Law, and thus B at absorption can check if there is some radiation to absorb and process (without having access to the temperature of A, only to the radiation from A about to be absorbed) .. ” (http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2010/07/blackbody-radiation-by-ockhams-razor.html). If Claes’s assumption about the emitting body B is being a black body is incorrect (as it is for “greenhouse” gases like CO2, CH4 and even H2O) then is not his model invalidated?
In that same article Claes says” .. The model describes how the body B handles this situation by cutting off the high frequency part HR (grinding it into low frequency heat) and ends up with a low frequency part LR which is prepared for emission .. ” but when considering emission from a “greenhouse” gas, is there a characteristic black-body emission spectrum from which the receiving body can determine the temperature of the emitting body. I can’t picture it which is why I asked you to describe the mechanism.
I find the explanation by Herman and Pielke that Claes quotes more plausible “ .. When absorbing gases are added to the atmosphere, more of emitted radiation from the ground is absorbed by the atmosphere .. so that the rate of escape of IR radiation to space is decreased, i.e., the rate of infrared cooling is decreased. This results in warming of the lower atmosphere and thus the second law is not violated. Thus, the warming is a result of decreased cooling rates .. ”.
Does not a reduction in IR escaping to space due to increased IR absorption by an increase in “greenhouse” gases cause a reduction in the rate of cooling of the earth system? Assuming constant insolation (more reasonable than assuming black body radiation from atmospheric gases) does not a decreased cooling rate of the earth system arising from whatever cause demand a corresponding increase in earth system temperature until balance is restored between incoming solar and outgoing earth system radiation?
If Claes is correct to construct his model from resonating cavities, which I am unconvinced about, then is not this statement by Plank significant “ .. Any such resonator is excited by absorbing energy from the vibration which falls upon it and is damped by radiating energy. The radiated energy is, however, not the same sort as the absorbed, so that the vibrations of the resonator alter the character of the electromagnetic waves propagated in its vicinity – these alterations .. have an equilibrating .. tendency .. ”.
Just because you majored in Applied Mathematics, have been teaching yourself Physics for 50 years and had 50,000 visitors to your blogs does not make you an expert in the processes and drivers of the different global climates. You are no more an expert in that than I am or John O’Sullivan is Law. I wish you well with your book but speculate that you will make no more of an impact on the CACC religion than did John and his “Slayers” with their “Slaying the Sky Dragon”.
Before you put your book into print may I suggest that you have it reviewed by people who understand the relevant science. It appears that you have no experience of the peer review process, although it is not perfect it is far superior to reviewing your own work. The “Slayers” did that and look what a mess they produced. You may be tempted to offer it to the “Slayers” but I would advise against it if you hope to persuade others that you are a credible source of scientific knowledge.
Your comments about IR cameras appear to me to be irrelevant for the same reason as Claes’s analysis is. I understand that a cloud, a man and background objects are not made of gas but are solid objects that approximate black body radiation, peaking between 9 and 10 micron.
As for the IPCC’s version of the “Greenhouse Effect” I am no more persuaded by them than I am by you or Claes.
I provided that “joke” (as you put it) link to http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/globalwarmA5.html for its graphics, not its text, to help you envisage the affect on the molecules of the different gases of absorbing e/m energy. This is relevant “ .. This extra kinetic energy may then be transmitted to other molecules such as oxygen and nitrogen and causes a general heating of the atmosphere .. ”. I am not the only one who has a lot to learn, my friend, but I have the advantage of recognising the fact.
BTW, you said of LASERs “ .. My best guess is that .. ” but I am not persuaded by any of your guesses, best or worst.
Best regards, Pete Ridley.
“Does not a reduction in IR escaping to space due to increased IR absorption by an increase in “greenhouse” gases cause a reduction in the rate of cooling of the earth system?”
Replace “system” with “surface” and the answer is “No” as explained in today’s lengthy post on the Solar II thread.
Pete Ridley: If you “can’t picture it” then you need to read the well established physics explained under “Wien’s Displacement Law” in Wikipedia where you will see that the peak frequency is proportional to absolute temperature. That is how the cut-off is determined and that is how the target body “determines” whether the emitter was warmer or cooler than itself. Once you understand this, then you should read the somewhat lengthy post I have just done under the Solar II topic.
http://judithcurry.com/2012/02/09/aq/#comment-167810
PS Regarding Planck’s statement: “Any such resonator is excited by absorbing energy from the vibration which falls upon it and is damped by radiating energy. The radiated energy is, however, not the same sort as the absorbed, so that the vibrations of the resonator alter the character of the electromagnetic waves propagated in its vicinity – these alterations .. have an equilibrating .. tendency .. ”.
I don’t accept this at all. In any event, there are no grounds for assuming that the end result is exactly what would be obtained by simple subtraction. However can radiation at a different angle and different wavelength somehow interact and reduce the other?
Face two identical cars towards each other at night and shine their headlights at each other. Is the intensity of either’s lights affected at all? No.
If Planck were right about this, all our TV and radio broadcasts would get mixed up with each other and “damped.”
PS If you judge the validity of someone’s research by their official “expertise” rather than the effort put into such research, their knowledge in the field (whether formally or privately gained) and perhaps even their intelligence, then good luck to you. Some of what you write is way off track and just echoing AGW propaganda which is not being substantiated by climate trends either recent or long-term.
Some of you confuse energy movement in the form of radiation going in all directions with heat transfer. When will you ever learn? Some of you don’t even realise that you can’t even slow down the rate of cooling (such as the surface cooling at night) without adding thermal energy. How are you going to do that from a cold atmosphere? The thermal energy has to be there first. Radiation itself does not slow down other radiation, let alone diffusion, conduction, convection, evaporation and chemical processes, all of which in total transfer more energy from the surface to the atmosphere than radiation. And these processes are “flexible” so if radiation from the surface is less, more can exit by other means.
The Germans explain it quite well, so I’ll leave it with them in this peer-reviewed published physics journal. Allow two hours to study it well and it will change your viewpoint for ever if you dare.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
Hi Doug, just a quick respone fo rnow. You say ” .. you can’t even slow down the rate of cooling (such as the surface cooling at night) without adding thermal energy .. “. SO a thermos flask has a built-in heater??!!
Pete r
See http://judithcurry.com/2012/02/09/aq/#comment-167923 which clearly refers to the atmosphere and surface, not a vacuum flask. [A general statement can be made for objects in a vacuum such as planets and their atmospheres in space.]
And what about each sunny morning? The Sun is warming the surface, so is the radiation from the cooler atmosphere also adding extra thermal energy to the surface in breach of the Second Law?
Does the Second Law only work in the mornings perhaps?
Thermos flasks have built-in heaters? Not in our world Pete, but they do in the world Doug Cotton, Claes Johnson, and John O’Sullivan inhabit.
It’s a world in an alternate universe, where microwave ovens make ice cubes, atoms metabolize food, and Hill University is an accredited law school. It’s a world where whatever they say is true just because they say it.
Hi Andrew, we’ve been waiting for a long time for John O’Sullivan to provide evidence that he has a worthwhile Law Degree, rather than one purchased for a few hundred dollars.
Pete
So, Pete my boy, when are you going to attempt to debunk this peer-reviewed published physics paper (or perhaps just something about the authors would be your limit) ????
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
Andrew your are in the wrong vocation. Please become an author of wonderful children’s fiction – you are so talented with words, if not thoughts.
You too need to read the paper linked above for Pete by those German physicists.
Pete – I was clearly talking about the surface and atmosphere, not a vacuum flask. The atmosphere does indeed insulate the Earth from some of the Sun’s incoming radiation, half of which is in the infra red spectrum. So CO2 also absorbs some and sends some of that back to space, thus helping to keep the surface a little cooler.
So the atmosphere (and the CO2 therein) do have a cooling effect on the surface. Otherwise at noon it could get to over 100 deg.C as it does on the Moon.
But at night the atmosphere is cooler than the surface and is cooling faster, so it is not “insulating” in the sense of slowing the rate of cooling of the surface. It could only do so if it were physically warmer at the interface which only happens in a very small percentage of the Earth’s surface due to abnormal weather events.
And, now you need to read what those physicists have said in this* paper about the Second Law of Thermodynamics etc.
I am only prepared hereafter to discuss any parts of their paper (which says much the same as my website http://climate-change-theory.com ) and help you understand the physics therein.
* http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
Hi Doug, you said:
– “ .. the peak frequency is proportional to absolute temperature .. ”
I have no argument about that, if you are talking about e/m radiation from source that approximates a black body. Maybe in your universe molecules of H20, CO2, CH4, etc. radiate like black bodies but not in mine.
– “ .. you need to read .. this* paper about the Second Law of Thermodynamics etc. I am only prepared hereafter to discuss any parts of their paper .. and help you understand the physics therein. * http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf .. The Germans explain it quite well, so I’ll leave it with them in this peer-reviewed published physics journal. Allow two hours to study it well and it will change your viewpoint for ever if you dare .. So, Pete my boy, when are you going to attempt to debunk this peer-reviewed published physics paper .. ”.
Well Doug my boy, may I suggest that to help you understand the preudo-physics in that paper you have a read of this rebuttal (by far better physicists than thee or me) in “COMMENT ON “FALSIFICATION OF THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GREENHOUSE EFFECTS WITHIN THE FRAME OF PHYSICS” (http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/upload/2010/05/halpern_etal_2010.pdf).
– “ .. Replace “system” with “surface” and the answer is “No” as explained in today’s lengthy post on the Solar II thread .. ”.
As usual you avoid answering my specific questions. That one was “Does not a reduction in IR escaping to space due to increased IR absorption by an increase in “greenhouse” gases cause a reduction in the rate of cooling of the earth system?” (note “system” not “surface”).
– “ .. you confuse energy movement in the form of radiation going in all directions with heat transfer .. ”
may well be true of some but I don’t know any such people. Those with whom I discuss the preudo-science offered by the “Slayers” would argue that your comment better describes those who support the “Slayers” because you confuse heat energy with radiated energy. When will you ever learn?
– “ .. Regarding Planck’s statement: .. I don’t accept this at all .. ”.
I don’t think that it is unreasonable for someone like me who is not a physicist to prefer the opinions of someone of Plank’s stature rather than yours, but please correct me if I am mistaken.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
I have posted my “10 steps” post http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/11/open-thread-weekend-7/#comment-890609 on many other forums (both for and against AGW) with a genuine desire to see if anyone can raise a valid counter argument. The following may help explain and reinforce what I have written there.
Firstly, the actual amount of backradiation must be grossly overstated because the emissivity of the atmosphere is only about 20% I understand and it is colder than the surface and emitting in all directions into a full sphere rather than a hemisphere. So how could NASA’s energy diagram possibly be right in showing similar values for emission from the surface as from the atmosphere. I postulate that the instruments calculate the radiative flux from the temperature assuming emissivity is unity and emission into a hemisphere.
But, whatever the amount of backradiation, it cannot transfer thermal energy from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface as this would imply a heat transfer from cold to hot, which is against the Second Law of Thermodynamics. When the surface is warming on a sunny morning, for example, and net radiative flux is into the surface, how can additional heat be transferred from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface against the Second Law. It can’t and all such radiation is reflected or (mostly) scattered and thus leaves no energy behind.
It follows that, since backradiation cannot add thermal energy to a warmer surface, then it cannot increase the rate of warming in the morning or slow the rate of cooling in the evening.
Backradiation is after all low energy radiation spontaneously emitted from a cold source. The peak frequency of the strongly attenuated spectrum is proportional to the absolute temperature (Wien’s Displacement Law) and such frequencies are usually lower than those in the radiation from the surface. Surface molecules “recognise” this and reject the low energy radiation which does not have enough energy to be converted to thermal energy. (See Prof Claes Johnson Computational Blackbody Radiation) http://www.csc.kth.se/~cgjoh/blackbodyslayer.pdf
We see examples of this in radio broadcasts where we know the radiation is even lower frequency than that in backradiation. It is of course artificially generated, but its frequency corresponds to much lower temperatures than normally experienced on earth or in the troposphere. For this very reason it is scattered by the surface and by the atmosphere and is not converted to thermal energy because it is “colder” even than the backradiation. If this were not the case, then it would have been quickly quenched as all its energy would have been used up warming whatever it struck. So it would not travel the distances that we know it does. Basically the same happens to backradiation and it just keeps getting scattered off molecules in both the atmosphere and the surface until it happens by chance to escape to space.
So the (latest version of) the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is (like the first version) a physical impossibility.
Pete Ridley:
The paper you think refutes the German physicists tries to do so by quoting “line by line calculations of atmospheric radiative transfer,”
It is possible to calculate atmospheric radiation (even though you said not I gather) but that has nothing to do with whether the radiation is absorbed and converted to thermal energy. They claim wrongly that it is, and that is why the whole greenhouse conjecture is wrong.
I have tried to explain in yet another way in today’s post. Note what happens to radio broadcast waves as discussed there.
I see that Doug is at it again apparently getting all confused about heat energy, radiated energy and what constitutes a black body. It looks as though he is determined to keep his mind closed to the possibility that he is wrong to simply accept Claes Johnson’s hypothesis and reject the hypotheses of respected scientists like Plank which have been proven by experiment and practical application. As I understand it the Second Law of Thermodynamics relates to the net transfer of energy in the form of heat – note that word “net”. Due to my limited understanding of the physics I cannot understand why he believes that the “frequency” of a radio transmission carries any information whatever about the temperature of the source. After all, a radio transmitter (or a car headlight) is not a heated body (thermal source) emitting broadband e/m radiation.
Doug seems to be suggesting that the e/m radiation from a device such as an LED emitting at 1300nm (a common wavelength used in telecommunications systems) provides information to the receiving device about the temperature at the source LED. Although Doug seems not to trust respected scientists like Plank I am much happier doing that than accepting the word of novices posting on blogs.
If the 1300nm e/m radiation originated from a thermal source then the Kirchoff-Plank formula tells us that the intensity at any wavelength I(λ) is given by:
I(λ) ~ (K/λ)^5/[exp(hc/λkT) – 1].
Wein’s Displacement Law says λmax ~ 2.9/T i.e.
T ~ 2.9 x 10^6nmK/1300K ~ 2200K
So Doug, for a peak intensity at 1300nm the source temperature of that LED is nearly 2000C? That doesn’t seem to me to be a practical conclusion to come to but I expect that a physicist with 45 years of independent tutoring and research plus 50,000 visitors to his blog will be able to come up with an explanation of how I have misled myself. While your at it can you provide an explanation of the physical mechanism that enables any substance that is irradiated by the LED’s 1300nm to identify the source as a cold LED and not a 2000C thermal source.
BTW, you may find “The Early History of Quantum Mechanics” helpful (http://physics.mq.edu.au/~jcresser/Phys301/Chapters/Chapter2.pdf). If you don’t like that one then I’m sure that you’ll have afield day picking holes in “How to Estimate Planetary Temperatures” (http://bartonpaullevenson.com/NewPlanetTemps.html).
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Those who believe that thermal energy “moves” in the direction of net radiation should consider what happens when a blackbody faces another body, say, 10 degrees warmer but with much lower emissivity out in space, say. Suppose S-B calculations are such that the warmer body emits less than the cooler one because the warmer one’s flux is reduced by the lower emissivity. Hence the direction of net radiative flux is from the cooler one to the warmer one.
(1) What happens to the extra radiation that the warmer body does not absorb because of its low absorptivity?
(2) Does the warmer body convert to thermal energy any of the remaining radiation from the cooler body? If not all, what happens to that radiation?
(3) Is the Second Law of Thermodynamics obeyed or does the warmer body get warmer still?
(4) Does heat transfer from the cooler one to the warmer one, or vice versa?
Pete and others
I await your response to the four questions above which no one has contradicted on other forums in the last two days.
The source “temperature” of UV and visible light is of course way above that of IR. After all, the Sun is hot and visible light includes its peak frequency. It is UV light that gives you sunburn.
Artificially generated radiation is of course not spontaneous blackbody emission and hence its frequency bears no relationship to the temperature of the machine that generated it.
Below is a copy of a previous post of mine made elsewhere as I am really running short of time explaining the same things over and over.
Just in case you think lasers or microwave ovens or radar prove me wrong, the reason lies in other unique mechanisms to do with such things as stimulated emission (rather than spontaneous emission) and resonance in just certain molecules (mainly water molecules in the food) caused by microwaves which don’t heat everything as you know. So these are very different from so-called “blackbody” (spontaneous) radiation such as occurs naturally.
Anyone not knowing what stimulated (or induced) emission is can look up Wikipedia. Basically a laser beam is produced by stimulated emission and it will cause stimulated emission in a target such as sheet metal. Stimulated radiation arrives at such an intensity that additional radiation is generated in the same direction as the incident beam, and so more radiation penetrates deeper, and such is more than the material can scatter to regions outside its boundaries, so it converts this unnatural surplus to thermal energy. (Whilst it might not fully penetrate the sheet, a cut can be made using holes that are first cut and filled with special materials.) This is not usually a natural process having been generated artificially.
PS Pete:
You seem to think that light from your LED could not make something hot. You think that because you know its intensity is low. True. And in real life it doesn’t warm anything noticeably, because whatever small amount of thermal energy is created escapes just about as quickly. But under certain conditions with enough insulation and enough intensity LED light could warm something.
A good example is a solarium where UV light is generated artificially. They are closing down solariums because they kill people with sunburn that leads to skin cancer. That artificially generated UV light from a relatively cool machine is just as “effective” in burning skin as UV light from the far hotter Sun.
Cheers
Doug
Prof Claes Johnson has proved in Computational Blackbody Radiation* that energy in radiation only gets converted to thermal energy if the peak frequency of the radiation from the source is above the peak frequency of the radiation from the target.
This essentially provides a mechanism which explains why the Second Law of Thermodynamics also applies for radiative heat transfer, as it does for heat transferred by conduction.
It is not the net radiative flux (or even its direction) which determines whether (and in which direction) thermal energy is transferred. For example, if the emissivity of two bodies is very different, there can be more radiative flux from the cooler one. But all that flux will be scattered by the warmer one and not converted to thermal energy. Only the flux from the warmer one (no matter how weak) will be converted to thermal energy in the cooler one. This “ensures” that the Second Law is valid in all cases because it depends
on peak frequency which is proportional to absolute temperature – see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien's_displacement_law
Thus the IPCC “backradiation” cannot affect the temperature of the surface and there can be no atmospheric radiative greenhouse effect.
* http://climate-change-theory.com/RadiationAbsorption.html
Consider these two points …
(1) The direction of net radiative energy flow can be the opposite of the direction of heat transfer. If you have a warmer object (say 310 K) with low emissivity (say 0.2) and a cooler object (say 300 K) with much higher emissivity (say 0.9) then net radiative energy flow is from the cooler to the warmer object. Yet the Second Law says heat transfer is from hot to cold. So, there is no warming of the warmer body by any of the (net) radiative energy going into it.
(2) Any warming of a warmer surface by radiation from a cooler atmosphere violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Consider the situation when the surface is being warmed by the Sun at 11am somewhere. Its temperature is rising and net radiative energy flow is into the surface. How could additional thermal energy transfer from the cooler atmosphere to make the surface warm at a faster rate?
Clearly radiation from a cooler atmosphere cannot add thermal energy to a warmer surface. The surface molecules scatter radiation which has a peak frequency lower than the peak frequency of their own emission, and so no radiative energy is converted to thermal energy. (This was proved in Johnson’s Computational Blackbody Radiation.), So the atmospheric radiative greenhouse effect is a physical impossibility.
When solar radiation (UV, visible and IR etc) travels through space we do not know what its end effect will be until it strikes something. We will observe its effect and say – there’s some light from the Sun – but it may be more light if it hits a white surface than a dark surface, as a camera exposure meter will confirm. It may generate thermal energy (more or less depending on what it strikes) or it may appear as light as it starts to penetrate the oceans, but end up as thermal energy in the deeper depths. Of course some will be reflected or scattered and strike another target sooner or later, and another etc.
My point is, “heat” is the transfer of thermal energy, but thermal energy is not a fixed amount of energy travelling along with radiation. The energy in the radiation has to go through a physical process of being converted to thermal energy. This happens only for those frequencies in the radiation which are above the natural frequencies that can be emitted by the target, because the target cannot re-emit those frequencies. (The hotter the source of spontaneous radiation, the higher will be the peak frequency.) So solar radiation can be converted to thermal energy in the Earth’s surface, but radiation emitted from a cooler atmosphere cannot be converted to thermal energy in a warmer surface. “Heat” only appears to be transferred (and only from hot to cold) because only radiation from hot to cold will be converted to extra thermal energy in the target.
It does not matter whether you are increasing the rate of warming in the morning or decreasing the rate of cooling later in the day, you still need extra thermal energy to do this. You cannot get this extra thermal energy from a cooler atmosphere, morning or evening. You cannot say the Second Law is not broken because of the direction of net radiation or net heat flow. All that matters is, what actually happens between any two points – one point on the surface and one point in a cooler atmosphere. What goes on between other “points” – a point on the Sun and another point on the surface is irrelevant. The Second Law must apply between any two points.
Doug Cotton certainly has been hard at it pushing his version of Claes Johnson’s untested hypothesis that substances are able to:
– decide for themselves which wavelengths of incident e/m radiation they should absorb,
– base that decision upon their own current temperature.
What Doug has failed to do is provide any observational evidence that supports Professor Johnson’s mathematical analysis. Without that evidence he and Professor Johnson will have no chance of getting that Nobel Prize that they both seem to be hankering after.
On 13th February Doug claimed that some of us “ .. believe that thermal energy “moves” in the direction of net radiation .. ” and it would be helpful if he could enlighten us about to which of us he is referring. I am aware of only one person here talking about net radiation and that was Doug, on 30th Jan. and 10th, 13th and 15th Feb.
Peter317 spoke about “net energy flow .. ” while “ .. net heat flow .. ” was mentioned by Professor Joseph (Jeff) Reynen (JWR), Phil, Bryan and even Doug himself.
I see that on the “EFFECT OF ATMOSPHERIC MASS AND CO2 ON GROUND TEMPERATURE” thread (https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2012/01/21/fun-stuff/) Doug gave up debating his hypothesis with the likes of by Dr. Leonard Weinstein, Jeff Condon and Dr. Reynen (who was “ .. Inspired by Claes Johnson and in support of Doug Cotton .. ”.
I had intended responding to each of Doug’s comments since 13th Feb. but after doing some research I find that others have done a far better job than I can in pointing out to him how he is misleading himself. Eventually he’ll move on from here to some other blog and repeat his pseudo-scientific pronouncements.
Doug has declared that “ .. backradiation has absolutely no effect on a warmer surface – neither warming nor slowing the rate of cooling. It cannot even melt a bit of frost on the ground. This single physical fact (proven computationally by Prof Claes Johnson last year) is sufficient to completely demolish any concept of an atmospheric greenhouse effect. What .. we need is a substantial prize for anyone able to prove otherwise and actually show that spontaneous blackbody radiation can warm a warmer surface. It cannot and the reward would never have to be paid .. ”
He also declares that “ .. In due course, following the publication of my book on this, there will be a substantial reward offered to any university Physics Dept which can empirically prove Claes wrong regarding the fact that no absorption resulting in conversion to thermal energy occurs when the receiving body has a cut-off frequency significantly below the frequency of the emission being received .. ”.
Actions speak louder than words so I encourage Doug (with his degrees in applied mathematics and physics, 45 years of expertise, including tutoring and research and 50,000 visitors to his blog) to put his money where his mouth is without waiting until his (fictitious?) book (Greenhouse Land?) is published and puts that prize up himself straight away, let’s say $1M. He “knows” that he’ll never have to pay it out and he’ll be doing not just Australia but the entire globe an enormous service – perhaps enough to win a Nobel Prize, like Al Gore and the IPCC. Mind you I won’t hold my breath waiting for him to commit to that prize – after all, talk is cheap.
Doug has previously mentioned his book here and I advised against him offering it to John O’Sullivan’s “Slayers” for peer review. On reflection I think that John’s pseudo-science organisation PSI would be the perfect place for publication. I suspect that PSI now has very few members (perhaps only John himself) and in my opinion he would be the ideal person to peer-review Doug’s book.
Checking up on Doug’s activities on other blogs led me to Jeff Condon’s “Reader Background” on “the Air Vent” (http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/04/21/reader-background/). Reading that and associated comments from the 235 sceptics (before the spammers took aim) was much more enjoyable and revealing that reading Doug’s comments.
BTW, while checking up on the different mechanisms by which the energy of e/m radiation is converted to other forms (including heat) I came across an interesting MSc thesis “Development of an asynchronous Solar-powered cooker” (http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/39261/173660389.pdf) submitted to the MIT Department of Mechanical Engineering in 2006. It covers research into the Wilson Solar Cooker, production prototyped in 2011 (http://www.braytonenergy.net/recent-projects/the-wilson-solar-cooker/). Do any of you have practical experience of this cooker?
Best regards, Pete Ridley
I am more interested in having an impact on the voting public, the media and the governments of the world. Those “scientists” with vested interests are unlikely to change their acknowledged public viewpoints, nor to peer-review contrary papers, as you well know. There are hundreds of peer-reviewed papers already critical of AGW anyway. And over 30,000 scientists have signed an anti-AGW statement. Nothing can stop me self-publishing and using (if need be) a fair bit of money promoting and distributing free copies of my book, which will be very affordable and at cost anyway.
BTW, your funnel gadget used for cooking gave me the idea for my funnel experiment with two different sized plates at the same temperature at each end of the funnel. There is more radiation from the large to the samll, and yet no warming due to Second Law. This confirms quite nicely what I have been saying that radiation with lower frequencies cannot warm a surface emitting higher frequencies.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/16/the-anatomy-of-a-global-warming-smear/#comment-895671
I will look again at the thread you mention which I must have forgotten about and not responded to. As it happens, I have done my own experiment and found no effect from backradiation. But should not the IPCC have published some experiment which proves backradiation warms the surface or slows the rate of cooling? When you produce a link to any such experiment we can continue this discussion.
Maybe you should read the lead article in WUWT this morning. Come and debate there as this is a dead thread now. Below is my post just done over there …
Suffice to say, the global warming hoax was the golden goose for everyone who received literally billions in public and private funding.”
Never was a truer word spoken. Any atmospheric “greenhouse effect” amounts to a complete violation of the laws of physics and is a travesty of such.
First they realised they had to give up on the concept of warm air acting as a blanket, so then they came up with the conjecture that second-hand “backradiation” would slow the rate of cooling of the surface.
Well, to slow the mean rate of cooling you also have to slow the rate of warming every sunny morning. After all, the same process (whatever it could possibly be) has to add thermal energy both morning and evening.
Now think about it. The Second Law of Thermodynamics has to apply between any two specific points wherever there is matter in the universe. And it applies for radiation just as much as it does for conduction. Can you imagine a long metal rod extending out of a patch of ground into the colder air with a heat flow going from the cooler air back into the warmer surface which is getting warmer and warmer due to the Sun at, say, 11am somewhere? This crazy reverse heat flow dreamed up by you-know-who is the conjecture upon which $ ??? billions are being betted.
It just isn’t physics..
Radiation from a cooler source always includes all the frequencies which a warmer surface is able to emit. So all its waves merely resonate and in effect get scattered back out again without any of its energy being converted to thermal energy – no energy is left behind. But radiation from a warmer source has additional frequencies above those of a cooler target, so these higher frequencies cannot resonate and their energy ends up being converted to thermal energy, as seen when the Sun warms something.
Hence, when analysing what would happen when the atmosphere and surface interact by radiation all the radiation from the cooler atmosphere should be disregarded. Only radiation from hot to cold is converted to thermal energy and this is how and why the Second Law of Thermodynamics works for radiation.
Pete Ridley said ..
Doug gave up debating his hypothesis with the likes of Dr. Leonard Weinstein
_______________________________________________
Well here’s a copy of my reply to Dr Weinstein.
16. Leonard Weinstein said
January 23, 2012 at 12:10 am
When you lower the energy of some “hot” locations, you move that exact amount of energy to “cooler” locations. Using the T^4 law for the redistributed energy fluxes give a LOWER average surface temperature (but equal total energy flux). Break it into 2 parts and try it with energy and then average the area temperatures to see.
Indeed Leonard you do move energy from hot to cold, not the other way. How about you address the issue in my post above this one? Then tell me how, when the surface at some location is getting warmer around 11am on a sunny morning, then how can you possibly claim that additional thermal energy is added from a colder atmosphere?
You cannot just use SBL the way you do for the surface because it is not insulated.
Also, you cannot assume that you can just apply the absorptivity to the surface and that it will then convert that portion of the energy in radiation to thermal energy. It doesn’t happen. There is another process involving resonance and scattering, which leaves no energy behind – just like reflection as far as energy goes.
I encourage you to read my site http://climate-change-theory.com and perhaps my book Greenhouse Land when published soon. Meanwhile start reading some physics from physics text books, not the climatology conjectures which violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Doug says “ .. Radiation from a cooler source always includes all the frequencies which a warmer surface is able to emit .. ” and seems unable to understand the difference between radiation from an atmospheric gas molecule such as H2O, CH4 or CO2 and radiation from a substance like the earth’s oceans (http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/o_atm.html) which approximates “black body” radiation.
I refer him again to “Greenhouse Gases Absorb Infrared Radiation” (http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/globalwarmA5.html) but this time make it easier for him by quoting the relevant part. “ .. Certain gases in the atmosphere have the property of absorbing infrared radiation. Oxygen and nitrogen the major gases in the atmosphere do not have this property. The infrared radiation strikes a molecule such as carbon dioxide and causes the bonds to bend and vibrate – this is called the absorption of IR energy. The molecule gains kinetic energy by this absorption of IR radiation. This extra kinetic energy may then be transmitted to other molecules such as oxygen and nitrogen and causes a general heating of the atmosphere. .. ”.
Perhaps it would help Doug to better understand the effect if he read more widely, e.g. “ .. The ability of certain trace gases to be relatively transparent to incoming visible light from the sun yet opaque to the energy radiated from earth is one of the best-understood processes in atmospheric science. This phenomenon has been called the “greenhouse effect” because the trace gases trap heat similar to the way that a greenhouse’s transparent covering traps heat. Without our atmospheric greenhouse effect, earth’s surface temperature would be far below freezing. On the other hand, an increase in atmospheric trace gases could result in increased trapped heat and rising global temperatures .. “ (http://www.ucar.edu/learn/1_3_2_12t.htm) but I would correct that to read “ .. transparent to incoming visible light from the sun yet opaque to SOME OF the energy radiated from earth .. ”.
The original 1993 EPA statement (http://nepis.epa.gov/Adobe/PDF/9100DF3T.PDF Page 40), copied verbatim by the University Corporation of Atmospheric Research (UCAR), is similar to the exaggeration made by Dr. Iain Stewart in his deliberately misleading demonstration of this effect for CO2 in his BBC’s Climate Wars demonstration (see my comments November 6, 2011 at 9:01 am and February 8, 2012 at 4:51 pm).
Doug has suggested that others read his blog articles (http://climate-change-theory.com) but there are far more worthy sources of information on the processes and drivers of the different global climates than that. That would be almost as fruitless as going to John O’Sullivan’s pseudo-science site PSI (http://principia-scientific.org/).
Best regards, Pete Ridley.
Pete; (re 6.06pm)
I remind you of my point about how carbon dioxide absorbs incoming infra-red radiation from the Sun and sends some back to space, thus having a cooling effect. It is not “transparent” to such.
There are over 50 gases in the atmosphere, and WV emits over a wide frequency range as you know. So most frequencies are pretty well covered in the IR range which corresponds to the temperatures found in the atmosphere down to about -100 deg.C at the mesopause. In other words, the same gases emit at different frequencies at different temperatures, thus helping to cover the full spectrum.
Carbon dioxide will only emit at a certain frequency if that frequency is within the distribution for its current temperature as shown in the first figure here http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/WiensDisplacementLaw.html
So what’s your point? The surface will still resonate with such frequencies emitted by any gas or WV in the atmosphere, and it will thus scatter the radiation without any energy being absorbed, as I have explained in more detail in other posts.
Pete Ridley | February 16, 2012 at 6:06 pm | Reply
Doug says “ .. Radiation from a cooler source always includes all the frequencies which a warmer surface is able to emit .. ” and seems unable to understand the difference between radiation from an atmospheric gas molecule such as H2O, CH4 or CO2 and radiation from a substance like the earth’s oceans which approximates “black body” radiation.
_____________________________________________________
(1) Radiation from the ocean is nothing like that of a blackbody because a large portion of the energy has already gone in evaporation and diffusion, leaving far less to radiate. This proves to me that you don’t understand the physics of the Earth and atmosphere.
(2) There is no reason for Wien’s Displacement Law not to apply to all radiation from the atmosphere, just as it applies to radiation from surface molecules. What I said is correct.
I am not going back to square one. Frankly, I find your elementary “explanation” of the greenhouse conjecture somewhat of an insult to physics. But you wouldn’t understand why and it’s pointless trying to explain it to you as I have already done so many times and you just don’t get it, do you?
And by the way, the atmosphere is not transparent to about half the Sun’s radiation which is infra-red. Some of that infra red radiation is absorbed by carbon dioxide and some of that sent back to space. This has a cooling effect because it stops some of the Sun’s thermal energy reaching the surface. Don’t forget to include that the next time you write IPCC waffle.
If your bath tub is filling as fast as it can with the hot tap turned on fully it will indeed fill faster if you also turn the cold tap on.
If the Earth’s surface is filling with thermal energy (ie it is warming) as fast as it can on a sunny morning with the Sun shining fully it will indeed fill (warm) faster if you also radiate extra thermal energy from a colder atmosphere if and only if you violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
One more question.
Suppose you pass radiation from a slightly cooler object (surface area 5 sq.m, 300 K) through a reflective funnel which concentrates the radiation onto a slightly warmer object (310 K) with the same emissivity of, say, 0.9 but surface area only 0.5 sq.m..
Please explain with suitable calculations how the Second Law of Thermodynamics would actually apply to ensure thermal energy only transferred from the warmer to the cooler object.
I will also post this on several other forums to see if anyone has a correct solution other than mine, which you should know by now if you’ve read my posts.
Hi Doug, you seem to be determined to spam the entire internet with your pseudo-scientific hypothesis but that is not the way to get the Nobel Prize that Professor Claes Johnson and you seem to be hankering after. As I said on 8th Feb. “ .. here’s a suggestion for you. Do some proper research, write your paper then submit it to a respected physics journal for peer review and publication .. Alternatively, you could offer co-author a paper with Claes and help him get that Nobel Prize that he seems to hanker after – if Al Gore and the IPCC can do it why not Claes and you .. ”.
If your hypothesis is accepted by an appropriate number of recognised top physicists (but please don’t hold your breath) then you and Claes could be in for not only one but two Nobel Prizes (http://www.nobelprize.org/). I suppose that they will then have to posthumously remove Plank’s 1918 Nobel Prize in Physics and transfer it and the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize from Al Gore and the IPCC (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/) to Claes and you.
Best regards, Pete Ridley.
I am more interested in having an impact on the voting public, the media and the governments of the world. Those “scientists” with vested interests are unlikely to change their acknowledged public viewpoints, nor to peer-review contrary papers, as you well know. There are hundreds of peer-reviewed papers already critical of AGW anyway. Nothing can stop me self-publishing and using (if need be) a fair bit of money promoting and distributing free copies of my book, which will be very affordable and at cost anyway.
BTW, your funnel gadget used for cooking gave me the idea for my funnel experiment with two different sized plates at the same temperature at each end of the funnel. There is more radiation from the large to the samll, and yet no warming due to Second Law. This confirms quite nicely what I have been saying that radiation with lower frequencies cannot warm a surface emitting higher frequencies.
See
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/WiensDisplacementLaw.html
Note the first plot in the above linked page, then see
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/16/the-anatomy-of-a-global-warming-smear/#comment-895671
Pete
Hi Doug, you seem to be determined to spam the entire internet with your pseudo-scientific hypothesis
_____________________________________
No Pete, it is the IPCC et al who have spammed the world with their pseudo science based on violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and you cannot disprove this statement because you cannot show that the concept of backradiation from a colder atmosphere supposedly adding thermal energy to a warmer surface, thus slowing its cooling rate, is not such a violation. Whereas, I can show that it is by using standard accepted physics.
That my friend is the situation.
PS You are free to pick fault with the author of this article http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/16/the-anatomy-of-a-global-warming-smear/#more-56771
Hi Doug, I’m heading off to Brighton (UK) for the weekend so you’ll have to wait for my response to your most recent comments. First though I’ll be spending a bit more time looking into your background – and that sure is revealing. There’s more to you than simply “ .. having an impact on the voting public, the media and the governments of the world .. “ isn’t there.
A wise old Australian bird PeggyB said to me a couple of years ago when we were discussing the CACC nonsense on ex-Senator Steve Fielding’s forum “If you’re puzzled about someones’ motives follow the money. How true. Looking for the financial incentive nearly always comes up trumps.
“ .. That my friend is the situation .. ”!
Best regards, Pete Ridley.
No my friend, I have nothing to hide. Even the idea of a book (which will be probably non-profit) was an after thought, and I can assure you my motives are only altruistic. I have no revenue from my websites – only costs.
Here’s a post you may find helps your understanding of the physics …
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/19/open-thread-weekend-8/#comment-897342
Hi Doug, please forgive me for getting the impression that you really are full of it, just like John O’Sullivan, with whom you appear to have much more in common than simply supporting Professor Claes Johnson’s hypothesis about Plank’s quantum “myth”. I must say that I find all of your business and other ventures extremely interesting. I am not persuaded that my QUOTE: .. follow the money. How true. Looking for the financial incentive nearly always comes up trumps. “ .. That my friend is the situation .. ”! .. UNQUOTE falls short of the mark.
You claim that “ .. Even the idea of a book (which will be probably non-profit) was an after thought, and I can assure you my motives are only altruistic. I have no revenue from my websites – only costs .. ”. When commenting on the “Want to try the latest fad diet? Just ask your local pharmacist” thread in Dec. Doug Cotton, IT Manager also said QUOTE: .. I have no financial interest in this I can assure you, but just wish to cite these as examples of products which appear very much in contrast with some of those mentioned above. Not all is “pseudoscientific trash” .. UNQUOTE (http://theconversation.edu.au/want-to-try-the-latest-fad-diet-just-ask-your-local-pharmacist-4098). Those declarations of lack of financial motivation seem to conflict with what I find on most of your own Web-pages.
It appears that despite your 45 years of private research it is only since about July last year that you started blogging about CACC. Your earlier research seems to have been more to do with developing and marketing the various businesses that you and your wife are running in :
– photography (http://yophotography.homestead.com/about.html; http://www.douglascotton.com/about.html ; http://ozviews.homestead.com ; http://www.twitter-value.com/www/ozviews.homestead.com ; http://www.tasmania-holiday.com/limited.html ; http://www.ukeuropeviews.com/ ; http://www.yocotton.com/about.html )
– software systems (http://acclaimsites.com/contact.html)
– tutoring (http://www.ozmaths.com)
– natural medicines (http://www.dlook.com.au/naturopaths/nsw-sydney-macquarie-park/natural-medicine-research-centre-987790 ; http://ageslowly.homestead.com ; http://www.slower-aging.com ;
– and last but not least, sexy women’s swimwear “ .. sydney wholesaler wants sexy women’s swimwear we are wholesalers in sydney, australia. please send price list for small quantities of swimwear (bikinis) that you stock. contact person mr. doug cotton Web:www.alibaba-usa.org telephone 61-2-98733300 .. ” (http://www.tradinglot.com/en/html/20091012/2009101242834140.html ; http://www.nite-fash.com ; )
That lot ties in with the Domain Tools “Whois Record For Australian-Maths-Software.com” statement that “ .. “Yoice Cotton” owns about 13 other domains .. ” (http://whois.domaintools.com/australian-maths-software.com) but which are the others that you are associated with? ” .. Douglas Cotton .. owns about 34 other domains (http://whois.domaintools.com/acclaim-soft.com; http://whois.domaintools.com/homeopathic-software-australia.com etc. etc. etc.). You both are busy little bees, aren’t you, but I suppose that you have to be. After all, houses aren’t cheap in Sydney (http://www.onthehouse.com.au/property_values_map/666891/Duncan+Place+NORTH+ROCKS/).
Taking that lot into consideration and the suggestion that “ .. Australian Landscape Photography by Doug Cotton OzViews.com: ozviews.homestead.com is worth $161,431 .. ” (http://www.twitter-value.com/www/ozviews.homestead.com) and has even been valued more recently at $1.2M (http://www.valuate.com/homestead.com/) I hope that you can understand why I am somewhat sceptical of your assurance that “ .. my motives are only altruistic. I have no revenue from my websites – only costs .. ”.
I can’t help feeling that it might have been those dollar signs that inspired you to start and began touting your “earth-climate.com” site, rather than some irresistible altruistic urge to expose the UN’s CACC scam. You’ve been spamming about that new site since the middle of 2011 (e.g. at places like http://animals.howstuffworks.com/dinosaurs/dinosaur-extinction.htm (suggesting that you’re at the U of Sydney?) ; http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2011/08/gores-bull-tish-broadsided-by-climate.html ; http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-video-2-failed-at-science-attack-the-scientists.html (claiming to be “Manager, Climate Research Centre”) ; http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/01/a-big-picture-look-at-earths-temperature/ ; http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/global-warming-debunked-or-not etc. etc. etc.)
You, like John O’Sullivan, probably hoped for a nice little earner from the CACC nonsense so, with that site of yours running since July 2011, you must be so disappointed that it is only valued at £40.00 (e.g. see http://www.urlappraisal.net/search.php?textSearch=earth-climate.com&searchSubmit=Appraise). Never mind, I’m sure that with your business skills you’ll find another earner somewhere (although I am not so sure about John).
In my opinion the most important of your “ .. B.Sc.(Physics), B.A.(Econ), Dip.Bus.Admin .. Extensive subsequent private research and post-graduate studies in Economics, IT, Accounting, Business Administration, Marketing, Climate Change, Nutrition and Natural Medicine. Founder of Natural Medicine Research Centre .. ” (http://theconversation.edu.au/new-csiro-website-shows-steady-rise-of-greenhouse-gases-1908) it is the business-related subjects that are most significant.
Please can you enlighten me if I have misled myself into thinking that you are motivated more by money than by a concern for the welfare of others. I was at one time prepared to accept that you had been inspired to turn your back on possessions and status (http://dougyo.homestead.com/Sydney_House.html and promote a higher cause (http://www.savedbythelamb.com/), but I haven’t found any convincing evidence of that yet. In fact even your evangelical “Saved By The Lamb” site is used to advertise and link to one of your photographic sales businesses, linking first to “Beautiful photo cards with Bible verses at WorshipMoments.com” and ending up at http://www.worshipmoments.com/Pg1.html with its 10 pages of persuasive “Buy This” invitations, each photo with a biblical quotation and a final “God Bless You” (http://www.worshipmoments.com/GodBlessYou.html).
I felt quite sick after going through that lot.
The “Six weird ways to make a million in 2012” thread by Lovemoney says “Although it’s said that there is a book in each of us, yours is unlikely to make you a millionaire, never mind a billionaire” (http://www.lovemoney.com/news/savings-investments-pensions/investments/11326/six-weird-ways-to-make-a-million). That certainly was the case for that hodge-podge collection of pseudo-scientific/political articles “Slaying the Sky Dragon” cobbled together by John O’Sullivan and his “Slayers”. I speculate that it applies to your book on the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) hypothesis.
You will find a lot of comments on this thread from US investigative journalist Andrew Skolnick who was previously an associate editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) – and is also a qualified photographer. One of Andrew’s favourite activities was investigating and reporting on dubious claims made by what many see as quack organisations, one of his targets being Transcendental Meditation organizations. I’m sure that he would have enjoyed investigating organisations like Life Extension Foundation, which you insisted “ .. do not sell supplements for profit .. ” (http://theconversation.edu.au/mondays-medical-myth-drink-plenty-of-fluids-when-you-have-a-cold-1956). It seems that the FDA has not always had the same trust in LEF as you claim to have “ .. Raid: The Life Extension Foundation – Feb 26, 1987 .. Reason: FDA alleged LEF was selling unapproved drugs (vitamins in U.S.) and life extension drugs from overseas companies. Outcome: FDA seized $500,000 worth of vitamins, computers, files, newsletters, personal belongings. Phones were ripped out of the walls and employees terrorized. The foundation’s leaders, Saul Kent and William Faloon, were indicted on 28 criminal counts with maximum prison time of 84 years in November, 1991. Case is still pending .. ” (http://www.myopia.org/fdaraids.htm) – or was that a different LEF to the one that you so enthusiastically support?
Now I must get back to researching material for my first book in the “Cupboard 55” genre of factional novels under which John published his two failed attempts to establish himself as an author after his teaching career came to a sudden end in 2003. That was before he turned his attention to the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) scam in 2009 as an opportunity to earn a living. That is to be the subject of my first “Cupboard 55” factional novel as a sequel to John’s short story “Bad Ass Birding” (http://www.jimstonjournal.com/id45.html) and the more complete “Vanilla Girl” (http://cupboard55vanillagirl.blogspot.com/ – the original version is at http://www.myspace.com/jdaleyoneal/blog) and “Summit Shock” (http://cupboard55summitshock.blogspot.com/2008/03/and-what-is-cupboard-55_31.html).
Looking at your background suggests that there may be material for another Cupboard 55 novel. Of course I am working on these not as a source of income but purely in the spirit of altruism. “ .. That my friend is the situation .. ”!!??!!
Of course, I am only expressing an opinion here based upon my interpretation of the information that I have researched. As usual, if anything that I have said here is considered to be unfair or a misrepresentation of the facts then please let me know and I will consider whether or not a retraction or apology is warranted. The last thing that I wish to de is misinterpret the evidence and present a misleading picture.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Well that’s certainly news to me that OzViews.com is supposedly worth $1.2 million – almost more than my house. I never even look up values of my domain names, and if that’s how inaccurate they can be, who would bother? It would be an absolute joke if anyone paid that sort of price for OzViews.com which gets relatively few hits. They must use very strange valuation methods. But the true value is what it would actually sell for.
And, by the way, you didn’t mention the Court cases which the Life Extension Foundation won against the FDA, all in the interests of the public having access to life saving nutrients. Nor did you mention how many millions have died because of the restrictions imposed by the FDA and the type of unwarranted actions they took against the LEF. No one is guilty until proven, and nothing has been proven against the LEF to my knowledge. And you know next to nothing about their supplements – but you could start here http://slower-aging.com
I can assure you my net assets have come primarily from inheritance, real estate capital gains and my medical and dental software, the latter being the most widely used dental software in Australia in the mid 1980’s. Only a pittance comes from photography by myself and my wife. I have never sold a domain name.
Considering that I have spent thousands of hours on the climate issues, it should not be hard to deduce that my businesses have suffered financially.
None of which has anything to do with the obvious fact that the IPCC “explanation” of backradiation causing a warming effect is in complete violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics – as explained with basic physics in my other posts.
No my friend. I just get annoyed when people who ought to know better, fail to take the trouble to really consider why the Second Law of Thermodynamics would be broken every sunny morning if radiation from a cooler atmosphere was really warming the surface even just a little bit in addition to the warming by the Sun. It cannot happen – it’s against the Law.
And, yes, I don’t want to see the Australian economy suffer because of the carbon tax and the effect that will have on everyone here, including my children, grandchildren etc.
That’s why I spend time writing to politicians and hoping (non-Christian) Julia Gillard will be out of the PM position sooner rather than later.
I did attend the University of Sydney where I studied physics under Profs Harry Messel, Julius Sumner-Miller and Verner Von Braun from 1963 to 1966 inclusive before doing Economics and Business Adninistration at Macquarie University, making a total of 9 years tertiary education. I subsequently marked students’ university assignments and have operated tutoring services and tutored myself part-time in secondary and tertiary mathematics and physics, all of which required on going study beyond my formal education. I never said I was employed by any university. The marking arrangements were paid for privately by a lecturer who was too busy I guess.
Be careful, Pete, you’re treading close to the defamation line.
Do you, Pete, or anyone, seriously believe that, when you turn on an electric radiator you could actually make it warm faster by holding a mirror beside it and reflecting its own radiation back onto itself? Try it if you do and time how long it takes to get to its maximum with or without the mirror. When it reaches its maximum, can you then make it hotter still with the mirror?
Backradiation would be even less effective than a mirror because it usually has lower frequencies than those originally emitted by the surface. It is ludicrous to imagine energy can be created this way. The Second Law of Thermodynamics would be so obviously violated.
Yet the IPCC says it should be about a quarter as powerful as the Sun at noon. Well I know the Sun can heat sand on the beach until it blisters my feet, but when I tested the effect of backradiation on sand there was not even a tenth of a degree difference between it and the shielded sand in an identical wide necked vacuum flask.
PS Pete – when you’ve finished with LEF at lef.org you can start with LEiF at leif.org where you’ll read that the Antarctic ice has been doing quite nicely since 1979 – along with the Arctic which is no warmer than it was in the 1940’s.
We found no significant trend in the 1979–2010 ice
sheet integrated SMB components, which confirms the
results from Monaghan et al. [2006].
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL050713.pdf
This page relates to what Prof Johnson has proved computationally. . . http://mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node133.html . . .It explains how reflected radiation is broken into two components …
(1) The specular (mirror-like) reflection where angle of incidence = angle of reflection.
(2) The “diffuse” reflection which is deflected at any random angle..
Here the second component is what I prefer to call deflected (or scattered) radiation, as the process is very different from specular reflection. But whatever you call it, it obviously does exist.
This is the process I have been talking about all along. As far as energy is concerned, as I have always said, it is the same as reflection and thus has no effect whatsoever on the temperature of the target, in this case the surface.
This diffuse reflection is what happens when the target is warmer than the source. If such radiation were absorbed and converted to thermal energy there would be a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. That is why you need to know the temperatures of both source and target before you can know the overall absorptivity and emissivity. These factors will be affected by this diffuse reflection, which cuts in when the target starts to get warmer than the source.
Thus, all radiation from a cooler atmosphere undergoes diffuse reflection when it strikes a warmer surface. This is why an atmospheric radiative greenhouse effect is a physical impossibility.
(continued from my last post)
I am of course aware that “diffuse” reflection is usually applied to reflection of light which appears to be diffused because of a rough surface. On a microscopic scale, the rough surface may well comprise many small smooth surfaces which simply produce specular reflection at various angles.
So, strictly speaking, the “rejection” of low frequency radiation (from a cooler source) which meets a warmer surface and then resonates and is scattered is yet another different process. But it helps to think of it as diffuse reflection because the end result is the same. My main point is that it can have no effect on the surface temperature because it is as good as reflected.
When IR from the atmosphere strikes a rough Earth surface, you would not be able to distinguish between this scattered radiation and diffuse reflection. In general you will measure inflated values of emissivity as a result. I would suggest that true absorptivity should be expressed as a function of both source and target temperatures. Then its measure should reflect the proportion of the radiation from a source at that temperature which is actually absorbed and converted to thermal energy. In the case of a target temperature greater than a source temperature the absorptivity would thus always be zero.
So this is where models go wrong because they use mean absorptivity measurements which disregard the temperatures of source and target and probably include a lot of scattered radiation anyway. Thus the models end up assuming thermal energy is transferred to the warmer atmosphere simply because they do not rate absorptivity for the relevant temperatures as being zero. Thus they assume violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and are of course wrong as a result. There can be no radiative Greenhouse effect.
(continued)
In calm conditions on a clear day we have the Sun (and only the Sun) warming the surface. Its high frequency (high energy) radiation right across its spectrum can be converted to thermal energy (if not already reflected) and this energy flows by conduction deeper into the land surfaces. The radiation itself already penetrates a fair way into the oceans before it is converted to thermal energy in the depths. Meanwhile thermal energy is also escaping the surface more or less as fast as conduction in the land and convection in the oceans will allow it to get back to the surface.
In the morning the rate of warming exceeds the rate of cooling, and vice versa in the evening. In summer the longer hours of daylight may trap some energy that cannot escape before the next morning. This trapped energy may build up as the middle of summer approaches, but escape by the next winter as daylight hours reduce and there is more time for cooling at night.
Now, looking at the cooling process, at least half (maybe 70%) of the thermal energy escapes to the atmosphere by evaporation, chemical processes and diffusion, which involves molecular collisions between the surface and the adjoining air, as in conduction in solids. The remaining energy will be radiated.
However, experiments in such conditions show that the lower atmosphere is always cooler than the surface, and cools faster than the surface at night. Radiation can never transfer heat from a cooler source to a warmer target and neither can diffusion. So these processes can never make the atmosphere warmer than the surface. The Sun also usually warms the surface faster than the lower atmosphere, so it is only very unusual weather conditions which might leave the surface cooler than the adjoining air. The air which is warmed in the morning will rise by convection.
The radiation from the surface may escape to space, but most will be absorbed by some molecules in the atmosphere. These molecules are likely to be warmed and may share some of the thermal energy with other molecules, or simply radiate it in all directions in small bursts.
The radiation which is emitted by the cooler atmosphere will have frequencies which are generally lower than the original radiation from the surface. If some of this radiation gets to the warmer surface it cannot be converted to thermal energy. Instead it is simply scattered by the surface without leaving any energy behind. Its energy cannot be converted back to thermal energy until it collides with something cooler than the original layer of the atmosphere from which it was emitted. Such cooler air will usually be higher up. It may even escape to space and only warm some cooler object in space maybe years later.
So each time any radiation goes back to the surface it will have absolutely no effect on the surface temperature, but will instead make it further towards space on the next trip up, if indeed it doesn’t escape altogether. Clearly there can be no Greenhouse effect.
Footnore: In situations when the relative humidity is high, the moist adiabatic lapse rate is lower than the dry one, so such humidity (as well as clouds) can slow the rate of cooling of the atmosphere, but this can never lead to any thermal energy going back into the surface, so the rate of cooling of the surface need not be slower. In a sense, thermal energy is falling over a smaller temperature step, but it still falls over at the same rate. The air we stand in may well feel warmer partly because there is less evaporation off our skin. In any event, these are just weather conditions which average out and do not relate to or affect climate.
Hi Doug,
Ref. Feb. 20 at 6:58 pm:
I can understand you wanting to attract visitors to your sites but I have no interest in reading about quack medicines that claim to help slow the ageing process. I’m ageing very satisfactorily thank you. I speculate that you are very disappointed that “ .. Only a pittance comes from photography by myself and my wife .. ” but every little helps. As for the impact on your income of “ .. thousands of hours on the climate issues .. ”, as an experienced businessman you must be fully aware that “to speculate is to accumulate”.
As for the IPCC’s claims about “ .. backradiation causing a warming effect .. ”, I am no more inclined to accept IPCC arguments than you are. We differ in that I recognise that preventing energy radiating from the global system of atmos/aqua/bio/litho/cryospheres reduces the rate of cooling (just as in a nice shiny vacuum flask). What would happen to the contents if that vacuum flask had a built-in source of energy?
Ref. Feb. 20 at 7:07 pm
Like you, I don’t want to see the Australian (or any other) economy suffer because of the carbon tax and other CACC nonsense. That’s why I, like you, spend time writing to politicians and doing all that I can to get rid of dishonest MPs who are pursuing their own selfish agenda. I encourage you to keep up the good work (but please drop the pseudo-science).
Ref. Feb. 20 at 7:19 pm
If you think that I am “ .. treading close to the defamation line .. ” then you really should be specific about where in my comments I approach that line. Dr. Chris Smith, leader of the University of Cambridge’s “Naked Scientists” project, made a similar accusation with regard to my comment on Professor Curry’s “Physics of the atmospheric greenhouse (?) effect” thread (http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/30/physics-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect/#comment-62506 – paras 5 & 6), saying “ .. This is rather defamatory in tone and content .. ”. When challenged about his accusation Chris sensibly referred to my comment as simply “ .. rude and derogatory .. ” which is very different from being defamatory.
Ref. Feb. 20 at 7:50 pm
What makes you think that I “ .. seriously believe that, when you turn on an electric radiator you could actually make it warm faster by holding a mirror beside it and reflecting its own radiation back onto itself? .. ”? Methinks that you are jumping to conclusions that are not supported by the evidence. Since the UN’s IPCC is a political, not a scientific, body I am highly sceptical of anything that comes out of it.
Ref. Feb. 20 at 9:11 pm
Thanks for drawing my attention to the paper by Lenaerts, et al. (http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL050713.pdf ) and I’d like to believe their conclusions but how credible are they? After all, they are “ .. based on output of a regional atmospheric climate model .. ”. We all know how suspect are the results from those climate models, none of which have been subjected to professional and independent Verification, Validation and Test (VV&T) procedures!
Ref. Feb. 21 at 1:13 am
It is an enormous leap of faith from this “ .. All bodies radiate energy in the form of photons moving in a random direction, with random phase and frequency. When radiated photons reach another surface, they may either be absorbed, reflected or transmitted. The behavior of a surface with radiation incident upon it can be described by the following quantities .. ” (http://mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node133.html) to this “ .. all radiation from a cooler atmosphere undergoes diffuse reflection when it strikes a warmer surface. This is why an atmospheric radiative greenhouse effect is a physical impossibility .. ”.
Ref. Feb. 21 at 2:28 am
You follow up with pure speculation that “ .. On a microscopic scale, the rough surface may well comprise many small smooth surfaces which simply produce specular reflection at various angles .. ” etc. etc. etc. but where is your supporting evidence of this?
Ref. Feb. 21 at 6:43 am
All that are “continued” in that comment are your incessant ramblings, which do not lead to the conclusion that “ .. Clearly there can be no Greenhouse effect .. ”.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete – you said …
I recognise that preventing energy radiating from the global system of atmos/aqua/bio/litho/cryospheres reduces the rate of cooling (just as in a nice shiny vacuum flask).
___________________________________________
You should just say you believe, because what you say is not a fact at all. The shiny internal surface of the vacuum flask merely reduces absorptivity by the wall so as to reduce conduction loss. The reflected backradiation does nothing to the temperature of the coffee, just like thebackradiation from the atmosphere does nothing to the surface.
You have not explained yet what happens to the extra radiation in my funnel thought experiment in which radiation from a large plate is concentrated onto a small plate of the same material and at the same temperature. Here we have net radiative flux towards the small plate, but it cannot do any warming without violating the 2nd Law. So the extra radiation is scattered just like diffuse reflection, even though not technically the same process. Prof Johnson explains how it resonates. Why don’t you argue with this Professor of Applied Mathematics about his computations which prove what we are both saying?
PS I should have made it clear that the reference re slander pertained to your one sided comments about unproven law cases against LEF founders. I imagine these people keep a watch on the internet. You will not find a more comprehensive website on natural medicine research since 1980 when LEF was founded. If you had been a member for nearly 20 years as I have you would know a lot more about both sides of the story. BTW, I have also done a one year course in nutrition (gaining a High Distinction) as well as post-graduate university studies in Natural Medicine. I can understand that you may not think there are supplements which slow the aging process, but you are mistaken on that too.
So, don’t forget the funnel experiment – or this headlamp version http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/19/open-thread-weekend-8/#comment-899590 (Think this will stump you.)
Also the backradiation in which CO2 sends incident IR solar radiation back to space, thus cooling.
Cheers
Doug
A more detailed response to your conjecture that “preventing energy radiating… reduces the rate of cooling” is contained in this* post above. However you will need to think about the funnel experiment first in order to realise that radiated energy can be just scattered without being converted to thermal energy when the target is not cooler than the source of the radiation.
As I have said elsewhere, all frequencies in the radiation from the cooler atmosphere are contained in the frequencies able to be emitted by the warmer surface. Thus such radiation is able to merely resonate and then exit the surface (just as in diffuse reflection) without leaving any energy behind.
* http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?from=&to=en&a=http%3A%2F%2Fjudithcurry.com%2F2011%2F10%2F15%2Fletter-to-the-dragon-slayers%2F%23comment-172910
Guys, you can stop worrying about endless warming going up forever with carbon dioxide levels. It can’t happen.
The whole Earth system (including atmosphere) has to emit very close to the flux it receives from the Sun. So there will be some temperature – let’s say 255K – which is a mean and is somewhere up in the atmosphere.
The natural adiabatic lapse rate is determined, not by carbon dioxide, but by the acceleration due to gravity, the mass of the atmosphere and, to some extent, relative humidity which mostly averages out. The lapse rate sets the gradient of the atmospheric temperature plot which has to swivel about the 255K mean, so the surface end is warmer and the TOA colder. The drop in temperatures between the surface and the tropopause has been very close to constant in all the years of records shown on the NASA site since the end of 2002.
My point is that the mean surface temperature is dictated by these two values – the 255K (or whatever the exact figure is) and the lapse rate. Carbon dioxide cannot affect either, so neither are under mankind’s control.
Both the surface and the atmosphere will simply shed energy faster if they get a little warmer, thus tending back to the mean.
Don’t try to tell me there is a long term TOA net radiative flux difference. The net radiative flux varies between about 99.5% and 100.5% of incoming radiation. This is just random noise or short-term cycles. Longer natural cycles may have to do with variations in the effective power from solar radiation (affecting that 255K figure) and maybe the thermal energy generated under the surface. Small variations in the latter over many thousands of revolutions of the Earth could have a cumulative effect. The very fact that the terrestrial heat flow is low means that the massive quantity of thermal energy from the surface down to the core stays fairly much the same and brings about a stabilising effect as I have explained on the ‘Explanation’ page of my website. . This also is an additional comfort, so relax!
Pete
Again I say that “preventing energy radiating” actually does not happen just because CO2 absorbs some radiation. Even the IPCC dropped this argument because there was no empirical evidence. The extra thermal energy due to the capture just increases local temperatures and thus increases the propensity to radiate. Next time the radiation warms molecules in a cooler layer, even if it was scattered by the surface on the way down and up. Next time it may be water vapour that captures. So the energy just goes out by a different gate. Measurements show that between 99.5% and 100.5% is normal, as mentioned in another post.
So the IPCC invented the conjjecture that backradiation actually gets converted to thermal energy when it strikes a warmer surface, thus creating a heat transfer from cold to hot.
PS Pete
It’s not a “leap of faith” because it is based on computations, fundamental physics and empirical evidence … maybe this helps …
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/19/open-thread-weekend-8/#comment-897342
PPS You might be surprised who thought the radiator would be helped with a mirror (LOL) …
Leonard Weinstein said
February 21, 2012 at 10:13 am
If you place a mirror next to a heater, it will raise the heater temperature. If the heater is turned off, the presence of the mirror will make it cool off slower.
__________________________________________________________
No it doesn’t do either. ….. http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2012/01/21/fun-stuff/#comment-69114
I just wrote this reply to a comment on another website, and I feel it may help people here …he wrote:
The obvious effect of this is that the radiative cooling of the hotter body will be slowed down by the presence of the cooler body, because some of the energy is being returned. This is completely different than there being a NET transfer of heat from the cooler body to the hotter body, which I agree is not possible.
No it’s not completely different. While the energy is still in the radiation it is not equivalent to thermal energy because it has not yet been converted. It cannot affect the temperature of the target unless and until it is converted to thermal energy. Only thermal energy can be added to other thermal energy with a resulting temperature change. You can only slow a rate of cooling by adding thermal energy. Hence the original thermal energy from the cooler body would have to end up being thermal energy in the warmer one before having any effect on temperature. Hence the 2nd Law would be violated.
My funnel experiment focuses more radiation from a large object onto a small one at the same temperature and made of the same metal material. What happens? Think about it. The only way the 2nd Law can apply is if you always disregard the radiation from cold to hot and only consider the radiation from hot to cold.
Any radiation from cold to hot merely resonates – as it can because the hotter body can always itself radiate at all the frequencies in the cooler body emission. It is as good as if diffuse reflection had happened – no energy is left behind and there is no effect on the temperature of the hotter body.
Everyone
I have updated and expanded my Radiation page now and it seems to me you should find answers and detailed explanations there for any further queries you may have …
http://www.climate-change-theory.com/RadiationAbsorption.html
Here is another chart of the breakdown of solar insolation.
http://climate-change-theory.com/insolation.jpg
Note the reference to most of the infra-red being absorbed by the atmosphere.
Clearly that in the visible spectrum is by no means “most” of the energy. For a start, the UV, X-rays etc have much higher energy than light as you all must know. So the atmosphere has a significant cooling effect during daylight hours, and water vapour has a net negative feedback partly because of this absorption and also due to reflection off clouds.
Seeing that backradiation does not affect climate in any way, there is no way WV could have a positive feedback as assumed by IPCC, thus amplifying CO2 effects they claim.
There simply cannot be an atmospheric radiative greenhouse effect without violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics, as I have proved on my website, and also because every ray of radiation has to be treated as a separate process.
There is no physical meaning associated with, and no physical entity corresponding to “net” radiation. Radiation rays do not combine like, for example, force vectors.
A warm body will not absorb any radiation from a cooler source, no matter how much of such radiation is sent in its direction, as shown in my funnel experiment. And all such radiation has no effect on the normal spontaneous outgoing radiation, let alone the heat loss by evaporation and diffusion followed by convection.
Doug, I think that it is now time to call a halt to my futile exchanges with you. I make a final attempt to help you better understand the science of the incorrectly named “Greenhouse Effect” of the earth’s atmosphere (particularly the major constituents N2, O2 and H2O but also those minor trace gases like CO2 and there effect on the different global climates. Here is a link to an excellent introductory text book “Atmosphere, Weather and Climate” (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Atmosphere-Weather-Climate-Roger-Barry/dp/0415271711) by geography Professors Roger Barry (U of Colarado at Boulder) and Richard Choreley (U of Cambridge but deceased).
I hope that you have the sense to drag yourself away from your futile blogging and make the time away from running your numerous businesses (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-172459) to read and understand it, although I do warn you that, like any text written by supporters of the CACC hypothesis, it contains numerous flaws where the impact of “greenhouse gases” on the different global climates are concerned. Maybe you’ll be able to spot a few of them.
An initial search in that book for “Sellers” will take you to the top of Page 33 where you should find Fig. 3.1 much more useful than the one that you linked to in your comment of 25th Feb. at 12:54 am.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Well Pete, you can argue with Markus Fitzhenry now who’s saying much the same thing as Prof Claes Johnson and myself. . . .
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/26/the-skeptics-case/#comment-905670
No, you won’t find it in textbooks yet. It takes time for a new hypothesis to be accepted as a theory – decades usually.
I have spent thousands of hours on climate science and read stuff like you quote years ago. I too was bluffed at first. i hope you see the light sometime in the next year or two, for your sake, not mine.
And when you find empirical measurements of surface absorptivity that are not made with visible light, but with IR such as from the atmosphere let me know. I bet you’ll find them a heck of a lot lower, if not zero when the source is cooler than the target.
“The Skeptics Case” (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/26/the-skeptics-case/#comment-905670) looks to be an interesting article. After a quick scan I have no argument with what Dr. Evans says.
Markus Fitzhenry’s comment suggests that he too is on a different wavelength to what Doug Cotton is:-
“ .. There are many who are rejecting the IPCC theory of AGW .. ” I’m one of those.
“ .. Back-radiation is a fact. It is simply a consequence of the fact that all matter in the universe is radiating energy in all directions all of the time. This implies that the Earth’s atmosphere is radiating in all directions too. Radiation and conduction both occur from hot objects to cold and from cold objects to hot at the molecular level. It is quite easy to show that a cold molecule (low kinetic energy) can warm a hot molecule (high kinetic energy) through collision, further reducing the kinetic energy of the already cold molecule.
This does not violate thermodynamics, because thermodynamics does not apply at the molecular level. Thermodynamics is a statistical affect that operates on averages over many molecules .. ”. No arguments with that.
Now I hope that Doug goes away and reads that book “Atmosphere, Weather and Climate” that I recommended.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete – see http://climate-change-theory.com/RadiationAbsorption.html
and my posts about standing waves …
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/26/the-skeptics-case/#comment-906726
I don’t disagree with Markus. Do you? If so why?
Maybe you should read all of what Markus says at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/26/the-skeptics-case/#comment-905670
Markus has written:
… because that part of the radiated energy intercepted by the warmer body is standing wave communicating information between the emitter/absorber states, on both bodies, it can do no thermodynamic work.
When the cooler body is at absolute zero, the exchange energy is zero. When the temperatures are equal, it is the same as the radiation emitted by either body.
However, it can still do no thermodynamic work and it can only be detected by blocking the energy from the warmer body to the colder body. By counting ‘back radiation’ with the energy emitted by the warmer body, Trenberth is increasing the S-B constant by a factor 1to2.
So for statistical and modelling purposes it is disingenuous to consider back-radiation as a climatic forcing.
AND I have written …
The standing wave has no thermal effect because none of its energy is ever converted to thermal energy. It just sends information back to the warmer body and a part of the warmer body’s radiation goes into the standing wave. The energy radiated by the warmer body which is represented by the area between the curves does get converted to thermal energy because it cannot resonate and thus contribute to the standing wave. The calculations of course agree with accepted physics, but the mechanism is not a two-way transfer of heat, as many appear to have supposed.
But there is no build up of the effect of carbon dioxide due to multiple repetitions of the capturing and re-emitting process envisaged in the IPCC energy diagrams and models. Each carbon dioxide molecule can only play a single role in a very limited sub-section of the total standing wave. Its contribution per molecule would be no more than a molecule of water, and so its total overall effect is comparable with its relative proportion to WV and other emitters in the atmosphere – insignificant.
Judith Curry …
Why do you suppose Harvard makes a point of saying the gas which is aborbing is cool and the blackbody hot? Experiments show that when the gas is hotter than the blackbody there are no absorption lines.
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~jbattat/a35/cont_abs_em.html
Just as Claes Johnson said in the Slayers book.
And again …
“We usually see absorption spectra from regions in space where a cooler gas lies between us and a hotter source.”
from http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_classroom/ir_tutorial/spec.html
I don’t believe they and Harvard would each make a point of the fact that the gas is cooler unless they knew there is no absorption when the gas is warmer than the source. Hence ..
(1) The gas can “distinguish” between when the source is hotter or colder than itself. (Johnson’s “cut-off” frequency.)
(2) In the case of a gas the absorption stops when the source is no longer warmer than the gas.
(3) Whatever process causes the gas not to absorb could just as easily apply to liquids and solids
(4) Radiation emanating from a cooler part of the atmosphere and heading towards the surface would not be absorbed by a warmer layer of the atmosphere, even if it struck water vapour or carbon dioxide molecules identical to that which emitted it.
(5) Even if this only applied to gases, we thus know that radiated heat can only transfer to cooler areas of the atmosphere and so heat transfer is generally upwards except in the stratosphere.
There are two broad classes of radiation from the atmosphere. ..
(1) That which results from spontaneous emission after a molecule has ended up in a warmer (maybe excited) state due to radiative absorption or from molecular collision. Any of this radiation which heads to warmer targets (lower atmosphere or surface) will by the first half of a standing wave and the second half comes back to it from the warmer target it hit.
(2) That which emanates from the surface. This heads into the atmosphere and strikes cooler targets at various altitudes. Some of its energy thermalizes, and some just forms the first half of a standing wave which comes back to it. The cooler the target was, the more it will be warmed and the less will be the effect of the standing wave on the rate of cooling of the surface. So molecules closer to the surface have more effect on the rate of cooling, but each CO2 molecule is no more effective than each water vapour molecule.
[In contrast, the IPCC models assume CO2 sends far more photons back per molecule than water, so they claim the overall effect of only about 4% as much CO2 as WV is that each contributes similar amounts in total. But the concept of standing waves puts each molecule on an equal footing, so CO2 has nowhere near the effect of WV.
Hi Doug, ref. 4th March @ 12:17 am. “ .. the gas which is absorbing is cool and the blackbody hot? Experiments show that when the gas is hotter than the blackbody there are no absorption lines. .. ”. That’s very interesting as it seems to support the argument that IR-absorbing (and emitting) gases in the troposphere are able to absorb (and emit) some of the earth’s emissions. As you can see from Figure 2.15 of that excellent book that I recommended to you (my comment of 26th Feb. at 8:29 am), the earth’s surface is warmer than the atmosphere, so (making the assumption that the earth can be treated as approximating a black body).
Perhaps you aren’t aware of the relevant physics, discussed trivially by ex-Slayer Professor Claes Johnson and others last October on his “Helmholtz Reciprocity and DLR/Backradiation” thread (http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2011/10/helmholtz-reciprocity-and.html). Professor Johnson had the cheek to claim there that “ .. Judy Curry for one has given up the idea of DLR/backradiation based on my arguments. Who’s next? .. ”. For a more scientific analysis try “Field theory for generalized bidirectional reflectivity: derivation of Helmholtz’s reciprocity principle and Kirchhoff’s law” (http://www.opticsinfobase.org/josaa/abstract.cfm?uri=JOSAA-15-10-2735 or http://www.mendeley.com/research/field-theory-generalized-bidirectional-reflectivity-derivation-helmholtzs-reciprocity-principle-kirchhoffs-law/) for a far superior treatment. You may find it hard work but well worth the effort and far better than simply hanging your hat on what Professor Johnson says, although it seems to me that you may now be realising that there are flaws in Professor Johnson’s hypothesis.
Your link to the Harvard teaching material (https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~jbattat/a35/cont_abs_em.html) used by James Battat is worth following up on. Dr. Battat is a professional physicist, not a novice who dabbles in it, like you and me. He is Assistant Professor of Physics at Bryn Mawr College (http://www.brynmawr.edu/physics/JBattat/index.html) and I have asked him if he can spare the tim eto enlighten you about quantum physics.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
The Earth’s surface is nothing at all like a perfect blackbody because it also loses about 70% of its thermal energy by processes other than radiation, (according to NASA) and only about 30% by radiation. (See NASA Energy diagram on my site.) Even that 30% includes some standing wave radiation.
Empirical measurements “confirming” Kirchhoff’s Law count the standing wave radaition and assume it was absorbed and re-emitted radiation. This is not correct and is equivalent to the IPCC claiming backradiation transfers energy to the surface, such as when they say on their website that there is a “heat exchange” between the surface and the Troposphere.
.
As it is within a couple of days, I suggest you wait for my 10 page peer-reviewed Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics to be published, as it will answer all your points.
Backradiation is standing waves, whether Dr Battat is aware of this or not, as there can be no other possibility.
PS Treating the Earth’s surface as a blackbody with emissivity greater than, say, 0.8 is totally incorrect.
Why do you feel you need to “teach” me about trace gases in the atmosphere absorbing some surface radiation? Did you assume I didn’t know such basic facts?
And was I ever speaking about reflectivity? What relevance has that?
The spectroscopy results for gases (as described above) appear to be common knowledge. Such results confirm (at least for gases) exactly what Claes proved in Computational Blackbody Radiation where he also spoke of the resonance which does not lead to absorption.
There really is no point in my spending time writing more here today when my paper may be published any moment, as it has already passed peer-review.
.
Doug, ref. 4th March at 5:39 pm. let me know which respected peer-reviewed scientific journal your paper is published in, but don’t bother if it’s being self-published on your blog or has been accepted by the pseudo-scientific publishing company Principia Scientific International, run by Slayer John O’Sullivan.
I speculate that the “peers” who reviewed it have no more idea about the science than you have.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete – I certainly wouldn’t submit it to climatologists to “review” as this is about physics, and most of them know less physics than I would have when I completed my first degree in 1966. That is why there is so much pseudo-physics in their conjectures – like that 255 deg.K figure, just for starters. What a joke! And their assumed “right” to base their “models” on processes which would violate the Second Law.
Before you respond with the standard argument about imaginary “net radiation” I suggest you wait till you read my paper Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
I am also planning to email quite a few professors of physics post-publication, for their comments. I’m very willing to discuss the content with anyone, publicly or privately, but only when I am satisfied that they have studied all ten pages thereof. The same applies for anyone wishing to debate it in forums such as this, though I will probably have to restrict discussion to one particular forum – probably on WUWT.
.
Well, Pete, you are of course entitled to your opinions and suspicions about people and organisation, and perhaps you can find fault in the somewhat complex computations which Claes has published, though I find them correct. But none of the above successfully refutes the actual cogent physics argument which I put forward and which is supported by experiments, observations and climate records (including 1000 year solar cycles – see WUWT today) all tying together with what I am saying.
So maybe you could draft out your own paper explaining some alternate reason why a warm gas does not absorb radiation from a cooler emitter.
Below is my argument which you need to refute …
The warmer gas does not absorb and then re-emit. Re-emission in all directions would not fill in the absorption lines observed by the spectrometer because it would not compare in intensity with direct radiation from the source. The radiation from the emitter forms standing waves which run along the same paths as the incident rays, and can thus interfere with them before any absorption takes place.
This has to be the case. Consider a ray of backradiation penetrating a small distance into the ocean. If it were to get converted to thermal energy by absorption, the energy will not be re-emitted straight away via radiation from a few cm/inches under the surface of the ocean. Instead, the warmer water will rise to the surface by convection and at least some of it will evaporate and only some be radiated. There would have been a “completed (macro) transaction” in which that.radiation (from lots of molecules in a cooler atmosphere) warmed (a layer of) water below the surface of the ocean. This clearly would violate the 2nd Law.
Now do you see the difference between this and a standing wave? If there is conversion to thermal energy then there has to have been a violation of the Second Law.
Hi Doug, you really are getting confused aren’t you, possibly because it is 45 years since you had physics teachers help you to understand physics. I fully appreciate how difficult it can be trying to teach yourself because it is so easy to mislead yourself down a blind alley.
On 4th March at 5:39 pm. you claimed that “ .. within a couple of days .. my 10 page peer-reviewed Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics to be published .. my paper may be published any moment, as it has already passed peer-review .. ”. Then at 11:58 pm you say “ .. I am also planning to email quite a few professors of physics post-publication, for their comments. I’m very willing to discuss the content with anyone, publicly or privately, but only when I am satisfied that they have studied all ten pages thereof. The same applies for anyone wishing to debate it in forums such as this, though I will probably have to restrict discussion to one particular forum – probably on WUWT .. ”
I gather from this that when you say that your paper has already been peer-reviewed you mean not by recognised physicists but by others with as poor an understanding of the physics as yourself. I also understand that the article (I doubt that it will be recognisable as a peer-reviewed paper) will not be appearing in any respected physics journal. I suspect that Anthony Watts will choose to ignore your pleas for him to have it debated on his blog as he will not want his reputation destroyed.
Sorry to burst your balloon Doug but stick to the day-job(sssss) because you aren’t going to win any part of that Nobel Prize-money that Professor Claes Johnson seems to have his eye on (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/about/amounts.html).
Maybe you should stop pretending to be a physicist and go back to those teaching, software, photographic, “snake-oil” remedy, etc. business ventures of yours – see my comment on 20th February at 4:38 pm.
BTW, how’s your sexy under-ware venture going (http://www.tradinglot.com/en/html/20091012/2009101242834140.html ; http://www.nite-fash.com ; )? (Anyone puzzled by the connection between nite-fasion.com and Doug can find it at http://www.ozbargains.com/ where, surprise surprise, we have Doug advertising his ozmaths.com business, offering “ .. HIGHLY EFFECTIVE MATHS SOFTWARE & PRIVATE MATHS TUITION .. This MATHS SOFTWARE is now on eBay for around $20! .. Private tuition $48 an hour .. I believe that I can claim to be one of the most experienced Maths tutors in Australia, .. I have had many years’ experience as a specialist Maths tutor who first tutored in the 1970’s after majoring in Pure Mathematics at Sydney University. I have been a Principal of a large Coaching College and I have written extensive notes on maths and, more recently, my maths software which has been used by hundreds of students throughout Australia .. Doug Cotton, B.Sc (Math), B.A. (Econ), Dip.Bus.Admin. Phone: 98733300 .. Location for lessons at 6 Duncan Place (off Baden Powell Place), North Rocks. .. ”).
Do you wonder that I am not prepared to waste my time reading your pseudo-scientific writings?
As usual, if anything that I have said here is considered to be unfair or a misrepresentation of the facts then please let me know and I will consider whether or not a retraction or apology is warranted. The last thing that I wish to de is misinterpret the evidence and present a misleading picture.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Doug Cotton | March 4, 2012 at 7:08 pm | Reply
Well, Pete, you are of course entitled to your opinions and suspicions about people and organisation, and perhaps you can find fault in the somewhat complex computations which Claes has published, though I find them correct. But none of the above successfully refutes the actual cogent physics argument which I put forward and which is supported by experiments, observations and climate records (including 1000 year solar cycles – see WUWT today) all tying together with what I am saying.
So maybe you could draft out your own paper explaining some alternate reason why a warm gas does not absorb radiation from a cooler emitter.
Below is my argument which you need to refute …
The warmer gas does not absorb and then re-emit. Re-emission in all directions would not fill in the absorption lines observed by the spectrometer because it would not compare in intensity with direct radiation from the source. The radiation from the emitter forms standing waves which run along the same paths as the incident rays, and can thus interfere with them before any absorption takes place.
This has to be the case. Consider a ray of backradiation penetrating a small distance into the ocean. If it were to get converted to thermal energy by absorption, the energy will not be re-emitted straight away via radiation from a few cm/inches under the surface of the ocean. Instead, the warmer water will rise to the surface by convection and at least some of it will evaporate and only some be radiated. There would have been a “completed (macro) transaction” in which that.radiation (from lots of molecules in a cooler atmosphere) warmed (a layer of) water below the surface of the ocean. This clearly would violate the 2nd Law.
Now do you see the difference between this and a standing wave? If there is conversion to thermal energy then there has to have been a violation of the Second Law.
If there are any other readers out there apart from Doug then I’m sorry that I inadvertently repeated Doug’s nonsense at the end of my own comment. Please ignore not only my repeat of “Doug Cotton March 4, 2012 at 7:08 pm but also the original
Well, Pete, what does happen when backradiation enters the first few cm of the ocean. Does it warm that water just below the surface, so that water can rise by convection to the surface and then evaporate, taking the energy back into the atmosphere?
Or does the backradiation fail to transfer any thermal energy to the warmer water?
An answer to the question, Peter. I will insist.
And the global super-power Doug Cotton loudly declares “ .. An answer to the question, Peter. I will insist .. ”!!! I tremble in front of you sir.
No Pete, I guess I can’t get you to answer a question to which you do not know the answer* and whether you wish to attempt to do so (before you look below) is your prerogative. Just bear in mind, as we can see, others are in fact reading this and we probably both thought that no longer the case.
You do annoy me, I have to admit, when you think you can put down science on the basis of what a man’s wife does for a living, or even how he earns his own crust. For the record, I have personally developed one of the most widely used medical and dental software packages in Australia, quite apart from my mathematics software. I don’t hide my mixed interests – they are there for all to see http://douglascotton.com
I’ve summarised what has been well over a thousand hours of research on atmospheric physics in this paper (for which I expect no remuneration) but I am not begging you to read it.
However, I do stand for the truth in science, as does the organisation involved with the publishing, and we all do have concern for the ramifications of what has been the biggest hoax in the history of mankind.
* Answer: The radiation does not enter the ocean at all because it is part of a standing wave from the surface. No transfer of thermal energy takes place, The rate of the radiative component of surface cooling diminishes slightly and evaporation and diffusion increase to compensate.
If the radiation had warmed the water it would have been a violation of the Second Law.
I do have a wife in business for herself, as you no doubt know. And she and others for whom I set up websites make use of the bandwidth and sometimes domain names which I purchase in my name, as such is more economical. See http://acclaimsites.com
I also majored in physics and did post graduate university studies in natural medicine as well as a one year course in nutrition in which I gained a HD. But so what? I’ve learnt 10 times as much since both in physics and natural medicine. But I guess it is none of my business if you want to suffer in your old age and perhaps die before you’re 90..
Add about 45 years of studying physics in connection with tutoring university students and I think you’ll find me quite up to date, rather than brainwashed with the “post-physics” from the greenhouse era, full of its garbage about 255 deg.K temperatures and the like. But I guess you still believe in such and can’t understand what’s wrong. And can’t understand just how little a carbon dioxide molecule can slow the radiative transfer from the surface compared with a water vapour molecule which resonates with far more frequencies. Nor can you understand why the second law forbids the warming of the sub-surface water.
You are a perfect example of a brainwashed non-thinking arrogant and narcissistic…(self snip) ..
Answer the question, my boy. I’m still waiting and will read nothing else you write but an attempted answer.. One thing I do succeed in achieving is good results for my students and, strange as it may seem, I consider you as such for you have so much to learn about the physics of the atmosphere and of course cannot recognise your shortcomings in that arena.
Don’t forget to attempt to answer the question. That’s the only way people learn effectively in the long run – thinking about why is it so.
Doug, ” .. arrogant and narcissistic .. ” does appear to describe you perfectly.
Doug, suggestion: You’re not helping at the moment.
We all get mad. But was that last bit before the snip not the slightest bit controllable? Or calling him a “boy”?
I would like to remind you that you are not just speaking on behalf of yourself here, but in effect also for others who may agree with aspects of your work.
Pete, I don’t know you and before today I don’t believe I’ve ever read your work. All I can ask is to try to separate that kind of talk from the two models of Claes Johnson, and evaluate the two sets of things independently of each. I can appreciate it might be hard as a human being, but it is the right thing to do.
RTF
Other. Each other.
RTF
Hi Richard (T. Fowler) I don’t know you either but that is neither here not there. Perhaps we should leave it to Professor Curry to decide when it is necessary to give advice to users of her blog rather than trying to take over that responsibility. If you don’t like what people write then you can always ignore it, like I do.
I don’t see you ignoring all of his insults, nor do I think you necessarily always should. I wouldn’t dream of telling you something like that. Please consider that his comments are hurtful or potentially hurtful to me as well, and to others, and not just to you.
RTF
Pete,
I didn’t think you’d attempt to answer.*
I’m sorry, but you did annoy me, I have to admit, when (for the third or fourth time) you sought to put down science on the basis of what a man’s wife does for a living, or how he supports several children by developing one of the most widely used medical and dental software packages in Australia, You ialso mply that you can judge both his knowledge of physics and that of his reviewers who are unknown to you at this stage.
I have summarised in 10 pages what has been well over a thousand hours of research on atmospheric physics, and I do stand for the truth in science, as does the organisation involved with the publishing.
We all have huge concern for the worldwide ramifications of what has been the biggest hoax in the history of mankind.
Good night – it’s 1:15am here.
* Answer: The radiation does not enter the ocean at all because it is part of a standing wave from the surface. No transfer of thermal energy takes place, The rate of the radiative component of surface cooling diminishes slightly and evaporation and diffusion increase to compensate.
If any thermal energy had been transferred down into the water, then such a process would have been in violation of the Second Law.
Hi again Doug, since you are having no success here with your pseudo-scientific nonsense I’d like to help you find someone to debate with. I think that I have the prefect candidate in Martin Lack, who has a lot in common with you appart from his opinion about the CACC hypothesis. You can find him at his blog http://lackofenvironment.wordpress.com/. You may find him a bit of a challenge.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Hi Richard, ref. 5th March at 10:45 am. what I had said was “ .. If you don’t like what people write then you can always ignore it, like I do .. ”. I don’t dislike or find hurtful what Doug says. I simply find it to be nonsense, just like his pseudo-scientific arguments. He has latched onto Professor Claes Johnson’s hypothesis and in my opinion, being impressed by Professor Johnson’s status as a respected mathematician (not scientist as far as I am aware) is simply trying to make a name for himself through copying his arguments. Doug, like John O’Sullivan, being a Narcisist, wants to be noticed and thinks that by associating with those who he sees as experts or repeating what they say he will acquire some of their status. Unfortunately for them, it does just the opposite.
You and Doug do seem to have a lot in common, a firm belief in a benevolent superpower (http://richardtfowler.wordpress.com/about/ and http://www.savedbythelamb.com/) and a belief that Professor Johnson’s hypothesis rejecting any “greenhouse effect”. I have formed the opinion that you are both wrong about both issues.
If you wish to find out more about me you can start at my blog GloblalPoliticalSenanigans (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.com/). Unlike on Doug’s many blogs you will not find any advertising because I spend time on this issue because I am searching for truth, not income.
As usual, if anything that I have said here is considered to be unfair or a misrepresentation of the facts then please let me know and I will consider whether or not a retraction or apology is warranted. The last thing that I wish to do is misinterpret the evidence and present a misleading picture.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Well, Peter, you do “misinterpret the evidence and present a misleading picture” about what Christ taught and claimed about Himself. Frankly, I doubt that you even know what He did say. Maybe you should read Josh McDowell Evidence that Demands a Verdict. as well as the most widely distributed book in the world.
If you can be so wrong about the beliefs that more people are converting to than any other religion, then you can be wrong about climate change matters also – and perhaps natural medicine which often has more scientific evidence, greater efficacy and fewer side effects than many drugs that make it to market.
Pete,
I do not see anything overtly wrong about me in the comment of yours I am replying to. One thing that is unclear is this, that I have “a belief that Professor Johnson’s hypothesis rejecting any “greenhouse effect”. ” That statement is not grammatical, but it looks like you may have intended to write “in” rather than “that”. Based on such a revision, I can say that I believe that most of the concept is probably true, and I have written as much at another page. There is no need for us to argue over whether you agree with my characterization of my own belief, or what exactly my choice of words means. I have had this chance to clarify, and that is all that I require presently.
A few other clarifications, not directly related to any actual or possible inaccuracies about me in your comment.
1) Claes Johnson and I have significant differences of opinion about many aspects of physics and cosmology. But I support him being allowed to do his work unobstructed, because I believe some of it has promise. It is probably fair to say that Claes at least sometimes sees me as a mixed blessing for him. That is all right with me. My goals include understanding his work better and helping others to understand it better. As long as I do my best to adhere to factual or valid representations as I understand them, I can help advance those goals, even if nobody likes me, and such a state of affairs is acceptable to me.
2) I do not blog about Claes’ work to make a name for myself. If I just cared about making a name for myself, and not truth and not public awareness of that truth, I would never dream of choosing Claes’ work as a vehicle, because promoting that strikes me as being one of the harder tasks I have ever been involved in. I can think of much easier bodies of work to promote, if facts and honesty are held to be irrelevant. Furthermore, I would not be nearly as inactive as I am if I had as a goal the idea to promote myself using the internet. That is an idea that is offensive to my beliefs and morals.
3) I don’t remember ever knowing that Doug was a Christian (though I may have known and forgotten), so that is news to me. Further, this exchange between you, me, and him is the first time I have ever communicated with him.
4) I try not to discuss my religion on Judith’s blog, because it is my understanding that she does not want that sort of discussion, and it is her blog. It is no different than if I visited her home and were advised that she didn’t want to talk about that in her home; I would not talk about it there in her presence.
5) I believe mathematics has overlap with science, and I consider Claes to be a scientific mathematician, and thus a scientist.
6) I do not consider Claes’ work in thermodynamics to be pseudo-science. Indeed, some or even all of it may be wrong. But I do not believe it is pseudo-science.
7) I did not address my comment to you for the purpose of debating scientific issues, or any other issues. I simply came on to make a request of Doug and of you, and you have each responded in the manner of your choosing. I am grateful that you have both chosen to respond, and that Doug seems to have taken my words at least somewhat to heart.
RTF
Peter
In conclusion, I will merely copy a post I have just written to BobC on JoNova, for I believe it applies pretty much to yourslef also.
I lost any confidence that I might have had in your knowledge in this field, simply because you do not appear to be aware that the energy of a photon is based entirely on the frequency (wavelength) of the radiation, and that the peak frequency is proportional to the absolute temperature. Thus the mode of the energy of photons in any particular radiation with a Planck distribution is proportional to the temperature of the source.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien%27s_displacement_law
I am here to learn and possibly be corrected by any who have advanced knowledge in some area. Indeed I have corrected my original thinking on some issues, funnels for example. But I expect to be quite busy soon responding to questions about my paper, now dated March 8th as there has been a minor delay due to my decision to write more in an Appendix.
I will remain fairly silent now, but would suggest that you don’t delve into areas of physics which appear to be beyond your current knowledge, and certainly don’t make hand-waving comments such as the above which display fundamental lack of knowledge of some undergraduate physics.
Hi Doug, I am going to be rather busy peer-reviewing an 86-page paper by another Australian CACC sceptic covering “The Tropopause and the Greenhouse”. As a consequence I may not have too much time for a while to help you better understand the physics behind those poorly understood processes and drivers of the different global climates. I’ll do my best to respond to your comments where I see that you need more help but in the mean time you should find this University of Wyoming Department of Atmospheric Science site useful (http://weather.uwyo.edu/). Don’t be put off by the complexity, just stick at it, because you’ll feel great if you are able to understand it eventually. Especially, use the global atmospheric temperature profile data to learn about what goes on up there in relation to the different global climates. You can use a simple plotter like Excel. You will learn an enormous amount from that exercise.
Meanwhile, if you find that you need a break from improving your understanding of the physics but need someone to talk with you may like to exchange opinions with Phil at his “The Bloodwood Tree” site (http://bloodwoodtree.org/category/climate-change/). Phil, like you, has a strong faith in a benevolent super-power but has opposing views about the CACC hypothesis. He’s a specialist in modelling forest fires and should by now have obtained his PhD so I’m sure that he’ll be able to clear up for you any of your many misunderstandings. You could even meet up with him because he doesn’t live very far away.
I assume that you are referring to Christianity when you talk about “ .. the beliefs that more people are converting to than any other religion .. ”. I suspect that once again you have no sound evidence to support your claim. Although it could be a valid claim globally I find that hard to believe for developed nations, considering the dwindling number of people who attend church or demonstrate a genuine belief in the “truths” claimed to be inspired by the Christian version of a benevolent super-power. Anyway, I doubt if the “etc” in Professor Curry’s “Climate etc” blog is meant for discussing faith rather than science but Phil’s “The Bloodwood Tree” is appropriate.
Hi Richard, thanks for the clarifications in your comment of 5th March at 8:54 pm. I think that it is worthwhile correcting part of my comment of 5th March at 12:26 pm “ .. You and Doug do seem to have a COUPLE OF THINGS in common, a firm belief in a benevolent superpower (http://richardtfowler.wordpress.com/about/ and http://www.savedbythelamb.com/) and a belief that Professor Johnson’s hypothesis rejecting any “greenhouse effect” IS VALID .. ”. As you can see from my comment to Doug, I agree about avoiding discussing religion here. Perhaps you too should visit Phil’s “The Bloodwood Tree” blog.
On the matter of checking grammar, does not your “ .. I do not see anything overtly wrong about me in the comment of yours .. ” merit reconsideration, considering that the meaning of “overt .. Open and OBSERVABLE .. ” (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/overt). Of course, not having graduated in English, I could be mistaken.
As usual, if anything that I have said here is considered to be unfair or a misrepresentation of the facts then please let me know and I will consider whether or not a retraction or apology is warranted. The last thing that I wish to do is misinterpret the evidence and present a misleading picture.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
The answer to the question is not unambiguously observable based on the sentence as originally written. Hence my expression of uncertainty. And hence, there was no clear inaccuracy, unless the sentence was rewritten as suggested. I also have no degree in English, but I do have a few decades’ experience in reading and interpreting the language. So, I felt qualified to comment on that, as I’m sure you did as well.
My parsing of your sentence for strict accuracy was done simply because you expressed concern about accuracy.
RTF
touché
Hi again Richard, as it has gone a little quiet here for the moment let’s have a bit light relief and try to improve our English grammar. I recall from those English classes back in the 50’s that it wasn’t done to start a new sentence with a conjunction like “hence” or “and” or “so” (http://www.towson.edu/ows/conjunctions.htm) although you’re not the only one to get confused by such things.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
I doubt that this blog is intended for discussing either English or Christianity. Anyone is welcome to email me privately about the latter – my email address is at http://douglascotton.com along with links to my Christianity site etc.
Meanwhile, having been up till 2:30am improving my paper in response to reviewers, may i suggest that you, particularly Pete, wait to read it first before making any assumptions.
PS I’ve just notified of a slight delay with my paper – now about 13 pp. The launch is now planned for next week as the coordinator will be unavailable for a few days.
Hi Doug (ref. March 6 & 7 at 6:56 pm and 5:41 am) I see that you are still touting for visitors to your blog to look at those adverts – well, we all have to earn a crust, don’t we! – “Follow the money”.
Perhaps you’d be open enough to advise who were those “peers” who reviewed your article (not really recognised as a “paper” until it has been published in a respected learned-society journal – is it?). Of course a Narcisist might think differently.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Of course the peers are named in the Acknowledgements.
But you surely wouldn’t expect me to associate my writings in any way with those authors or publications which have promulgated the greatest hoax in the history of the human race.
Sorry to disagree with you here Doug, but “the greatest hoax in the history of the human race” is your claim that you’re defending the integrity of science.
Pete, I think the “reviewers” of Cotton’s “paper” may be Profs. David Koch and Charles Koch. LOL
Well, Andrew, if you ever do read my paper, no doubt you’ll be able to pinpoint just exactly where there is any error in my science therein. I’ll be all ears. Obvioulsy there’ll be links to the paper at http://climate-change-thoery.com In the meantime, perhaps you’d like to correct what I’ve written on that site also. Or maybe, just maybe, you’d like to comment on what I’ve actually said in the post below, for example, or the other one today on the latest thread here.
O H Dahlsveen says on WUWT:
March 8, 2012 at 1:14 pm
I do not believe the theory of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect (AGHE) to be a “misnomer”. I think it is just plain wrong
_______________________________________
Basically you are correct. There can be no transfer of thermal energy from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface by any physical process, radiation or otherwise. However, we have to acknowledge that radiation from the atmosphere does slow the rate of radiative energy transfer from the surface to the atmosphere. This is why it can be warmer on moist nights. However, on balance, other processes, mostly evaporation and diffusion (conduction) will make up for any reduction in radiative flux, because of the stabilising effect of the massive store of thermal energy beneath the outer crust, which is not due to the very slow rate of terrestrial energy flow.
There is also a cooling effect due to water vapour and CO2 etc as these absorb downwelling IR radiation from the Sun and send upward backradiation to space.
The temperature gradient in the atmosphere is determined by the mass of the atmosphere and the acceleration due to gravity, both close enough to being constants. All the claims about 255K are based on the false assumption that the surface is anything like a blackbody. It’s not because it’s not insulated from losses by diffusion and evapoation. Less than half the energy exits by radiation. So, not only is that 33 degree figure based on a totally incorrect 255K figure, but it also ignores the fact that there is an adiabatic lapse rate that has nothing to do with backradiation.
This is a very brief summary of my peer-reviewed paper being published next week.
Hi Andrew, good to hear from you again. What’s the latest from your end about the “Slayers”?
Ref 8th March at 9:36 am QUOTE: .. Doug, but “the greatest hoax in the history of the human race” is your claim that you’re defending the integrity of science .. UNQUOTE, did “Slayer”-supporter Doug actually say that?
“Slayer’s mate” Piers Corbyn said “ .. I make no apology for interjecting to defend the integrity of science .. ” (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/15/video-guardian-climategate-debate/) and more recently a CACC-evangelist said “ .. I have done what I have in the service of scientific integrity .. ” (http://judithcurry.com/2012/02/27/lindzens-seminar-at-the-house-of-commons/#comment-183636).
People on both sides of the CACC debate claim this but as the saying goes “Actions speak louder than words).
Although you say with tongue in cheek that the “reviewers” of Cotton’s “paper” may be Profs. David Koch and Charles Koch he did say it was peer-reviewed and I speculate that the Koch’s (or any other well-recognised individual, scientist or not) would regard themselves as Doug’s peers.
Hi Doug, As I said in my comment of 7th March at 7:08 am “ .. you are still touting for visitors to your blog to look at those adverts – well, we all have to earn a crust, don’t we! – “Follow the money” .. ”. You even trying to get Andrew to pop over. Some people will do anything for money, but you’d better be careful. Andrew has a track record for racking down and exposing people like that. I suspect that he is as antagnonised by the peddlers of “snake-oil” as he is of the peddlers of TM, etc.
Regarding the peer-review of your article, I doubt very much if you invited Dr. Joel Shore to review it. Joel is a theoretical physicist with not only a PhD but also with a track record in a scientific discipline relevant to the processes and drivers of the different global climates, unlike yourself. Joel doesn’t just copy what others say, he uses his scientific understanding and experience to formulate his own arguments. I have no doubt that he would tear your article to bits, much as he did with your comment on the “Monckton responds to Skeptical Science” thread (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/03/monckton-responds-to-skeptical-science/#comment-884169) where you were pushing the same nonsense that you have been subjecting others to here.
I can do no better than repeat his comments QUOTE: .. Joel Shore says: February 3, 2012 at 5:44 pm
Doug Cotton: Don’t fool your yourself. Your comments about back-radiation and such are not deleted because they can’t be answered. They are deleted because they are nonsense that has repeatedly been answered and such a level of cluelessness just adds noise to the discussion. No real respected scientists believe the nonsense that you peddle, and by nobody, I mean that AGW skeptics like Roy Spencer, Richard Lindzen, Willis Eschenbach, Robert Brown, … Heck, even Monckton doesn’t believe that sort of nonsense .. UNQUOTE.
QUOTE: .. Joel Shore says: February 4, 2012 at 6:00 am @Doug Cotton:
Doug: It is hard to catalog all of the errors and misstatements you make here and on your website, but I will try to hit the highlights:
(1) Claim: Back-radiation does not warm a surface. Reality: In one sense this is true. If you have an object that is emitting radiation but not receiving energy from elsewhere (or from the conversion of some other form of energy into thermal energy) then it will indeed not warm due to back-radiation. It will simply cool more slowly since the net flow of heat is away from the body. However, the Earth is also receiving energy from the sun. Its steady-state temperature is determined by the balance between what it receives from the sun and what it radiates back into space. In such a case, an increase in back-radiation will indeed result in a higher steady-state temperature.
(2) Claim: Einstein did not believe in the particle (“photon”) nature of light. Reality: In fact, when Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize, the one thing that the citation specifically mentioned was his explanation of the photoelectric effect, which he explained by light having a particle nature with the quantum of energy being Planck’ constant h times the frequency.
(3) Claim: Claes Johnson has proven that back-radiation does not exist. Reality: Cleaes has not proven anything. Claes rejects a whole field of physics, statistical physics, which has successfully explained everything from thermodynamics (including the Second Law) to phase transitions to the behavior of steps and island growth on solid surfaces. He has tried to replace the well-understood way that the statistics of large numbers of particles naturally explains why the transition from the microscale to the macroscale leads to dissipation, entropy increasing, etc. by a new postulate: He proposes that dissipation occurs at macroscopic scales because it occurs at microscopic scales. And, he believes it occurs at microscopic scales because of an artifact that occurs in the numerical solution of partial differential equations by discretization, whereby this discretization introduces artificial viscosity and dissipation. Everybody else in the field of numerical analysis would say that this dissipation is an artifact of the numerical technique, but Claes believes it to be a fundamental physical principle governing the universe. It is sort of the ultimate example of someone believing models over reality, which is why it is so ironic that some “AGW skeptics” like you have embraced such nonsense! Claes claims to have shown that he can re-derive a few basic laws (like that governing the net radiative exchange between two blackbodies at different temperatures) with his new postulate, although I don’t think anybody has bothered to check his math in detail because his starting point is so nutty. He has not even come close to showing that he can explain everything that a century’s worth of statistical physics has explained, nor has he given any evidence that he can provide explanations of any experimental data that cannot be explained by the current theoretical framework.
(4) Claim: Claes’s arguments show that the greenhouse effect does not exist. Reality: One of the ironies of Claes’s work is even that if you believe it, he has not provided any evidence that the greenhouse effect does not exist. In fact, as I noted, he has re-derived the law for net radiative exchange between two blackbodies at different temperatures and it is this law that leads to the greenhouse effect existing. Whether or not you consider one of the terms in that equation to represent “back-radiation” is irrelevant! The equation still gives the same results if you don’t adopt that interpretation, and that result is a greenhouse effect.
Doug Cotton says:
You really need to learn some basic physics – try the link on my site to Johnson’s Computational Blackbody Radiation which I have recommended (in another post) that you read, but perhaps I need to say, study.
Can you remind me of your and Claes’s background in physics? I’ll run down mine: * PhD from one of the top physics grad schools in the U.S. * Publications in some of the top physics journals in the world (e.g., Physical Review Letters), mostly in the field of statistical physics, which provides the underlying understanding of thermodynamics. * Practical physical modeling in industry for 13 years, including some calculations of radiative transfer. * Teaching of introductory physics at the university level, including thermodynamics.
I think you need to read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
UNQUOTE.
QUOTE: .. Joel Shore says: February 6, 2012 at 5:34 pm
Doug Cotton says: …
The fact is that you are just making up physics to suit what you want to believe. Your version of physics is contradicted by over 100 years of empirical data and the use of the equations of radiative transfer. It is complete nonsense and the sort of things that make “AGW skeptics” look like anti-science clowns, which is why people like Spencer, Willis, and even Monckton are trying to dispel such silly notions. If you want AGW skeptics to look as scientific as Young Earth Creationists to the scientific community, then I recommend continuing to spout the nonsense that you are spouting; if not, you may want to reconsider.
UNQUOTE.
BTW, Dr. Joel Shore was one of the participants in the E-mail exchanges that took place during Sept/Oct 2011 involving the “Slayers”, Professor Curry, Professor Grant Petty, etc. etc. etc.
As usual, if anyone considers that in expressing my opinions here I have misinterpreted or misrepresented anything that I have said here the please let me know so that I can consider whether or not a retraction or apology is warranted.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
You are welcome to draw my paper to the attention of Dr. Joel Shore or anyone you wish and I will be happy to comment on any attempt to debunk anything therein iff such is based on accepted physics pre-dating the pseudo physics of the Greenhouse Era.
To others:… The fact that Pete Ridley pre-judges my paper without yet being able to read a word of the 6,600 words therein (as at least 6 scientists will have prior to publication late Monday, none of them the ones he mentions) speaks volumes for his closed-mindedness and underlying agenda.
One question for you, Pete: Does 100 years of Physics teach that, when two plates at different temperatures radiate towards each each, there are two separate transfers of thermal energy, one from the warmer plate to the cooler one, and one from the cooler plate to the warmer one. … Yes or No, Pete?
In my paper I don’t assume that “dissipation occurs at macroscopic scales because it occurs at microscopic scales.’ I refer to the full radiated spectrum of the bodies involved.
Your reference to “artificial viscosity and dissipation” is irrelevant – you won’t pull the wool over my eyes with such red herrings.
And, despite what you may think, the current theoretical model does not explain any radiative transfer of thermal energy, for example, from carbon dioxide at, say 250K in the atmosphere to a point a few cm below the surface of water at say 290K thus warming that water under the surface, so it then rises by convection to the surface and evaporates.
Pete says: “The equation still gives the same results ”
___________________
As a matter of fact, i say words to that effect in my paper.
You miss the point all together, as you shall see next week.
Imagine we could slow time down. Consider the two plates at diffeent temperatures. Shield the radiation from each with the shields placed close to each plate. Remove the shoelds and imagine the radiation starting out from each plate towards the other. What happens? Does the radiation combine somehow? Does the energy coming from the cooler one get stopped before it gets to the warmer plate? I suggest neither of these mid air collision processes takes place. So each lot of radiation does get through to the other plate. Then what happens? Is the radiated energy in the radiation from the cooler plate converted to thermal energy? If so, then apply that to the underwater example above where there is no resulting radiation back to the atmosphere, only evaporative cooling. If not, then Claes is right, because that is what he deduced.
If the IPCC wanted to attribute a warming property to radiation from a cooler atmosphere, then they should have proved its warming effect. I certainly can’t detect any warming in my backyard experiments, and nor would I expect to.
Prof Claes Johnson has now read my Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics prior to publication and has commented “Doug Cotton is one of the few people who have read and understood my analysis of blackbody radiation and radiative heat transfer and I fully endorse his essay.”
The fact that he said this is a sad reflection on the climate science community – demonstrating their reluctance to approach any contrary view with an open mind.
It’s not all that hard really, Radiation does not cause thermal energy to transfer from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface. All it can do is slow the radiative component of cooling. (Carbon dioxide molecules are not as effective as water vapour molecules in doing this because of their limited range of frequencies). However, evaporation and diffusion play just as great a part as radiation, and these processes can compensate for any slowing of the radiative cooling. All this is explained in detail (in about 6,600 words) available on line on Tuesday this week.
Prof Claes Johnson has fully endorsed my 6,600 word Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics and it’s now ready for publication within about 30 hours at http://principia-scientific.org/ a site which I chose as being most in keeping with the principles I subscribe to.
“Principia Scientific International is a self-sustaining community of impartial scientists from around the world deliberating, debating and publishing cutting-edge thinking on a range of issues without a preconceived idea of outcomes.
“PSI has identified that there are currently two opposing methodologies at conflict:
“Traditional scientific method: borne of the Age of Enlightenment and which gave rise to the technological advances of the industrial revolution.
“Post-normalism:* pre-deterministic approach where policy and outcome dictate the kind of ‘science’ needed to justify it. The most culpable purveyors of this modern malaise are national governments, NGO’s and big corporations.
“PSI ASSOCIATES are steadfast in their support of the traditional scientific method … “
Hi Doug, your comment of March 12 at 4:52 am. had me in stitches. As I said on March 4 at 6:31 pm. “ ..
Doug, .. let me know which respected peer-reviewed scientific journal your paper is published in, but don’t bother if it’s being self-published on your blog or has been accepted by the pseudo-scientific publishing company Principia Scientific International, run by Slayer John O’Sullivan. I speculate that the “peers” who reviewed it have no more idea about the science than you have .. ”.
You proudly boast that Professor Claes Johnson fully supports what you say. Well, he would, wouldn’t he. You’ve used his simplistic model and his mathematical analysis of it as the basis for your paper. Then to compound your nonsense you are reduced to posting your article on the blog of that pseudo-science publishing company Principia Scientific International. You’re as big a joke as John.
BTW, you still haven’t responded to my question of January 31 at 1:54 pm. about what happens to the temperature inside a vacuum flask which has inside a source of energy (e.g. an electrical heating element) that can be switched on and off externally.
As usual, if anyone considers that in expressing my opinions here I have misinterpreted or misrepresented anything that I have said here the please let me know so that I can consider whether or not a retraction or apology is warranted.
Best regards, Pete Ridley.
What do you expect to prove by the contents of a vacuum flask getting hotter because it has an electric element adding thermal energy faster than such energy can escape?
Is your concept of any greenhouse effect so primitive that you think there is an analogy.
Laugh all you like, Pete. You haven’t read the paper itself, after all.
You wouldn’t seriously expect me to associate my name with any authors, climatologists or publications which, like you, support the AGW hoax, usually for private financial gain or status. Follow the money, indeed.
Funny how experiments with gases and spectrometers confirm exactly what Claes deduced.
Funny how experiments testing for any slowing of the cooling process by backradiation cannot find any difference in temperatures between shielded objects and unshielded ones at night.
When you have some evidence of warming by backradiation, or warm gases absorbing emission from cooler sources, then you might have me worried. Not before. I’ll be waiting.
PSI membership is free and they have 13 recent new members including myself just joined today, actually.
BTW Doug, I forgot to ask if you are now a fully paid-up associate of PSI. If so John will be delighted but I speculate that there won’t be very many others daft enough to waste their hard-earned money on the annual subscription. John will have to launch another appeal for charitable donations towards what he sees as a worthy cause (http://www.gofundme.com/1v39s). Perhaps you should have a chat with your buddy Professor Johnson about why he dissociated himself from the “Slayers” and PSI. If you are still puzzled about why the “Slayers” numbers have dwindled since that gofundme appeal just over one year ago I can give you some names of others who may be prepared to explain why they are now ex. although a search for “dissociate” on this thread will suggest a few.
As I said here on October 23, 2011 at 6:10 pm. (long before you put in an appearance) “ .. It looks as though Professor Curry was correct when saying on 10th Oct. “ .. Get a clue, your dragonslayers are jumping ship. .. ”.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Hi Doug (ref. March 12 at 8:48 am.) some people really are gullible. So membership of PSI is free, now isn’t that interesting.
That wasn’t the position last year so John’s PSI must be really desperate to attract members. I don’t suppose that you are aware that only a short time ago the position was that “ .. PSI is funded by member subscriptions and voluntary donations. .. SUBSCRIPTIONS .. Membership fees are paid annually and as long as fees are up to date voting rights and other privileges will not lapse. INTRODUCTORY OFFER
The annual fee for basic membership is £50 for the financial year 2011/12. As an introductory offer the first 2,000 members will receive a free copy of the best-selling climate science publication, ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory’ and the companion volume, ‘Sky Dragon Slayers 2’ (retail value of both volumes is $19.85) .. ”.
Now we see that “ .. Throughout 2012 membership is free to all subscribers with a science qualification and/or background. Otherwise, we charge a nominal fee of £10. In the future we intend to grow PSI as a viable business offering a highly competitive international service. Please be a part of it .. ” (http://principia-scientific.org/about-us/principles-of-association).
It sounds like those sales promotions that we see so many of these days, saying “offer must end next week” but next week never comes.
In my comment here on October 21, 2011 at 5:07 pm. and subsequently I talked about PSI and transparency (claimed v demonstrated). The current blog says “ .. Transparency is as important to PSI as it was to Karl Popper. Each new stakeholder gets a clear idea of how PSI has performed. We will make an annual report detailing what PSI has done and how this has benefited the community .. ” (http://principia-scientific.org/about-us/principles-of-association). I have a suggestion for you Doug. Put that repeated claim about PSI and transparency to the test by getting the executive to reveal the full membership list with joining date, the current executives and the accounts for the first 9 months of its existence. I’d love to see it.
I think that you are an ideal candidate for membership of PSI – enjoy it while you can.
As for the vacuum flask with the heater – think, man, think.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
“Think” yourself Pete – when you have read my paper which clearly debunks concepts of carbon dioxide having any warming effect, taking into account all physical processes likely to be involved, as well as cooling effects. Carbon dioxide, with its limited frequencies (compared with a true blackbody) is like a picket fence with most of its pickets missing – standing up against the torrent of a full Planck distribution of frequencies being dished out by a cooling surface – to say nothing of the compensating transfers of thermal energy by way of evaporative cooling and diffusion followed by convection. Yes, I wonder who’s doing the thinking around here.
Regarding PSI – well others can read their mission statement
http://principia-scientific.org/about-us/psi-mission-statement
My paper is published now at http://principia-scientific.org/publications/psi_radiated_energy.pdf
Hi Doug (ref. March 12, 2012 at 7:55 pm ) you claim that “ .. my paper .. clearly debunks concepts of carbon dioxide having any warming effect .. ” but if your copy-cat rants here are anything to go by then you have debunked nothing. Do you understand the meaning of the Americanism “ to debunk”. Let me help you out here – it means “ .. to expose or excoriate (a claim, assertion, sentiment, etc.) as being pretentious, false, or exaggerated: to debunk advertising slogans .. ” (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/debunk). All that you have done is paraphrase Professor Claes Johnson’s hypothesis, which he acknoledged is based upon a simplistic model (http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2011/03/simple-model-for-radiative-heat.html?showComment=1300779215287#c4652171306304160831 NOTY TO BE SENT) which bears little relationship to the real world in which we live.
His model has been challenged repeatedly, with ScienceofDoom and Professor Johnson exchanging opinions at least since August 2010 on his “BlackBody: Transformer of Radiation” thread (http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2010/08/blackbody-transformer-of-radiation.html). There is more in March 2011 on his “Simple Model for Radiative Heat Transfer: Cooling” thread (http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2011/03/simple-model-for-radiative-heat.html?showComment=1300779215287#c4652171306304160831).
Someone behind the name Martin A said “ .. In any physical system, there is no limit to the complexity of its dynamics if you go looking for complexity. But very often, especially if you are interested in a limited range of timescales, then a 1st order model is entirely adequate. .. ” (http://scienceofdoom.com/about/#comment-16555 – try that blog, Doug. You should learn a lot.). In my opinion, Professor Johnson has misled himself into believing that his simple model is adequate for debunking the theory behind the “greenhouse effect” and you have swallowed it hook, line and sinker. Professor Johnson was challenged on this in August 2011 (http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2011/08/what-judy-curry-suddenly-understands.html) and never gave a satisfactory response.
As for the Mission Statement of John O’Sullivan’s publishing company Principia (pseudo-)Scientific International (your comment of March 12 at 7:58 pm.) if you had any experience of employment in a large organisation you would know that the PR department can write anything in a mission statement or any other promotional material. What is much more revealing is how the organisation and its representatives behave, i.e. actions speak louder than words. You – and anyone else who is daft enough to consider joining publishing company PSI – needs to carefully read of all of the comments on this thread in order to improve their understanding of what is behind PSI and the “Slayers”.
It’s a long story with fascinating twists going back to 2003, when the teaching career of PSI’s CEO and Legal Consultant came to an end. If you find that there is too much to take in from the full complement of comments then focus on those of Andrew Skolnick and me, but you really should also read the responses from the few “Slayers” and their (one-time?) supporters who joined in, such as John O’Sullivan, LLB, BA Hons, PGCE; Ken Coffman, Professors Joseph Reynen and Claes Johnson.
If you are as astute as you like to make out you’ll spot Professor Johnson’s first comment here and understand the significance of it (October 15, 2011 at 11:21 am NOT TO BE SENT). You should also ask yourself why so few of the original “ .. group of 36 respected international scientists and related professionals ..” (http://www.gofundme.com/1v39s) rallied to John’s support during these exchanges.
During the last quarter of 2011 I started a string of E-mail exchanges which were copied to all of those individuals who were involved in the initial E-mail exchanges at the turn of 2010/11 during which John was pushing his ludicrous idea of forming PSI as a Community Interest Company in the UK and taking legal action against Government agencies (e.g. see http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-128005). Those E-mails are available in a 174-page Word document which I prepared for Professor Reynen and you are welcme to a copy if you would like one. In the interests of transparency, claimed in the promotional material to be so important to PSI, I tried to get John to make them available on the PSI web-site. He declined to do so.
Maybe you should write to each of the original participants and ask them if they, like Professor Johnson and others, have dissociated themselves from the “Slayers” and PSI then compare with the list of current members of PSI (if you can get one from John).
You comments of March 9 at 10:42 pm. and 10:49 pm. illustrate how confused you are becoming but I leave it to you to sort yourself out (“artificial viscosity and dissipation” and “The equation still gives the same results” were by Joel Shore at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/03/monckton-responds-to-skeptical-science/#comment-884169 NOT TO BE SENT ).
BTW, I don’t think that your article really merits being referred to as a “paper” until it has been properly peer-reviewed by scientists who are recognised as being competent in the subjects covered. Even Professor Johnson, who must be relieved that at least one other person accepts his sijmple model as being relevant to the real world, was only prepared to call it an “essay”. Very few scientists would consider anything published by PSI as being worthy of serious consideration.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete. If you choose to believe SoD, then so be it. All you are doing is falling for the concept of photons transferring heat with them wherever they go. If they did this, then spectrometry would prove it with gases, but it doesn’t. In fact, it proves what Claes has said, and there will be new experiments by Prof Nasif Nahle in this area, putting the last nail in the coffin later this year.
Why should PSI publish SoD’s writings that were not peer-reviewed? SoD just blocks people like me who might wish to argue against him – what sort of review process is that?
In contrast, my writings at PSI are now there for “open peer-review” by any of dozens of members, all of whom will be receiving an email about it in the next 24 hours
You can read who some of the members are and their backgrounds – it’s all on the PSI site and they have 13 new members (including myself) not yet listed, I understand.
Think carefully about the radiation supposedly warming a layer of water just below the surface. To do so would be a very clear violation of the Second Law.
Think carefully about what happens in the real world when in fact radiation passes (in a random path) between numerous molecules before escaping to space. How can heat travel in both directions along such a random path? How can the Second Law be violated?
Claes and I are not the only ones in the world believing that heat transfer is in only one direction, as the Second Law confirms. I have discussed at length why only thermal energy can be compounded, not radiation itself. You cannot explain the Second Law on the basis of net radiation. What is it physically, anyway? There is nothing unreasonable about the resonant scattering hypothesis, which I note several people are now talking about on various climate forums.
Until you can point me to an experiment showing that backradiation actually does slow the rate of cooling of unshielded soil, sand, clay or rock, compared with equivalent shielded matter, then we cannot progress towards any agreement. My own experiments show no variation in temperatures at all in wide necked vacuum flasks filled with sand or soil, and I see no reason why results should be different elsewhere in the world. Prof Nahle will probably publish similar experiments soon.
True science has to be verified by experiment, at least where such simple experiments are obviously possible. Doesn’t it trouble you that, with all their money and resources, the IPCC has never demonstrated empirically a simple proof that backradiation warms anything? Answer that, Pete, before you write more of the same. I consider it a fair request.
PS You would have to agree that radiation leaving Earth could potentially warm a cool meteor somewhere in space, perhaps years later. How does that process gel with a concept of two way heat transfer? Suppose radiation from that meteor then warmed an even cooler one? How is the thermal energy going to back track, via the first meteor, then back to Earth? Frankly, it’s ludicrous to think that it is all a simple matter of “net” radiation causing “net” heat flow. It just doesn’t work that way in nature. It works as per Claes and my hypothesis.
Continued here:
http://judithcurry.com/2012/03/08/should-we-tell-the-whole-truth-about-climate-change/#comment-185446
Hi Doug, I’ll leave you to your fantasy of sharing that Nobel Prize with Professor Johnson. It won’t be long before his hypothesis (not yours as you keep trying to suggest) is consigned to the garbage bin of pseudo-science. Membership of John’s inconsequential publishing company Principia Scientific International is appropriate for the gullible but do keep an eye on those subscriptions and the manner in which they are disposed of.
One of John’s justifications for setting up PSI as a CIC rather than a charity was that decvlaed in his “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mail on 1st Jan. 2011 “ .. We realize that the UK govt will not permit us to set up a charity for the express purpose of suing government agencies. It’s a non starter really. Moreover, I’m highly skeptical that we could put together such a large team of experts (scientists, lawyers and media specialists) willing to give up so much time unpaid under the non-paying constraints of charitable status. Personally, I’m barely scraping by financially as I’ve spent the last year working on skeptic advocacy full-time, unpaid. I cannot maintain my current level of commitment without some kind of financial remuneration ( especially now that the UK govt has raised tuition fees so drastically and I’ve 2 ambitious teenagers keen to go to university) .. ”.
In my opinion that should tell you all that you need top know about the real motives for setting up PSI, but if not here’s some more help. Now that John’s silly idea of taking government agencies is off the PSI agenda there appears to be only one purpose left, to provide a source of income for the chosen few on the executive and one or two others.
On 4th Jan 2011 John said QUOTE: ..
Pete .. You and I are coming at the problem from opposite directions. Your position is .. for a charity .. but we all need to make a living .. if any such proposals conflict with the core aims of the Slayers then I’m out, and so I suspect will most if not all of the other 32. Thus my concerns are for the book publishing core of the group, which can grow into a charitable arm via our establishment of a CIC – that gives us the added benefit of supporting a noble cause as a ‘not for profit.’ Thus authors and directors will get paid fairly for their efforts but will gain a significant boost publicly for aiding the noble intention of aiding the greater community via PSI’s other functions as educators and protectors of member subscriber interests. As a business strategy, being a CIC is a good marketing took for us as we are thus proven to be constituted with a business structure offering a social benefit, A group of scientists that speaks out against corruption and wishes to spread the concept of the ESM can best operate in the long term as the formal construct of a CIC that may, in extreme cases, bring court action against bodies that we perceive as corrupting the scientific method. This is something a charity cannot do but a CIC can .. UNQUOTE.
A couple of weeks later John made his ludicrous appeal on the GoFundMe site (http://www.gofundme.com/1v39s ) for charitable donations to his cause. Have you ever questioned where that initial donation of $350 came from? – no, I thought not! A day after that appeal was launched Professor Johnson E-mailed “ .. Hi John: I see that you are already asking for money to PS, before we have even agreed on what PSI is supposed to be, in particular on the behalf of me as one in the group of people you are referring to. Is this the way it is supposed work? What will this money be used for? Will I get some money to spend on what? .. ”.
John responded immediately with “ .. Claes, .. So far Hans and I have been investigating setting up PSI at our own expense which we cannot continue to do .. The website costs for the PSI site are ongoing and we will need to pay Tom, our webmaster. .. As Hans has indicated we are in a ‘catch22’ situation as until we set up professionally as an entity we will not attract large donors (especially in the US where most charitable foundations will not give grants to such commmunity causes unless they are registered as a ‘not for profit’ as per Section 501(c)(3) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code. For us to register as a ‘not for profit’ requires us to pay the IRS $400 as an application fee. Once we have gotten that tax exemption we can then be able to apply to donor foundations for contributions as a charitable concern under US law.
If we cannot raise sufficient funds by this crowdfunding strategy then we know we cannot move forward in any capacity. Thus this fund raising drive is the test of whether we should continue to explore the charitable functionality of PSI or merely restrict ourselves to a book publishing concern for the benefit of the slayers authors. We have taken the liberty in using a third party crowdfunding service that is recognised and suggested to us earlier in the thread as our starting point. As you can see, we have already secured our first donation of $350 within less than an hour .. ”.
Take note of that statement about the fund-raising appeal testing “ .. the charitable functionality of PSI or merely .. a book publishing concern for the benefit of the slayers authors .. ”. The fund-raising apeal failed miserably, so now PSI is just a book publishing concern for the benefit of the slayers authors. Now we can see why you have joined and it woulkd seem to have nothing to do with the PSI Mission Statement. As I have said before “follow the money” (February 18th & 20th at 4:29 am. & 4:38 pm, March 7 at 7:08 am.).
In response to my “ .. it would be very interesting to know who is that anonymous donor of the first $350 received within the first hour .. ” John replied “ .. the first donation of $350 is from a member of my family in the US .. ”.
I posted much of this in my comment of 10th November 2011 at 5:08 pm. but I suspect that you ignored my suggestion of 13th March at 1:57 pm. and haven’t bothered to read any of it. Doug (and anyone else daft enough to consider joining PSI) for goodness sake wake up and read the comments on the gofundme PSI appeal page and the comments on this thread, as I recommended in my comment of 13th March at 1:57 pm. I am also happy to pass you a copy of my 62-page PSI & Due Diligence” Word document for your enlightenment about PSI and the ”Slayers”.
Jer. 5:21 (King James version): ” .. Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not .. ”
Now Doug, I’m sorry that I won’t have much time now to try to help you understand better what is going on here but I must get back to writing my “Cupboard 55” factional novel (http://cupboard55vanillagirl.blogspot.com/2008/03/and-what-is-cupboard-55.html). It’s about how a school teacher’s life changed when his 20-year teaching career came to a sudden end and follows his attempts to establish himself in several different careers, as an artist, an author, a lawyer and the head of a publishing company (http://www.writers.net/writers/54740).
Other related novels in the genre are:
– “ .. The Secrets of Cupboard 55 a literary crime thriller .. ” (http://www.myspace.com/jdaleyoneal/blog) the original March 2007 version before the name of the wife of “Leo Bloom” was changed from Barbara to Carla in the May 2007 version (http://blog.myspace.com/mrdarrk) then re-published in March 2008 as “Vanilla Girl” (http://cupboard55vanillagirl.blogspot.com/2008/03/cupboard-55-novel.html).
– “Summit Shock” (http://cupboard55summitshock.blogspot.com/).
Also relevant may be “The Real Barbara Bracci” (http://www.blogcatalog.com/blogs/summit-shock-american-court-corruption) although I’ll know more after I’ve done my research on Friday at the British Library Newspapers facility. I have been able to get a fair bit of relevant information from the UK’s national newspapers the Daily Mirror, Daily Express and Daily Star of 24th April 2004 but need to look at the local East of England newspapers for 2003-2004 to try to fill in a few gaps. Then there are trips to the East of England to intterview people, so you can see that I’ll be quite busy for a while, but it should be a fascinating novel when it’s published.
As usual, if anything that I have said here is considered to be unfair or a misrepresentation of the facts then please let me know and I will consider whether or not a retraction or apology is warranted. The last thing that I wish to de is misinterpret the evidence and present a misleading picture.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
You’re wasting your time , Pete. I’m not reading such long posts. Include an Abstract next time at the top of your “paper.” . You’re always welcome to publish a rebuttal of my paper – I’m sure you’d have no trouble getting “better” peer reviewers
Perhaps you’ve seen my experiment (below) on other blogs. Why not try it yourself?
.
Last night (15 March 2012) I decided to repeat my earlier experiment, but this time with water rather than soil. I have two identical wide necked vacuum flasks, a digital meat thermometer (measuring to 0.1 C degree accuracy only) ,a sheet of plate glass (off a small coffee table) and a (folded) car windscreen shield (reflective silver.) The glass is mounted on 4 bricks standing on end and in each corner, and the shield is on top of the glass with two extra paver bricks on top. The glass should absorb most radiation from the surface without reflecting much onto the shielded flask. The glass is at a slight slope – about 10 degrees, because my back lawn is sloped. This allows for air to escape by convection.
I started with water at the same temperature that had been in an open container outside for over two hours. I observed the following temperatures in degrees C: ..
Time, Covered, Uncovered, Ambient, Cloud cover
10.55pm 21.7 21.7 21.1 some at about 45 degrees – none overhead
11.55pm 21.5 21.5 21.5 light cloud – full cover overhead
12.55am 21.4 21.1 19.6 some at about 60 degrees – none overhead
1.54am 21.1 20.8 18.0 – no cloud
5.08am 20.3 19.5 19.0 – some at about 45 degrees – none overhead
Conclusions
(1) It is noted that, although the air temperature (about 15cm above a grass lawn) rose when clouds came over, the water continued to cool. It is generally accepted that the moist adiabatic lapse rate is less than the dry rate. We can probably assume that the wind which moves the clouds also brings moist air that moves between the clouds and the surface. There would be a lower lapse rate in this body of air and that would tend to reduce the usual small step down between the surface and the air. For example, at 11.55pm with full cloud cover there was no step down at all, but by 1.54am under clear skies this step was 2.8 C degrees
(2) The water exposed to “backradiation” actually cooled faster than the shielded water. The glass cover collected moisture due to condensation, and both the glass and the drops of water would have radiated onto the water in the flask and, as would be expected, slowed its rate of radiative cooling. The glass and water drops would also have reflected some upwelling radiation.
(3) Even though the energy diagrams show only a little more upwelling radiation from the surface than downwelling “backradiation” (about 7% more usually) it is clear that the effect of upwelling radiation and convection on the glass was far greater than the effect of all the downwelling radiation. This is to be expected from my hypothesis, because the effect on the rate of cooling depends on two aspects of the radiation – the temperature of the source and the number of frequency bands under the Planck curve for the source. The Earth surface has virtually all the expected frequency bands, compared with carbon dioxide having very few. And both the surface and the glass were of course much warmer than the mean temperature of the various sources of radiation in the atmosphere.
(4) So not all radiative flux is “equal” when it comes to any affect on temperatures, this being in keeping with the hypothesis. There was no indication that downwelling radiation from the cold atmosphere was significantly affecting the rate of cooling of the exposed water, but radiation from the wet underside of the much warmer glass cover clearly had a significant effect on the rate of cooling of the water shielded from most backradiation .
Photos: http://climate-change-theory.com/expt_photos.jpg
My paper: (Click Radiated Energy … ” at http://www.webcommentary.com/docs/jo120314.pdf
Addendum to experiment
In order to check that the apparatus did indeed shield atmospheric radiation successfully, I took further readings at 1:53pm (Australian Eastern Daylight Saving Time) on March 16, 2012. It is a clear day with hardly any cloud, none directly overhead. The ambient Temperature in open shade was 31.9 deg.C and the air under the shield was 32.3 deg.C. The water in the flask exposed to sunlight was 29.1 deg.C and that in the shielded flask was 20.5 deg.C, being only 0.2 deg.C above the 5:08am reading taken before sunrise.
I would comment that, considering the energy diagrams show comparable radiation leaving the surface to that from the Sun reaching the surface, then, allowing for the Sun only shining a bit more than half the time at this time of the year in Sydney, then why would not the backradiation have demonstrated something like half the extra 9.6 C degrees which the Sun has warmed the exposed water in a similar time? Clearly the backradiation is not doing what the IPCC claims it does.
Doug, you said on 15th March 15 at 9:48 pm “ .. You’re wasting your time , Pete. I’m not reading such long posts .. ”. Especially for you I again draw your attention to “Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not.” (http://kingjbible.com/jeremiah/5.htm Verse 21).
Best regards, Pete Ridley
I quote from http://www.webcommentary.com/docs/jo120314.pdf
“What is unique here is that the pioneering “peer review in open media” (PROM) requires
authors to be responsive to real time criticisms and suggestions from fellow scientists who,
as reviewers, share notes and suggest improvements while third parties can watch as it
happens.
“”Cotton’s paper was put online and discussed among a panel of reviewers from various
diverse disciplines for several weeks. This is the key to PSI’s more robust assessment. “It’s
far better when outside experts add their voice to the review process, as was recommended
by the Oxburgh Report (2010).” For those who don’t recall, the British government
commissioned a panel of experts to evaluate evidence of misconduct by climatologists after
the “Climategate” scandal. The Oxburgh Report recommended more reviews by outside
experts.
“The PROM system addresses that need and encourages a real-time dialog between author
and reviewers ensuring that feedback is heeded and acted upon. “This is the way more
science should be done in this age of instant high-speed document transfer,” adds
O’Sullivan. “The author got invaluable input from his reviewers and he acted upon the
feedback he got, plus the reviewers were able to satisfy themselves of the validity of
Cotton’s research because they saw precisely how the author collated his evidence and
substantiated his findings.”
“In a series of email exchanges the four reviewers, Dr. Matthias Kleespies (environmental
scientist), Alan Siddons (radiochemist), Hans Schreuder (analytical chemist, ret.) and
Professor Claes Johnson (applied mathematics) ensured that expertize from various
scientific disciplines was applied constructively and thoroughly, unusual for the assessment
of climate science papers.”
Everyone:
If you say “The transfer of energy from a cooler body to a hotter one is compensated by the transfer of energy from the hotter body to the cooler one.
____________________________
With respect. the whole point of my paper is to prove the above statement must be incorrect. If, for example, IR from a cooler atmosphere is converted to thermal energy, (say going from A to B) then there is absolutely no physical reason why there has to be a “compensating” or greater transfer at that time or between those points, ie back from B to A. (It might go, for example, from B to C in the surface, then from C to D in the atmosphere.)
Physics down through the ages has never said this could happen. Each movement of thermal energy has to stand alone and satisfy the Second Law of Thermodynamics in its own right. Movement of radiation does not necessarily mean movement of thermal energy between the same two points.
This is vital in consideration of atmospheric physics for the following reasons …
(1) It eliminates the possibility of any particular “parcel” of thermal energy going from a cold atmosphere to a warmer surface and then back out by evaporation or diffusion.
(2) It restricts the effect to one of slowing the rate of radiative cooling, but not the other rates of cooling by evaporation and diffusion followed by convection.
(3) Furthermore, when the physical process is understood (as is explained in the paper) then it is obvious that carbon dioxide can have far less effect per molecule because it emits far fewer separate frequencies (wavelengths.) All the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere must have less than 1% of the effect of all water vapour. So, just because it gets warmer on a humid night, does not mean carbon dioxide can create the same
effect.http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/radiated_energy.pdfhttp://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/radiated_energy.pdf
PS My photo was taken at Glenelg Beach, Adelaide SA.
Your message is totally wrong.
Kirchhoff’s law which was presented 150 years ago and known ever since tells precisely that there are related movements of radiative energy between two points and that the radiation from the hotter matter to the colder one is always larger than the revers one as required by the Second Law. This is the way the Second Law is realized for radiative energy transfer according to all physics text books that discuss these questions (excluding some strange writings by a few individuals who are not given any weight by others).
Pekka, don’t bother with these people. They think that upward IR is just reflected from downward IR despite its change in spectral characteristics. It is hopeless.
Yes, I know.
This particular error of Doug Cotton was, however, explicit in a different way as it was not only about misunderstanding physics, but also claiming that nobody had said things that are stated in more or less every textbook.
It’s one thing to claim that everybody else is wrong and another to claim that they have not said what they have said.
I’m pretty sure that this well remain last message on this obsolete thread.
Excellent, Pekka. Thank you for explaining how Object A can be made hotter by Object B when Object B is much colder than Object A. I was wondering where that extra 33C of earth-surface warming came from. This also explains how mixing a gallon of 40C water with a gallon of 50C water can create a temperature greater than 45C. Actually, greater than 50C, right? Thank you.
Pekka, in order to use (some version of) the 2nd law you must understand the proof of the law. Do you do that? What is your proof? Saying without understanding is what parrots do.
I give a proof of the 2nd law which makes it possible for me to use the 2nd law to show that heat transfer from cold to warm is against the law and thus cannot occur.
Have you read my proof? If you have and if you have understood it, then you are free to use it and draw conclusions about radiative heat transfer between bodies of different temperature. What is your then your conclusion?
The following points are made in my peer-reviewed paper now published on at least four sites and linked from my site http://climate-change-theory.com
(1) Radiation from cooler parts of the atmosphere to warmer parts of the surface cannot transfer thermal energy, but can slow just the radiative component of surface cooling, which is less than half the cooling, probably about a third.
(2) When radiative cooling is slowed, the rates of evaporative cooling and diffusion (conduction) followed by convection will increase for reasons explained in my paper.
(3) The energy in each photon is proportional to the frequency of the associated radiation.
(4) Short wave (high frequency) infra-red radiation (making up about half of the total solar radiation) thus has far more energy per photon than does long wave (low frequency) infra-red radiation from the atmosphere, which is mostly well below freezing point.
(5) The effect which radiation from the atmosphere has on radiative cooling of the surface depends upon both the temperature of the region from which it originated and the density of frequencies in that radiation.
(6) Carbon dioxide radiates far fewer frequencies than water vapour, and each radiates fewer than a blackbody.
(7) Hence each carbon dioxide molecule has far less effect on the radiative rate of cooling than each water vapour molecule, of which there are usually about 20 to 50 times as many.
(8) So carbon dioxide is like a picket fence with most of its pickets missing, standing up against full blast radiation from the surface.
(9) Any warming effect of carbon dioxide is cancelled because of the reasons in (2) and, because of those in (4) there is a significant cooling effect as it sends back to space at least half of the high energy photons it captures from solar radiation.
(10) Hence carbon dioxide has a net cooling effect, but such is absolutely minimal compared with the effect of water vapour which also has radiative cooling effects, but possibly some warming effects also about which we can do nothing.
Let me put this way …
(1) Radiation sets out on its journey from an object with a frequency distribution represented by the appropriate Planck curve for its temperature.
(2) Not all the possible frequencies may be present if the object is not “composite” but is, perhaps, a single gas or several gases with limited emission bands. If this is the case, this radiation will have less effect on the radiative cooling rates of warmer composite bodies than would perfect blackbody radiation with the full range of frequencies that are allowed by the Planck curve
(3) When the radiation strikes a blackbody target, that target, if cooler, will only be able to match and resonate with a portion of the emitting source’s radiation. The extra source radiation, corresponding to the energy between the Planck curves will be converted to thermal energy, but the rest will undergo resonant scattering. So the radiation is split.
(4) If the target is warmer, all the radiation from the source undergoes resonant scattering.
(5) When radiation strikes a target, that portion that resonates (be it all or part) takes the place of radiation for which the target would have had to use its own energy. Hence the target, even if warmer, will cool more slowly, as is observed.
(6) The target becomes a new source. It, like the original source, still radiates all it can under its Planck curve, but it is using some or all of the energy it received from the original source. Hence “new” radiation sets out which may be thought of as containing some or all of the energy of the original source, plus some of its own it it was warmer than the source.
(7) If you were to follow the passage of any particular parcel of energy, some of it would be “dropped off” at each target that was cooler than the last, but not targets which were warmer than the last.
(8) So the surface also just scatters “cooler” radiation from the atmosphere, and all radiation gets to space eventually. There it continues in the same way, striking targets perhaps every few years or centuries or whatever, until its energy gets down to the base level of about 2K to 3K I understand, as is observed in background space radiation. This means nothing much is colder than that out there.
The above process overcomes the problem of assuming two-way radiation is associated with two-way heat transfer, including transfer from cold to hot. The latter would violate the Second Law, and so cannot happen.
Hence the above postulate is a far more likely alternative.
But now you need to continue by reading my paper, as linked from http://climate-change-theory.com
I see that Professor Curry’s moderator has deleted all but one of my comments of 17th March so I propose to leave this thread about John O’Sullivan’s “Slayers” and their pseudo-scientific organisation Principia Scientific International with a couple of points.
First – Hi Professor Johnson, on 15th Oct. at 11:21 am you said “ .. I am not a member of any group subject to group thinking, in particular not the slayers group .. ”. Doug Cotton seems to have persuaded you to re-associate yourself with the “Slayers” and PSI so would you be good enough to confirm whether this is or is not the case. My understanding was that you had dissociated yourself from them – wisely in my opinion.
For those who have been taking an interest in Doug Cotton’s arguments based upon Professor Johnson’s hypothesis I quote from an on-line review of Doug’s blog article posted on PSI’s blog. In myh opinion it sums up Doug’s article. This is the most recent response by one B_Happy to what Doug claimed would be his closing comment in the discussion (but wasn’t) QUOTE: ..
B_Happy says: March 19, 2012 at 7:37 am
“They don’t have to. It all balances out with probabilities.”
Good grief…. all this messing around and we end up back where standard statmech says we are.
They don’t have to – in fact they cannot – it all balances out with probabilities – exactly – the warmer object absorbs any photons it sees because it cannot tell their temperatures – and emits any photons it feels like emitting – and it all balances out with more photons emitted than absorbed.
Well thank you for conceding that – you may leave now that you have stopped wasting everyone’s time.
There is no need for anyone to write a rebuttal – you have just rebutted your own paper – congratulations.
UNQUOTE (http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/doug-cotton-radiated-energy-and-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/#comment-20358).
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Which just shows how litle you understand, PR.
I have already pointed out onthat site why B_Happy is making incorrect assumptions and unaware of facts I have explained in the paper, such as the fact that the Planck curve for a cooler body is always underneath and fully contained within the Planck curve for a warmer body.
Carbon dioxide is like an army of toddlers (various heights, yes) facing an army of adults on the surface – various heights, yes, but all taller than the tallest toddler by far and not slowed by much by the lot of them.
You still have no understanding of what’s in my paper.
You also incorrectly draw parallels with a few authors of a book calling themselves Slayers, and a growing membership of PSI (now over 40 I understand) which is making a stand against pseudo -physics contained in typical IPCC hoax propaganda.
I quote from PSI website …
Core Values & Mission Statement
PSI CORE VALUES
Principia Scientific International is a self-sustaining community of impartial scientists from around the world deliberating, debating and publishing cutting-edge thinking on a range of issues without a preconceived idea of outcomes.
PSI has identified that there are currently two opposing methodologies at conflict:
Traditional scientific method: borne of the Age of Enlightenment and which gave rise to the technological advances of the industrial revolution.
Post-normalism:* pre-deterministic approach where policy and outcome dictate the kind of ‘science’ needed to justify it. The most culpable purveyors of this modern malaise are national governments, NGO’s and big corporations.
PSI ASSOCIATES are steadfast in their support of the traditional scientific method as encapsulated most eloquently in the ideas of Karl Popper. As such PSI opposes post-normalism and endeavors to provide society with an antidote (from the Greek αντιδιδοναι antididonai, “given against”) to the seemingly gargantuan and pervasive rise of post-normal science by way of our publishing, educational and media-focused materials and presentations. For, as Karl Popper advocated, any hypothesis that does not make testable predictions is simply not science. Such a hypothesis may be useful or valuable, but it cannot be said to be science.
.
Doug, ref. your comment of 19th March at 8:15 am. your quoting from the “ .. PSI website … Core Values & Mission Statement .. ” is merely words, almost certainly dreamed up by John O’Siullivan. I refer you to my comment of 13th March at 1:57 pm., starting with Para. 4.
Please wise up.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
And so are your own posts “merely words”
… which are like water off a duck’s back.
Challenge to PR and anyone else also
When you can give a cogent physics argument as to how you postulate incident radiation slows the rate of radiative cooling then we can get somewhere. Of course I know it does, I’m asking for a description of a feasible mechanism, because no valid description exists in standard physics textbooks. They all try to assume they can get away with concepts of two way heat transfer, but they can’t because it is like water flowing up a hill by itself being justified because there’s a bigger fall on the other side. So you need to find a valid starting point that does not violate the SLoT
Everyone should note Turnedoutnice’s comment at http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/03/global-warming-as-cargo-cult-science/#comment-39322
Roughly 60% of the thermal energy from the surface to the atmosphere does not transfer by radiation. Only about 40% is radiated back. So, if radiation from a cooler atmosphere really did transfer thermal energy to a warmer surface (and the Sceond law of Thermodynamics really could be thus violated) then only 40% of that thermal energy would then exit (a second time) by radiation. So you have much more radiation into the surface than out of it. You have expected water to run uphill by itself and fill a water tank at the top of the hill, just because you know the water is going to flow down pipes to people’s homes sometime in the future.
Thermal energy does not transfer both ways between hot and cold as Planck and Co originally claimed. Botzmann got the right result mathematically, but he did not guess the right physical process. I suggest that is what is in my paper.
http://www.webcommentary.com/docs/jo120314.pdf
If you think you can better explain how radiation from a cooler source does in fact slow the radiative rate of cooling of a warmer body then please put forward your ideas. But any ideas which depend upon compounding thermal energy, some of which is assumed to result from the radiation from the cooler body to the warmer one, will not wear with me.
Everyone
There is an informed discussion on Roy Spencer’s site about all this, with over 400 posts so far.
You might care to pick up here http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/03/slaying-the-slayers-with-the-alabama-two-step/#comment-39517
This thread here is dying, so come on over anyone.
Link to paper here http://www.webcommentary.com/docs/jo120314.pdf
Hi Doug (ref. your comment on Roger Tattersall’s thread on March 20, 2012 at 9:39 pm – http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/doug-cotton-radiated-energy-and-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/#comment-20525) I love your QUOTE: .. You will not yet find reference to “resonant scattering” or, as some are starting to call it, “pseudo scattering” because it has not yet got into the textbooks. It is certainly not the same as Rayleigh scattering. It is what Claes Johnson, professor of applied mathematics (very similar to physics) postulated and which I find, from extensive research, to be the most plausible explanation .. UNQUOTE.
It looks as though you really have been carried away by your fantasy of getting that Nobel prize and have prepared a prominent position for it on your mantle-piece.
As I said to you on 17th February at 6:26 am http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-170313) QUOTE: ..
you seem to be determined to spam the entire internet with your pseudo-scientific hypothesis but that is not the way to get the Nobel Prize that Professor Claes Johnson and you seem to be hankering after. As I said on 8th Feb. “ .. here’s a suggestion for you. Do some proper research, write your paper then submit it to a respected physics journal for peer review and publication .. Alternatively, you could offer co-author a paper with Claes and help him get that Nobel Prize that he seems to hanker after – if Al Gore and the IPCC can do it why not Claes and you .. ”.
If your hypothesis is accepted by an appropriate number of recognised top physicists (but please don’t hold your breath) then you and Claes could be in for not only one but two Nobel Prizes (http://www.nobelprize.org/). I suppose that they will then have to posthumously remove Plank’s 1918 Nobel Prize in Physics and transfer it and the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize from Al Gore and the IPCC (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/) to Claes and you .. UNQUOTE.
Doug, it’s time you did a reality check – it’s not going to happen. As I said on 5th March “ .. stick to the day-job(sssss) because you aren’t going to win any part of that Nobel Prize-money that Professor Claes Johnson seems to have his eye on .. (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-181647).
Best regards, Pete Ridley
I see Ridley was censored on my dedicated thread on tallbloke which is at least the fourth site to publish my paper..
It’s good to see Nicola Scafetta saying what I have said in my paper about Jupiter and Saturn influencing natural ~1000 year cycles – just as I started saying a year ago at http://earth-climate.com and in my paper.
And Nicola’s been published in a notable journal, I see.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/03/21/nicola-scafetta-major-new-paper-on-solar-planetary-theory/
Ridley must find this all just so frustrating – ever time another scientist joins PSI in the fight to expose the hoax that is AGW.
How about you put your time into writing a peer-reviewed rebuttal, Pete?
I can’t wait to see PSI slay you – especially with the new experiments coming out that I know about, but you don’t.
Good luck in your campaign criticising my science on the grounds of a part-time importing business my wife runs.
Hi again Doug, in your comment today at 12:49 am on Roger Tattersall’s thread (http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/doug-cotton-radiated-energy-and-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/#comment-20552) you said “ .. radiation from atmosphere slows the rate of radiative cooling by the surface without transferring heat. Of these, only (3) is correct .. ”.
I don’t think that many sceptics would disagree with that statement, because it is the very thing that many of us “luke-warmers” recognise as the “greenhouse effect”. What you seem unable to fathom is that there is a constant (approximate) source of energy feeding in to the global system of atmo/aqua/cryo/litho/biospheres which demands that in order to restore balance between incoming and outgoing radiation the global system has to heat up in order to again release to space as much as is incoming from the Sun.
The IPCC postulates a quite different process which we luke-warmers (and you and your buddies the “Slayers” reject. Last September/October numerous E-mail exchanges on back-radiation and the “greenhouse” effect involved the “Slayers”, Professor Johnson, Professor Curry, Professor Grant Petty, etc. In one of my E-mails I said to “Slayer” Alan Siddons “ .. I see that the “Slayers” persist in ignoring my reference to their chosen version of the definition of the Greenhouse Effect (18 Oct 2011 13:44) that they attacked in their book. I wonder why!.. ”.
I was surprised by Alan’s response “ .. I don’t know what you mean by “chosen version of the definition of the Greenhouse Effect.” We go by the consensus version, if it may be called that .. ” and went on to describe the NASA interpretation (http://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/g.html) of the IPCC’s version.
It seems that the “Slayers” (and you) reject the notion that if the energy radiated to space from the global system (as IR) does not balance with the incoming radiation from the Sun (IR, visible, UV, etc. – for simplicity assumed to be constant) then the temperature of the global system must change in a direction that restores balance. It’s a bit like “ .. the contents of a vacuum flask getting hotter because it has an electric element adding thermal energy faster than such energy can escape .. ” that I talked about on 18th March (http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/doug-cotton-radiated-energy-and-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/#comment-20306) and you were so dismissive of (http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/doug-cotton-radiated-energy-and-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/#comment-20318).
But I’ve no doubt you’ll persist in trying to convince me that I am wrong but I prefer to heed the arguments of real physicists such as those on Roger’s thread who are trying so hard to help you improve your understanding of the physical processes involved. Maybe Tor or B_Happy can spare some time away from educating you to show where I am misleading myself.
Relating to this, Roger kindly suggested that I consider that a redistribution of energy could raise the average surface T of Earth (within the limits of Holder’s Inequality) just as easily as a slowing of the throughput of energy could. His reference to “Holder’s Inequality” took me to interesting discussions of Nikolov and Zeller’s paper “Unified Theory of Climate: Expanding the Concept of Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Using Thermodynamic Principles. Implications for Predicting Future Climate Change” at interesting article “Unified Theory of Climate: Reply to Comments” (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/22/unified-theory-of-climate-reply-to-comments/).
I found Joel Shore’s comments persuasive (especially http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/22/unified-theory-of-climate-reply-to-comments/#comment-872628 and http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/22/unified-theory-of-climate-reply-to-comments/#comment-876287) but no doubt you’ll claim that he knows less than you about the subject and is mistaken.
As far a I can tell Roger did not publish your article (not worthy of being called a paper, a term rightly reserved for properly peer-reviewed papers and not appropriate fo rblog articles). What it seems that he did is merely agree to your request to draw attention to your blog article and publish your summary. Roger did say “ .. I’m happy to do so, despite some personal reservations regarding some of the inferences drawn from observations. .. ”.
As it is you are being given a real roasting on that thread (http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/doug-cotton-radiated-energy-and-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/) by people who, unlike you, really do understand the physics.
You are just the sort of member that PSI is looking for. I see that there has been another £50 donation to PSI. I wonder who that gullible person was – you perhaps?
I commented on this yesterday on Jeff Condon’s “The Cotton War” thread (http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2012/02/18/the-cotton-war/#comment-71964). I suggest that just for once you try removing your blinkers and read it.
BTW, when I said “ .. stick to the day-job(sssss) .. ” I was not only referring to your sexy under-ware sales activity but to all of those other little businesses you have on the go (see para. 3 of my comment of 20th Feb http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-172459).
Best regards, Pete Ridley
I am not reading a word of your garbage, Ridley. You must have a very strong vested interest in maintaining the hoax.
You have no idea of what I’ve said in my paper, I imagine, because I doubt that you’d read it carefully. ,No one who has understood what I say therein has successfully refuted such on any thread. You just think they have, because you dismiss in your biased mind anything I write in response.
Take your pick …
(1)http://principia-scientific.org/publications/psi_radiated_energy.pdf
(2) http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/doug-cotton-radiated-energy-and-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/
(1)http://principia-scientific.org/publications/psi_radiated_energy.pdf
(2) http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/doug-cotton-radiated-energy-and-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/
(3) http://www.webcommentary.com/docs/jo120314.pdf
(4)http://climaterealists.com/?id=9281
(5) http://beforeitsnews.com/story/1888/538/Doug_Cotton:_Radiated_Energy_and_the_Second_Law_of_Thermodynamics.html
or just Google for more.
Grant Petty sidesteps the real issue here.
It is NOT that the GH theory is not based on sound physics, that humans emit GHGs (principally CO2) or that this probably causes some marginally noticeable GH warming, but simply that the CAGW consensus position of the IPCC is flawed, because it is not supported by empirical scientific evidence.
It’s really just that simple and all the defensive verbiage regarding “fraudulent claims” or “fundamental errors in the science” simply miss the point.
That’s not the bone of contention at all – it is simply the scientific validity of the IPCC “consensus” premise that AGW, caused principally by CO2 emissions, has been the primary cause of global warming since 1950 and that it represents a serious potential threat to humanity and to our environment unless steps are taken to drastically reduce human CO2 emissions.
It is this premise, which is not supported by empirical scientific evidence and is therefore challenged by many rational skeptics (like myself).
That’s what the argument is all about, Dr. Petty. NOT about “fraudulent claims” or “fundamental errors in the science”.
Max
Hi Max (Anacker) – ref. March 22, 2012 at 1:45 am – I think that if you go to the trouble of asking him you’ll find that Professor Petty does not subscribe to any IPCC political consensus about a global anthropogenic climate catastrophe, only to an agreement that IR energy is radiated towards the earth from the atmosphere – unless of course you can point to evidence to the contrary.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete Ridley
Thanks for clarification.
The problem is, that Professor Petty’s statements disclaiming “fraudulent claims” or “fundamental errors in the science” make it appear that he is referring to the science and projections of the IPCC AR4 report, thereby endorsing their validity.
If it is clearly stated that he does not support IPCC AR4, but does support the scientific premise that IR energy is radiated towards the earth from the atmosphere, then this is OK.
The NET flow of IR energy is away from the Earth’s surface, just as the net flow of the Mississippi River is into the Gulf of Mexico. One could argue that at high tide the flow is temporarily reversed. This might be a close analogy to the “downward radiation” argument.
But this is a purely scientific debate, which is interesting but largely irrelevant to the larger political debate regarding the “C” in CAGW.
Max
I see that the “Slayers” have their own super-computer able to predict (not “project”, like the IPCC does, but actually to “predict”) future climatic conditions (although only to 2060).
“ .. The next 30 years are expected to be slightly cooler than at present .. we estimate a minimum in the 60 year cycle around the years 2028 to 2030. .. the 60 year cycle will still cause a maximum around 2058 to 2060. So, expect CAGW-2 between 2040 and 2060 because the rise will be fairly steep, though not great in magnitude, being only for 20 years .. we have nothing to worry about, and of course no indication of any effect from anthropogenic release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere ..” .
They’ve called their super-computer DOUG.
Wait for their next innovation, a long-range weather forecasting machine that’s even better than Piers Corbyn.
Are there no limits to the brilliance of that team of “ .. 36 respected international scientists and related professionals .. ” (http://www.gofundme.com/1v39s&aff=GFMse) led by international legal expert, PSI’s CEO and Legal Consultant John O’Sullivan (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/john-o-sullivan/19/6b4/84a). It’s such a shame that so few people are convinced enough by the claims made on PSI’s behalf. Only £450 of that targeted £15000 has been raised in 14 months.
Never mind, as soon as PSI has taken out mandami and succeeded in “ .. defeating NASA GISS, GHCN and NOAA in the federal court in Washington D.C. (https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2012/02/18/the-cotton-war/) the money should come pouring in. After all, according to John such action is “ .. the only game in town .. ” (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-149933).
Best regards, Pete Ridley
I forgot to mention that Doug also had a roasting at http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2012/01/21/fun-stuff/. He certainly seems to love punishment.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
That last comment of mine is an addendum to a comment that is still in moderation – hopefully to appear soon. If it doesn’t then you can see it at https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2012/02/18/the-cotton-war/#comment-72155
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete, I prefer that you provide links to your lengthy comments on this topic, rather than posting them here
Hi Professor Curry, as you object to my lengthy comments, in future I’ll simply extract the significant parts of those Postma-Petty exchanges that led to Professor Petty sending the E-mail that is the subject of this thread but will start posting them in full on my blog and link to there. That way I shall gradually make the complete set of “PSI & Due Diligence E-mails” and “E-mails with the Slayers-PSI Members” available for anyone who is interested in finding out what PSI is all about.
As you know I tried to persuade John O’Sullivan to post them on his PSI blog but he declined, despite the claim that “transparency” is very important to PSI (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-125570 and 126001)
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Hi Max (Annacker) – ref. March 22, 2012 at 7:27 pm – there is much more clarification available about the “Slayers”, PSI and the exchanges involving “Slayers”, Professors Petty and Curry, etc. in the two Word documents that I have available for anyone who is interested, particularly in what PSI is all about. Your comment prompted me to take another look in those documents to remind myself of the exchanges that provide the background to this thread of Professor Curry’s. As a consequence that Word document has now grown from the original 174 pages to 188, with more to be added.
Professor Curry considered it worthwhile posting here Professor Petty’s third-last E-mail to Posma and the rest of the “Slayers on 14th Oct 2011 but in my opinion there is a lot to be learnt from the rest of those E-mails. I introduced Professor Petty to those E-mail exchanges on 7th September when the subject of “Back Radiation” was being discussed around spectra of this that had been produced by Professor Petty (http://journals.ametsoc.org/action/showFullPopup?doi=10.1175%2FJTECH-1662.1&id=i1520-0426-21-12-1763-f01). My intention was to help the “Slayers” better understand the science but Professor Petty may has well have been talking to a wall as far as they were concerned.
Professor Petty tried very hard to educate the “Slayers” but had to suffer insults on numerous occasions. Despite that he stuck it out until 18th Oct. – 4 days after the “letter to the dragon slayers that Professor Curry quotes above. IN fact he sent 2 more E-mails to the “Slayers” and his final one on 18th sums up the problem that the “Slayers” and Doug Cotton have.
I hope that Professor Curry will agree that this one is worth posting. He said QUOTE:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011, peter.ridley@talktalk.net wrote: < .. Hans makes several interesting observations, such as “ .. Earth does not need a ‘blanket of greenhouse gases’ to keep it warm or protect it from the cold of space. The vacuum of space is the best possible insulator we could wish for .. it is a misconception that the earth’s temperature needs insulation to .. ” <
This is a classic example of the common confusion among skeptics who conflate (deliberately or merely ignorantly) the completely different physical phenomena of thermal conductivity and radiative transfer.
A vacuum is a perfect insulator when it comes to heat transfer via molecular conduction (collisions between molecules). No molecules, no transfer of thermal kinetic energy.
A vacuum is a perfect conductor with respect to exchanges of EM radiation (emission and absorption of photons). No molecules, no scattering or absorption of radiation.
A bizarre, but too common, variation on this confusion is that "if CO2 traps heat, why don't they use it to make Thermos bottles?" The ignorance implicit in this kind of question is truly breathtaking.
Anyone who doesn't understand the vast difference between energy transfer via molecular conduction and energy transfer via radiative exchange really shouldn't offer themselves as an authority on physics of any kind, period. UNQUOTE.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
.
Why does a microwave oven not melt ice?
Think about the implications for similar, but weaker low frequency radiation from carbon dioxide trying to melt the snow and ice covered areas of the planet.
http://climate-change-theory,com
.
Firstly, any slowing of the radiative cooling due to carbon dioxide, methane, etc is absolutely minuscule. The Energy diagrams try to attribute all the backradiation to about 2% of the molecules in the atmosphere. For some strange reason they also assume more goes towards the surface than to space. These 2% of molecules at colder temperatures than the surface, are accused of radiating about as much as the maximum which S-B law permits the surface itself to emit. How can they? Their own Planck curves must limit them to only 2% of what the surface radiates if they were the same temperature, and closer to 1% when they are on average about 40 degrees cooler than the surface.
So the energy diagrams overstate the radiation from WV and trace gases by about 100 fold.
In fact, oxygen and nitrogen can cause radiation by acceleration of electrons in grazing collisions, rather than emission due to quantum energy steps which requires much greater temperatures. So it is apparent that the remaining radiation from the atmosphere comes mostly from oxygen and nitrogen molecules as they collide.
Furthermore, as a result of the limited frequencies in carbon dioxide emission, its effect on rates of radiative cooling is far less than that of a blackbody or a metal plate in the classic experiment with two metal plates radiating towards each other. This is explained more in my paper.
It is doubtful that carbon dioxide would slow the radiative cooling each afternoon and evening by more than, say, a minute. There is ample time at night for that minute to be “made up” with extra cooling by evaporation and sensible heat transfer, which could be faster and/or last longer until the surface gets back to the long term base temperature supported by the “thermal inertia” of sub-surface temperatures, as discussed in Appendix Q.3.
For more detail on how the process works, refer to a page I wrote last September here:
http://climate-change-theory.com/explanation.html
A footnote for PB I did “hunt” for a difference. I had a shielded and unshielded wide necked vacuum flask, and the shielded one cooled more slowly. The unshielded one cooled almost as fast as the air. You seem to be forgetting that the IPCC energy diagrams show more backradiation than they do incident solar radiation. Even allowing for day/night variations in solar insolation, there is very clearly no effect anything like what can be calculated from the energy diagrams if in fact the radiation were absorbed.
But if a microwave oven can’t melt ice, what effect can much weaker backradiation from carbon dioxide have on all the snow and ice covered areas of the globe, just for a start?
_________________________________
Perhaps the most fundamental mistake made by climatologists when they attempt to apply physics is to do what PB does, namely to pull out the equations of Stefan-Boltzmann and Kirchhoff and apply them in circumstances where they just don’t apply, and were never intended to apply.
There is a tendency to assume everything acts like a blackbody and all we have to do is adjust for emissivity and absorptivity, which themselves are assumed always equal (when in fact they are not) and constant, which they also are not for different temperatures of source and target.
For example, we know the surface absorbs SW solar radiation and yet emits LW radiation. Even the timing is not simultaneous, as more absorption takes place in full sunlight. But most importantly, the surface acts nothing like a blackbody just adjusted for emissivity. In fact, the sensible heat transfer (diffusion followed by convection) and evaporative cooling dominate radiation. These processes keep the air temperature which we measure (1.5 to 2 metres above the surface) just a little cooler than the surface, rarely more than 4 C degrees cooler except in unusual weather events. If you then apply S-B equations to determine radiation you should be deducting the “backradiation” in the process of doing so. This is the correct way to apply SBL. You don’t then double count the backradiation as further radiation from the clouds or whatever. It has already been taken into account in determining what is in fact a very small amount of radiation from the surface. In fact, there is more radiation, but it will be counted as radiation from the atmosphere after it is scattered by the first target it hits. So, again, we have to be careful not to double count.
But, as far a cooling the surface itself goes, radiation plays a relatively small part. Calculations show that the radiative loss would only exceed the other losses if the surface were about 100 deg.C. But it seems that the physics formulas for evaporative cooling and diffusion have been overlooked.
So you need to forget concepts like emission = absorption and everything gets radiated according to S-B equations and so on, and think about what’s really happening and whether there is any marginal effect due to extra carbon dioxide, being about 1 molecule in 2,500 other air molecules, trying to slow down the rate of radiative cooling of the whole surface in a David and Goliath battle which David is losing this time.
A vacuum is a perfect conductor with respect to exchanges of EM radiation (emission and absorption of photons). No molecules, no scattering or absorption of radiation.
_______________________________
Exchanges of radiation are not necessarily coincidental with emission and absorption of photons. Send the microwaves from your oven or radar from a tower into space, and this low frequency radiation will still not melt any ice which it might find on some planet somewhere, or at the top of our own atmosphere..
There is no absorption of radiation (photons) if the source of spontaneous radiation was cooler than the target. Radiation in space eventually “cools” to the equivalent of that from a blackbody around 2K to 3K, this demonstrating my point. The “cool” radiation in the background is not warming anything above its own temperature.
So, Prof Claes Johnson and myself and other members of Principia Scientific International are correct and, as my publication (one of six on their site) explains, carbon dioxide has zero warming effect.
On 26th March dear old Dougy asked a question that he has been spamming the Internet with “ .. Why does a microwave oven not melt ice? .. ” (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-188178). He also asked this on Roger Tattersall’s thread (http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/doug-cotton-radiated-energy-and-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/#comment-21110) and on Jeff Condon’s thread and followed up (http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2012/02/18/the-cotton-war/#comment-72454) with what he considered to be a convincing experiment. I have a word of advice for Nobel Prize aspirant Dougy, learn how to properly conduct an experiment before drawing conclusions from scant evidence (http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2012/02/18/the-cotton-war/#comment-72474).
Then on 27th he gives it a mention again (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-188186). I’m no more a scientist than Doug (but am honest enough to admit it) but repeat my suggestion on Jeff’s thread (http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2012/02/18/the-cotton-war/#comment-72474) that he pay some attention to important details such as measuring and recording things like the starting temperature of the substances (ice and water), their rate of heating, the differences in the heat capacity and heat of fusion. Perhaps they have some influence on the outcome of his “experiment”. Some people seem to think so (http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=1604).
Doug concludes “ .. Prof Claes Johnson and myself and other members of Principia Scientific International are correct .. ” but he won’t find many physicists agreeing with that. He also seems to be very proud of the fact that John O’Sullivan accepted his “ .. publication (one of six on their site) .. ”. As I said on Jeff’s thread “ .. In my opinion Doug has no chance of having his blog article published in a recognised learned society or scientific association of merit, so had to turn to PSI .. Doug is a perfect candidate for membership of that organisation and I wonder if it was he who made that £50 donation 12 days ago (http://www.gofundme.com/1v39s&aff=GFMse – come on Doug, was it you?) .. ”.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
PS: I have previously mentioned the University of Cambridge’s Naked Scientists, who seem to have little scientific understanding of the Greenhouse Effect, despite giving their full support to ther CACC hypothesis. Even they might be able to help Doug to better understand what is going on (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/content/kitchenscience/exp/-324719c1f8/).
Best regards, Pete Ridley
.
Microwaves not melting ice provide an example of what I deduce in the paper, namely that there must be another process apart from reflection, transmission and absorption resulting in thermalisation. There is at least some LW radiation entering the ice which is not reflected, not transmitted and not being thermalised. Indeed, I did read papers which referred to scattered radiation observed coming from ice. Whatever you call the process, “resonant scattering” or “pseudo scattering” it does exist and explains why radiation does not always have to be thermalised in a solid. The SLoT is obeyed because this process “selects” when it occurs by the temperature differences between source and target.
In practice, it is just a matter of corresponding frequencies resonating when they find their match. So you can visualise the two Planck curves like picket fences (with the shape of the curves) facing each other. Carbon dioxide only has a few pickets compared with the surface whose pickets are so close there are virtually no gaps. The “fence” for a cooler source will always be fully contained within that for a warmer one – see Section 3. This is the process whereby radiation from one body has an effect on the radiative cooling rate of another body.
The Earth’s surface, as it sheds energy to the atmosphere, uses up some of its radiating capacity handling the resonant scattering in which it is easier and faster to use the energy in the incident radiation (rather than its own supply of thermal energy) for the new radiation which exactly matches that component of the incident radiation which is also under its Planck curve. If the source was cooler, all such incident radiation will have a distribution that is under its own curve. Only if the source were warmer would there be a surplus (between the Planck curves) that does some warming. So heat transfer by radiation can only be from hot to cold (as we knew by SLoT) and this mechanism which is described in more detail in the paper appears to be what happens.
.
.
No Virginia, microwaves and LW radiation from carbon dioxide do not melt ice anywhere on Earth, just like the Slayers have been saying all along.
Microwaves do not even excite anything in water, let alone ice. If you do the calculations they have far too little energy per photon.
In water they cause 180 degree flipping of water molecules in synchronisation with the wave motion of the radiation. As the molecules flip they create friction with other flipping molecules, and that is what causes generation of thermal energy, not the normal process which happens when solar radiation strikes water – totally different. The microwaves even have to be such that standing waves are created in order to achieve the flipping. But in ice there is no room for the flipping. And such is the case in nature when low energy LW radiation from a cooler source strikes a warmer surface – there is no generation of thermal energy (ie no heat transfer from cold to hot) which the IPCC energy diagrams wrongly imply happens
In case anyone has read Pete Ridley’s attempt to rebutt my microwave experiment, I responded …
Firstly, the flipping action (in synch with the wave motion) is illustrated here – see the next two pages also
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/microwaves/water_rotates3.html
Pete has used plastic bowls which probably got warmed a bit themselves. I used special microwave bowls made of special material that does not get warmed at all in a microwave oven.
My whole point was to demonstrate that there was ample energy in the first minute (maybe 90 seconds if volumes are greater) to boil an equivalent volume of water from, say, 5 deg.C, but not melt the ice. I demonstrate that there is ample energy in the water to then melt the ice within the same time frame when I poured the boiling water onto the ice.
So clearly virtually all the energy went into the water and hardly any into the ice, even when they were there together at the same time and for the same length of time. There was ample energy to melt the ice and warm the water quite a few degrees and achieve the end result after mixing. But that did not happen.
Obviously, if you extend the period you will eventually warm the container (especially a normal plastic container such as Pete probably used) and the container will warm and melt the outer layer of the ice, and the water so formed will start to melt the ice. But the ice is melting by conduction from warmed water. If the microwaves were melting it there would be melting throughout the ice cubes, not just at the surface. This is why defrosting mode turns power on and off, in order to allow time for conduction from heated water to melt the ice in frozen food.
Even the fact that many materials do not warm much in microwave ovens shows that the heating is mainly achieved by radiation at just the right frequency to flip the H2O molecules through 180 degrees and heat them by friction between molecules. The molecules in ice are too close to flip, as the above linked website explains. This is not thermal absorption, because the frequencies are too low, just as they are for radiation from a cooler atmosphere which also will not transfer thermal energy to all the ice and snow covered land surfaces.
And this makes an absolute farce of the IPCC claim that the most warming on the whole globe will occur at the North Pole – even up to 6 or 8 degress by 2100, so they say.
So we know the radiation enters water, but there is no quantum excitation involved which brings about conversion of radiated energy to thermal energy in the same way that solar radiation warms water. We have demonstrated that the frequency makes a difference, and the fact that ice and other materials are not warmed, proves that it is as described, with heating being by friction only.
Sorry, Pete, but once again you are not right.
Dougy’s latest analysis of his brilliant experiment with ice cubes in his microwave is given above (March 28 at 12:12 am). His extraordinary conclusion is that the microwaves do not provide the energy to heat up the ice. The energy is produced by magic as a result of friction between flipping molecules. He’s proved that the Law of Conservation of Energy is nonsense. I can just see the headline news “Nobel Prize in Physics 2012 awarded to Douglas Jeffrey Cotton, novice physicist of North Rocks, Sydney, NSW, Australia” – hallelujah.
I’ve conducted my own versions of that demonstration of Dougy’s but tried to be a little more scientific that he was.
Objective: to determine the effect upon a sample of water and a sample of ice of immersion in a microwave oven on full power for 60s.
Apparatus: 800W microwave; 20g (approx) ice at –12C starting temp (estimated); 20g (approx) water at 10C starting temp (estimated): 2 identical plastic containers.
09:00 (UTC+1): Both containers, one of water the other of ice, placed in microwave and heated for 60 sec.
09:01 (UTC+1): Containers removed and contents checked:
– ice virtually intact (tiny drip of water) at –4C (estimated
– water at 35C.
09:30 (UTC+1): New lump of ice placed in container, put into microwave oven and heated for 3 minutes.
09:33 (UTC+1): Ice completely melted and water at 40C (estimated).
Conclusion: Given long enough, an ice cube will be melted in a microwave.
Experimental deficiencies: Estimation of water and ice temperatures renders results qualitative only.
Further experimentation: Repeat taking accurate measurements of substance and ambient temperatures, microwave power within the oven, duration of heating followed by calculations of energy supplied versus theoretical energy required to heat the ice to 0C, convert to water then heat to final temperature.
End objective: To be awarded Nobel Prize for proving that physical hypotheses about specific heat, latent heat of fusion and latent heat of evaporation are flawed – Amen.
But I really can’t be bothered.
Responding to Dougy’s comment (March 28 at 7:24 am) he described his “experiment” (although it is not really worthy of the name, any more than his blog article is worthy of being referred to as a peer-reviewed paper) as follows “ .. Empty a tray of small ice cubes from your frig into a microwave container which does not get warm itself in a microwave oven. Refill the ice tray and empty the equivalent amount of water into another such microwave container. Put both in the microwave oven for about a minute. The water will boil but none of the ice will melt. Then (outside the oven) pour the boiling water onto the ice and it will melt in less than a minute, demonstrating the above explanation that the heat comes from friction in the water (where molecules are free to move) rather than absorption which would have melted the ice .. ” (http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/doug-cotton-radiated-energy-and-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/#comment-21110).
He now says “ .. . My whole point was to demonstrate that there was ample energy in the first minute (maybe 90 seconds if volumes are greater) to boil an equivalent volume of water from, say, 5 deg.C, but not melt the ice. I demonstrate that there is ample energy in the water to then melt the ice within the same time frame when I poured the boiling water onto the ice. So clearly virtually all the energy went into the water and hardly any into the ice, even when they were there together at the same time and for the same length of time. .. ” (http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/doug-cotton-radiated-energy-and-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/#comment-21110).
I say “flipping nonsense Dougy”. Your demonstration is flawed (just like Professor Iain Stewart’s was (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-133756 Para. 9) and did nothing of the sort. What you demonstrated was that, depending upon how cold your ice and water were at the start of heating, after “about a minute” your ice had absorbed sufficient energy to not only bring it up to near melting point but had actually melted some of the ice inside. (try heating the ice again and smashing it to pieces with a hammer – you’ll get plenty water then, just as I did). Since a significant amount of the ice was already melted (absorbing all of that latent heat of fusion – 40 times that required to raise its – and water’s – temperature through 1C) there was sufficient energy in the boiling water to melt the remaining ice.
No need for the “flipping” magic that Dougy has hypothesised.
Dougy speculated that:
– “ .. Pete has used plastic bowls which probably got warmed a bit themselves .. ” – no, the temperature of my dry bowl in the microwave for 5 minutes heats hardly at all (although the oven plate beneath was darned hot) and the heat in it made little impact upon a fresh block of ice straight from the freezer.
– “ .. Pete may have left some water in his the second time .. ” – again no, I used not the same but an identical bowl, bone-dry from the cupboard. Of course the heat from my hand may have had a small but insignificant impact on the result, just like the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere through our use of fossil fuels etc. has on the different global climates.
(I notice that Dougy took his ice cubes from his “frig” and it would be interesting to know what his “frig” temperature is, but I doubt if he bothered to check that as part of his demonstration. As all scientists should be aware, all such details are the essence of a properly conducted experiment.)
He also declared “ .. defrosting mode turns power on and off, in order to allow time for conduction from heated water to melt the ice in frozen food .. ” – wrong again, it’s to prevent the water from boiling and possible causing the defrosting food from exploding due to steam pressure.
Of course, I am no more a physicist than Dougy is so, like he, I could be totally wrong about all of this stuff to do with latent heats and thingies like that. Unlike Dougy (who believes that he and only he knows the “truth”), I am eager to learn from those who have more knowledgeable than he or I have, so please enlighten me.
Best regards, Pete Ridley.
Before Dougy jumps in and criticizes my use of the English language, I should have concluded “I am eager to learn from those who have more knowledge than he or I have, so please enlighten me.
.
The aim with microwave oven experiments is to prove that there are things which don’t get heated by the LW radiation in microwave ovens. What happens to all those photons? IPCC assumes photons transfer thermal energy to solids and liquids (like the land surfaces and oceans) regardless of the frequency of the radiation. They don’t if they come from colder regions of the atmosphere, which is nearly always the case. Microwave ovens demonstrate that at least some LW radiation doesn’t warm some things.
The black metal plate in my microwave oven does not get warmed by the oven’s LW radiation, whereas the same metal plate does get warmed in front of an electric bar radiator also emitting LW radiation with intensity of the same order of magnitude. The difference is in the frequency.
And this is the whole point of what we are discussing. Radiation with lower peak frequency than that for the emission which the target is emitting, will not transfer thermal energy to such a warmer target.
The computational proof is in Ref [3] of my paper – linked from http://climate-change-theory.com – which is why I don’t need to include computations therein. Furthermore, the quantification of the process I describe has the same mathematics as is well known and well documented for calculating heat transfer between hot and cold bodies, so I also don’t need to repeat those computations in my paper. A simple explanation that the difference in the areas under the Planck curves is obviously the area between those curves is sufficient, knowing that the smaller curve is (at all frequencies) below the larger curve for the warmer body.
As I have said several times, people will not understand my argument until they read and study the whole paper. It would be preferable if commenters would indicate that they have read the paper and then quote Section or FAQ numbers and paragraph numbers to which they are referring.
There are other topics in the Appendix, including the temperature analysis which shows carbon dioxide has had absolutely no effect on climate. Do I assume that, since no one has argued about that point (which I first raised days ago) that you all agree with it? That point alone is sufficient to overturn the AGW conjecture, I suggest, and it is empirical evidence in my paper supporting the theory. So why do some of you keep saying there is no empirical evidence in my paper, or no computations when I have explained why such are not required?
.
.
Pete and others
Virtually nothing at room temperature converts the low frequency radiation in a microwave oven to thermal energy by absorption which causes quantum energy changes.
It is not because the objects are transparent. The black metal plate certainly isn’t. Why would ice be transparent and water opaque?
The process involves friction as explained on this page and the next two ..
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/microwaves/water_rotates3.html
Why should low frequency radiation from the cold atmosphere be all that different when it strikes a warmer surface?
What empirical ground do the IPCC have for their implicit assumption that all photons will warm the land and ocean surfaces?
.
.
Why carbon dioxide does not affect climate
Firstly, let me clear up a common misconception about microwave ovens heating things with “cooler” radiation. When microwave ovens heat water there is no quantum energy excitation as is involved when a cooler object is warmed by a hotter source of radiation. All I am wishing to demonstrate is that this natural thermalisation process does not occur in nature when the spontaneous (natural) radiation comes from a cooler source. So I am dismissing microwave ovens as being any contra-proof because a totally different process is involved. The very fact that they do not warm most composite solids does in fact support the hypothesis. At the same time, it provides contra evidence against the IPCC assumption that all photons warm any solid or liquid regardless of relative temperatures.
But let’s now keep the discussion to what’s relevant in natural processes between the atmosphere and the surface. We are not going to see spontaneous emission of such low energy (“cool”) radiation (equivalent to < 1K) having any noticeable effect on the surface. Microwave ovens work because they deliver (artificially) far higher intensities of such radiation than would occur naturally.
I am very well aware of what the "post normal" science claims about a greenhouse effect, having studied their propaganda extensively. Absorbing of such radiation does not make a greenhouse effect. Those that absorb are the very ones emitting radiation which will cool the atmosphere as it takes all its energy to space, even if it is scattered off the surface of the Earth first.
Water vapour and carbon dioxide also absorb direct incident Solar radiation for which the photons have about five times the energy of those leaving the surface. When at least half of these incident photons are sent back to space I suggest we see a clear-cut cooling process. Indeed, all the absorbing and reflecting of solar insolation prevents nearly 30% of the Sun's "heat" reaching the surface in daylight hours.
Now, narrowing it down to carbon dioxide and perhaps methane, these gases have very little effect on the warmer surface. Their radiation does not actually transfer additional thermal energy to the surface. All it can do is slow down radiative cooling, which is just one component of the cooling of the surface. The radiation itself is not slowed, just the cooling because some of the energy needed comes from the incident radiation, not the energy in the surface.
So, the surface "looks" out the atmospheric window and sees space (at 2.7 K) to which it can radiate full blast. It also sees a few spectral lines of radiation from about 1% of the atmosphere which is water vapour. And it sees even fewer spectral lines from even fewer carbon dioxide and methane molecules. This radiation from the atmosphere comes with a variety of effective temperatures, so the warmer radiation is more effective than the cooler.
However, the subsurface is (at say 200 metres deep) at a very constant temperature that is unlikely to change significantly within a thousand year cycle. Even if it does, there is indication that it would do so in a 1000 year cyclic pattern, there being also longer and shorter natural cycles. This sub-surface temperature controls and stabilises climate, basically because of the massive "thermal inertia" of all the energy beneath the outer crust. The stabilisation process causes other heat loss processes to compensate for any slower radiation, if the latter were even significant.
Finally, a closer look at the temperature records does in fact display evidence of a 60 year cycle superimposed on the 1000 year cycle. The effect of the 60 year cycle can be removed in order to study the underlying 1000 year cycle. It is then seen (Appendix Q.1) that the rate of increase has been reducing over the last 100 years or so from about 0.06 C degrees / decade to about 0.05 C degrees / decade. This is to be expected because we can extrapolate the 1000 year cycle to a maximum in about 50 to 200 years' time at the most. Absolutely all climate change can be attributed to these natural cycles and there is no effect whatever that relates to anthropogenic causes.
For more detail on all this, see my paper which is now linked from my site
http://climate-change-theory.com
Jeff Condon attempted to rebut my paper, then deleted my response of which I have kept a screen capture. This is typical of the suppression which is common among those battling to support the AGW conjecture.
Author’s response
There is absolutely no need to present equations …
(a) because the document Reference [3] approaches the topic of one-way heat transfer with ample computations
(b) because I have clearly explained in words the very obvious fact that the area between the two Planck curves is the difference in the areas under the curves, because Wien’s Displacement Law confirms that the curve for the cooler body is fully contained within that for the warmer body. This is supported with a graphic and link regarding WDL.
Hence I am obviously saying that the standard equations for radiation between two plates (and similar) still apply. Thus the standard equations for heat transfer also apply. I state that such equations give the correct result in Section 4 which is about quantification in such instances. There is absolutely no need to reiterate standard equation of physics here, but I do never-the-less provide a link (Ref [4]) to an article containing such computations involving the difference of the two Stefan-Boltzmann calculations for the two temperatures involved. This is ample coverage of all the computations that are relevant.
The statement “Thus radiation from a cooler atmosphere cannot transfer thermal energy to a warmer surface” is doing nothing more nor less than applying the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Any contrary statement, or implied error, is in fact, in itself, contradicting standard physics.
Engineering applications neither prove nor disprove either hypothesis (one way or two way heat transfer) for the very reason that the mathematical computations give the same result for each hypothesis. (I remind you, the area between the curves = the difference in the areas under the curves.) So, yes, science has already “empirically verified” what is in my hypothesis, just as much as it has in the conjecture made by the early physicists over a hundred years ago, that there “must” be a two-way heat transfer. This was their best guess at the time, perhaps because they had no concept of the resonating and scattering process proven computationally by Claes Johnson, a professor of applied mathematics which is a discipline closely related to physics.
In no way have I undermined “the foundation of literally millions of functioning devices” because I have not come up with anything different in terms of computational results relating to heat transfer, either in quantity or direction.
“How often a photon is absorbed by a solar cell is very well quantified and is based on the material in question”
Well, yes it may be “very well quantified” but, because there has been a philosophy that absorption is a fixed proportion, regardless of the temperature of either source or target, all measurements have been carried out with incident solar radiation or some other light source equivalent to a warmer source of spontaneous radiation. Once again, a reference [10] is provided which explains the methodology. Furthermore, my reading on this particular issue has subsequently confirmed that absorptivity does in fact vary even by a full order of magnitude at different temperatures. More experiments are planned which are expected to confirm these facts.
It would seem that the reviewer has read little more than half the paper, as no comment is made on the content of the Appendix.
If he finds no counter argument to items such as Q.1, Q.2, Q.3 and Q.7 then he would appear to be accepting the conclusions of the body of the paper, regardless of his criticism thereof. For example, in Q.1, I demonstrate that there is no evidence of any anthropogenic effect showing in the temperature records. In Q.3 I discuss the stabilising effect of the “thermal inertia” in the massive quantity of sub-surface thermal energy, right down to the Earth’s core. The conclusion is spelled out at the end of Q.7 namely “This leaves nothing but the resonant scattering hypothesis to explain reality and such a hypothesis negates a key assumption which is fundamental for there to be any validity in the Anthropogenic Global Warming conjecture”
The reviewer has criticised me for not quoting what are standard equations anyway, but he has not addressed nearly half the paper, nor quoted even one sentence therein which he has been able to specifically refute using standard physics.
His hand-waving comments bear no substance, display complete misunderstanding and are lacking in any supportive evidence, either documented as theory, or as empirical evidence, that is contrary to any statement in the paper.
.
.
A better explanation regarding microwave ovens and lasers
Until you study the paper, right through to Appendix Q.7 (which answers the issue of “what’s the difference” between one-way and two-way heat transfer) you won’t really understand how it works and why I have deduced that it can’t happen any other way.
The Second Law specifically states that it applies to an adiabatic process. So …
(1) there must be no energy added – which rules out microwave ovens, lasers, radar, radio etc.
(2) there must be only one process – this has to be an independent process.
I explain how (spontaneous) radiation which matches radiation from the other body will resonate (as Claes Johnson explains) and not transfer any thermal energy to the other body, but appear to be scattered as new radiation takes its place and uses up equivalent radiating capacity, but not any energy from the target – only energy from the incident radiation.
Now, this matched two-way radiation is that which corresponds to the area under the Planck curve for the cooler body. This is the same as the S-B calculation for the cool one, because the S-B equation is merely the integral of the Planck function – ie the area under the Planck curve.
Now if one body gets warmer the extra radiation (corresponding to the area between the Planck curves) does all the warming as it, and only it, is absorbed in the cooler body. Remember that the Planck curve for the cooler body is always fully contained by that for the warmer body, so there will always be resonating capacity in the warmer body for all the radiation from the cooler body.
In artificially created radiation in a microwave oven or laser, the intensity is greatly increased well above natural levels. Hence, we no longer have a Planck shaped curve at all. The peak frequency of such radiation may well be that of a cooler body, but the distribution of its radiation would now be a narrow curve rising well above the height of the peak of the warmer body. So there is a surplus which the warmer body cannot resonate with, just as if the source had been much warmer than itself. Hence it is not at all surprising that artificially generated radiation can heat water and cut steel with a laser. Such situations do not violate the Second Law (or my hypothesis) because both the Law and the hypothesis were only ever intended to apply for (natural) adiabatic processes.
I’m sorry that I didn’t explain it perhaps quite as clearly as this before. However, the concept is set out in the paper and this seems a fairly straight forward extension of the idea. I do discuss lasers and microwave ovens in the Appendix, but may expand a bit there (as a result of this discussion) if I ever do a revision of the paper. So please let me know if you consider the above to be a better explanation that hopeful you can all understand now.
.
Dear old Dougy persists in spamming his nonsense all over the Internet. You may be interested in taking a look at http://joannenova.com.au/2012/01/dr-david-evans-the-skeptics-case/#comment-1027662 .
He’s a perfect fit for membership of John O’Sullivan’s pseudo-science publishing company PSI (http://www.gofundme.com/1v39s&aff=GFMse).
Still waiting to hear your theory, as per my request on the David Evans thread.
Dear Dougy, See my response at http://joannenova.com.au/2012/01/dr-david-evans-the-skeptics-case/#comment-1027904
Best regards, Pete Ridley
I would just make the comment that all I take from Prof Claes Johnson’s Computational Blackbody Radiation is the concept of resonating radiation for that going from cold to hot.
The straight-forward logical argument in Sections 2 to 5 in my paper, I suggest, points to the necessity of there being some such process. Whether it is technically resonating, scattering or even reflection, its effect is such that …
(a) Identical radiation is re-emitted.
(b) the overall radiation from the target, if a (near) blackbody, is still limited by the Planck curve
(c) There is a reduced rate of loss of thermal energy from the target, because the incident radiation must occupy equivalent radiating capacity in the target and supply the energy, thus avoiding the need for the target to use up some of its own stored thermal energy.
Note also that the postulate that the radiation which resonates is equivalent to that under the Planck curve for the cooler body would appear the most elegant and logical. But if you disagree, please suggest any other possibility except two-way heat flow, as the latter most certainly would violate the SLoT.
So, can anyone suggest any other process having these characteristics (a) to (c) above, or (having read what I’ve said in the paper) can you explain how nature ensures that the SLoT is not violated by spontaneous radiation in an adiabatic independent process?
Not only does the mechanism I have postulated (which is different is some aspects from Claes Johnson’s) explain the observed heat transfer, but it also explains how and why the intensity of artificially produced radiation (such as in a microwave oven) can heat water, fat and sugar molecules without violating the SLoT.
.
Note Pierre Latour’s response to Roy Spencer ….
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/03/slaying-the-slayers-with-the-alabama-two-step/#comment-42208
Just an excerpt …
So your assertion: “Infrared absorbing gases reduce the rate at which the Earth loses infrared energy to space.” is proven FALSE.
The above analysis clearly demonstrates that IR absorbing gases do not reduce the Earth’s ability to cool to outer space. No amount of obfuscation or straw-man arguments will be able to get around this fact.
.
.
.
Summary of Key points
My “model” is in the paper. It does not depend critically upon Claes Johnson’s computations which approach it all a little differently by assuming “strongly attenuated” Planck curves and thus considering it sufficient to work with the frequency modes therein. That is the reason br1 is uncomfortable with the calculations, but the end result is the same, namely that heat transfer is always from hot to cold.
If you think about it, there has to be only one-way heat transfer, so nature has to “know” somehow when to reverse the direction when one body that was cooler is then warmed above the other’s temperature.
I don’t care if you call the process resonance, scattering, resonant scattering or (as some are starting to call it) pseudo scattering. Here “pseudo” is not implying that it doesn’t exist – rather it is acknowledging that it is new radiation exactly equivalent in frequency and intensity to the radiation that “matches” in either body, viz that represented by the area under the cooler Planck curve.
The main point about the Second Law which AGW proponents gloss over is the fact that it applies to a (single) process (between two specific objects) and that process is independent. It even applies between the start and end of any short (measurable) time slot within that process. For example, if your coffee is cooling over, say, 10 minutes, then you can look at any intermediate time slot of, say, 30 seconds, and it will still be cooling.
But, on the subject of independence, this is where they go wrong in assuming that two-way heat flow just has a net effect and all is OK if that “net” effect is from hot to cold. However, there are always two independent processes involved here. And this can be seen quite clearly in the real world. For example, if backradiation were to warm an already warmer layer of water just millimetres below the surface, then there is no dependence between that (invalid) heat transfer and any subsequent “opposite” heat flow (usually back to some other location) such as convection to the surface of the water followed by evaporative cooling.
Dependence between two opposite transfers of potential energy can occur in, for example, a siphon. The upward flow of water happens iff there is a greater mass of water falling on the other side of the siphon. So the up and down flows of water are not independent processes, but rather just one process in which entropy does in fact increase. But if you cut the hose at the top, you then have two independent processes, so the water no longer flows in an upward direction. There is an exact analogy with heat flow, and the “hose” is cut with any atmospheric processes. So there can be no heat transfer from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface.
The above is an outline of my opening argument in Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics. There must then be a process of one way heat transfer which accounts for all such heat transfer from hot to cold. We know the end result can be calculated from radiative flux represented by the area between the Planck curves for the two bodies.
I have suggested (building on Claes resonance concept) that two-way radiated energy, corresponding to the area under the Planck curve for the cooler body, all just resonates (gets scattered) when going each way between the two bodies. But as one body gets warmer (and its Planck curve always includes all the area under that curve for the cooler body) then just the extra radiation represented by the area between the curves transfers from hot to cold, in agreement with well known results.
But we also have to acknowledge that the radiation from the cooler body does slow the radiative component of cooling of the warmer target. This is known physics, but it is not because of two-way heat flow. Instead the radiation from the cooler body supplies energy to the target which takes the place of energy it would otherwise have converted to EM energy from its own supply of thermal energy. It cannot, and does not radiate more than S-B allows, and the scattered radiation is included in that quota. Hence the target cools more slowly, but still radiates just as much as per S-B adjusted for emissivity of course. Note that absorptivity must be a function of temperatures of both source and target, being zero when the source is cooler.
The other processes of heat transfer from surface to atmosphere will compensate for any slowing of the radiative component, so there is no net effect because the total Earth system still radiates the same to space. This statement is further supported in the Appendix Q.3.
.
If anyone here actually reads what Ridley writes may I request that you read a series of posts of mine starting here …
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/01/dr-david-evans-the-skeptics-case/#comment-1028220
.
Claes Johnson (professor of applied mathematics) writes …
Doug Cotton is the only reader who have articulated that he has read and understood the analysis. It is however not difficult to understand if you only give it a try without negative prejudice.
To only see the shortcomings of a model and none of its virtues is non-constructive negativism.
Those who do so are asked to provide a proof of Plank’s law themselves which they understand. To only repeat some dogma without understanding is parrot science and not real science.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/doug-cotton-radiated-energy-and-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/#comment-21742
.
Douglas Jeffrey Cotton’s arrogance is beyond belief. On the thread that Roger Tattersall dedicated to his nonsense (http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/doug-cotton-radiated-energy-and-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics) he has had detailed explanations from contributors of the flaws in his understanding (based upon Professor Claes Johnson’s simplistic model), particularly from individuals using the false names Tor and br1. Despite their efforts, on this A p r i l F o o l’s day Doug declares “ .. Every relevant equation in “standard physics” is based on a false assumption .. don’t tell me yet again that I need to read physics textbooks. I have been helping university students learn their physics ever since I majored in it .. I know what the books say, but such is in error because the early scientists were mistaken .. they were obviously wrong .. You cannot argue successfully against this point, but it is not in textbooks yet.
.. So please don’t respond yet again with “standard physics” which is the very thing I am refuting .. ”.
(http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/doug-cotton-radiated-energy-and-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/#comment-21719 and #comment-21733 #comment-21734)
Although he has been trying very hard recently to prove otherwise, Doug is not a complete idiot. He does at least now “ .. acknowledge that the radiation from the cooler body does slow the radiative component of cooling of the warmer target .. ”. Hallelujah, he accepts that the “greenhouse effect” is real. Now all that he needs to acknowledge is that with that constant source of energy coming from the Sun there has to be a compensating increase in the temperature of the Earth until balance is restored – ignoring the many other processes that also contribute to the distribution of energy within the global system of atmo/aqua/cryo/litho/bio/spheres.
Finding that he was taking a pounding over his blog article posted on the blog of the virtually unknown science-fiction publisher Principia Scientific International started by John O’Sullivan and his “Slayers” it seems that Doug has had to call up reinforcements – Professor Claes Johnson has come to his aid (http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/doug-cotton-radiated-energy-and-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/#comment-21742). Strange that he chose to enter the fray there on A p r i l F o o ls’ Day. Maybe he’s getting worried that Doug will be awarded that Nobel Prize for Physics instead of himself.
It should be interesting following the responses to his comment.
Back in October Professor Johnson declared “ .. I am not a member of any group subject to group thinking,
in particular not the slayers group .. ” (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-122522) but I wonder if he has rejoined the “Slayers” gaggle as a member of PSI.
Best regards,
Pete Ridley
.
Show me one “pounding” Ridley that I have not been able to demonstrate to be false.
You say He does at least now “ .. acknowledge that the radiation from the cooler body does slow the radiative component of cooling of the warmer target .. ”
Stop your weak attempts to try to demonstrate that I have changed my understanding or belief regarding well known basic physics. Read the last paragraph of Section 5 which states the very thing you think I’ve just learnt now, rather than 50 years ago.
Then in your naive way you think my acceptance of this well known fact means that I accept that the “greenhouse effect” is real.
It is only you who thinks there is a connection, for the simple reason that you have not understood the key points in the paper. You just sit there gullibly lapping up the garbage dished out by the IPCC with their equally simplistic conjectures that ignore balancing effects of other cooling processes which accelerate. And you have no comprehension of how carbon dioxide and water vapour help keep the surface protected from incident solar IR.
No to you, if radiative cooling is slowed by CO2 by less than 1% the amount it is slowed by water vapour, you think AGW is proved beyond doubt. Keep writing garbage Ridley, and I’ll keep exposing your ignorance. Just don’t read my paper or you might anticipate my response, and that would kill the fun.
Go and read what Prof Claes Johnson just wrote on my tallbloke thread – linked above.
To other readers, once again you have only to compare what I actually wrote in the paper with the totally incorrect assumptions Ridley has just made with his simplistic view of the atmosphere and surface system.
.
Now now Dougy, calm down or you’ll blow a gasket. Try taking some of those “snake-oil” remedies that you appear to have such faith in and peddle. It’s no good responding hastily like that – read more carefully and then think about your response, write it down then review it very carefully to ensure that you haven’t missed an important point. Most particularly, look carefully to see if anything in your response makes you look even more ignorant (and arrogant) than the impression you have already given throughout the blogosphere. Don’t forget that once it’s posted it is there forever – no denying that you said it.
I said of you “ .. Now all that he needs to acknowledge is that with that constant source of energy coming from the Sun there has to be a compensating increase in the temperature of the Earth until balance is restored – ignoring the many other processes that also contribute to the distribution of energy within the global system of atmo/aqua/cryo/litho/bio/spheres .. ”.
Now, think carefully about ALL of what is there.
As usual, if anything that I have said here is considered to be unfair or a misrepresentation of the facts then please let me know and I will consider whether or not a retraction or apology is warranted. The last thing that I wish to de is misinterpret the evidence and present a misleading picture.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
I don’t know anyone who disputes the idea that OLR can be delayed. The question is: how is this relevant? What is the delay distribution? What is the median delay? In order for the delay to increase the Earth’s average surface temperature, the delay must be relevant at the diurnal scale. If you want a long thermal time constant, then you need a large thermal mass. Good luck with finding a large thermal mass in cold, thin air. I know cool, diffuse radiation is a slow and weak conveyor of energy. If I was looking for a physical mechanism to heat something by 33C, I certainly wouldn’t look to atmospheric radiation for a solution. You can if you like. Good luck.
Just for once read my paper and my replies which rubbish PB and yourself, Ridley.
My response to your above point is in Appendix Q.3
.
You really are an April fool not even waiting for my response to PB which appeared quite promptly showing just how far away from understanding my paper is our friend PB – just like yourslef.
Go read the last paragraph in Section 5.*
The more you misquote and misunderstand me, the more fun I have showing others how ridiculous and impatient you are.
Go have fun while I sleep, as I’m signing off now for night as it’s after 11pm Sunday here in Sydney.
* In fairness, there would be a slight slowing of the rate of cooling when the temperatures approach each other, because of the way in which the area between the Planck curves reduces. But this only applies to radiation, so evaporation and diffusion could easily compensate and it does not mean energy is added to the surface or the atmosphere.
.
.
In case I have still not made myself abundantly clear to PB and Ridley …
(1) Rate of radiative cooling (<40%) of surface decreases by a minuscule amount due to very ineffective radiation from CO2
(2) Simultaneously, rates of evaporative cooling and diffusion (molecular collision) followed by convection increase by a compensating amount*
.
TOTAL EFFECT of (1) + (2) = ZERO
* Appendix Q.3
See also http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/03/slaying-the-slayers-with-the-alabama-two-step/#comment-42208
Dear oh dear Dougy, you simply will not bother reading what others say. In response to my “ .. with that constant source of energy coming from the Sun there has to be a compensating increase in the temperature of the Earth until balance is restored – ignoring the many other processes that also contribute to the distribution of energy within the global system of atmo/aqua/cryo/litho/bio/spheres .. ” you say “ .. But this only applies to radiation, so evaporation and diffusion could easily compensate and it does not mean energy is added to the surface or the atmosphere .. ”.
Perhaps those “snake-oil” elixirs you are involved with (http://ageslowly.homestead.com/) are having a detrimental affect on your English comprehension. When I say “constant source of energy coming from the Sun” do you understand something other than “radiation”? When I say “ignoring the many other processes” do you understand that I exclude the processes of evaporation and convection I think that is what you mean when you say “diffusion”).
I don’t think that you will find that I have said anywhere that a “ .. slowing of the rate of cooling .. does .. mean energy is added to the surface or the atmosphere .. ” (as hypohesised by the IPCC and its supporters). What I have said (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-187099) is that because there is a reduction in the rate of cooling of the global system of atmo/aqua/cryo/litho/bio/spheres and there is a (virtually) constant source of energy the global system will heat up until its temperature reaches a level where the outgoing radiation balances that which is incoming (“ignoring the many other processes”). As I have suggested to you on more than one occasion, think about why the contents of a vacuum flask with an in-built heating element heat up. Alternatively think about why John O’Sullivan’s analogy of a corpse under a blanket is flawed (http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/doug-cotton-radiated-energy-and-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/#comment-20306) – hint, think of energy in versus energy out (but ignore any heat resulting from decomposition.
It’s encouraging to see that you are at long last acknowledging (albeit reluctantly) that the GHE is real, but in fairness I agree that the effect is negligible and does not in any way justify the scare-mongering claims made in the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) propaganda that has been thrown at us by the power-hungry, the politicians, the environmental activists and the subsidy-hungry renewable energy industry.
You correctly say that “ .. I have still not made myself .. clear to PB and Ridley … (1) Rate of radiative cooling .. of surface decreases by a minuscule amount due to very ineffective radiation from CO2 .. ”. That’s not clear at all. Plots of IR intensity as a function of IR wavelength such as those obtained from the Nimbus 4 spacecraft suggest otherwise (e.g. see http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/03/slaying-the-slayers-with-the-alabama-two-step/). What does that big bite out of the Earth’s radiation around 630-710 Wavenumber tell us Dougy?
As for your suggestion that I read your blog article, no thanks. Others have done that and shown it to be nonsense (see http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/doug-cotton-radiated-energy-and-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/ and the link to Roy Spencer’s “Slaying the Slayers .. “ thread).
Best regards, Pete Ridley
The intensity of the radiation from carbon dioxide cannot at any point exceed the limit of the Planck function. The gaseous atmosphere cannot radiate as much as the solid surface, and carbon dioxide cannot radiate more than 1/2500 or what the atmosphere could radiate. The radiation from all oxygen and nitrogen molecules (due to acceleration of electrons during collisions) must make up the rest of the observed and necessary atmospheric radiation, because CO2 has to be limited by its Planck curve.
Then, because of its limited frequencies within its Planck distribution at atmospheric temperatures, the effect of all carbon dioxide on the radiative rate of cooling of the surface is absolutely minuscule – far less than 1% of the effect of all water vapour.
Then, as explained in my paper, (supported by empirical proof and further explanation in Appendix Q.1 and Q.3) there is absolutely no overall net effect on the rate of cooling of the surface.
the rate of cooling of the Earth’s surface is not affected in any way whatsoever by carbon dioxide. The sensitivity of climate to carbon dioxide levels is not positive, but could be negative due to backradiation of solar radiation to space.
Before you write again on this thread, all further discussion will be on the tallbloke’s thread which is dedicated to my paper and far better moderated.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/doug-cotton-radiated-energy-and-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/#comment-21762
.
Doug. The addition of c02 raises the effective radiating height of the atmosphere.
When you raise the ERL the earth radiates from a colder plane in the atmosphere. That slows the rate of radiation to space. The surface consequently cools less rapidly.
Further you dont understand sensitivity. Sensitivity has nothing to do with C02
Sensitivity is the GAIN of the system to ANY additional forcing.
if you increase the watts what is the gain in temperature. That can be an increasing in solar forcing or c02 forcing. Look at the units. There is nothing whatsoever about C02 ( parts per million) in the sensitivity formula.
Its degrees of C per watt of forcing.
Steven – CO2 does not raise the effective radiating height because there is no valid mechanism by which it could. Nor is there any forcing due to CO2.
My reasons for saying the above are in my paper which, at this stage, I can assess you have not yet read and/or understood. I’m happy to explain any paragraphs therein to anyone who makes a genuine attempt to understand such.
Maybe you can answer the question which Ridley, with his admitted low knowledge of physics (even more clearly displayed in today’s comments) could not even begin to answer. Whereas all his questions to myself are answered in the paper (and thus not repeated here) he cannot put forward any feasible postulate explaining the mechanism by which nature ensures that the Second Law of Thermodynamics applies for radiation.
It sounds a simple question doesn’t it? But it took me a thousand hours of research and thinking to find a plausible answer that does not violate the SLoT.
Steven, when you say “[Increase in the effective radiating height] slows the rate of radiation to space” have you ever seen numbers applied to the distribution of delay? I’m curious about the shape of the distribution (is it Gaussian?) and the median delay. I think the delay due to added CO2 is on the order of microseconds when the median delay is several milliseconds. When you were working on tracking thermal signatures, were you waiting many hours for thermal signals to propagate?
So, aspirant recipient of the Nobel Prize for Physics 2012, Douglas Jeffrey Cotton, novice physicist of North Rocks, Sydney, NSW, Australia, pontificates once more. I, unlike Dougy, make no claims to being a physicist but have a smattering of knowledge so let’s look carefully at each of his profound declarations. I could well be misinterpreting what I have read on the subject so would appreciate a competent physicist (not Dougy) enlightening me.
Dougy says:
– “ .. The intensity of the radiation from carbon dioxide cannot at any point exceed the limit of the Planck function. .. ”.
My understanding is that Plank’s Function gives the energy emitted per second per unit wavelength per unit of solid angle per unit emitting area of a perfect blackbody at a specific temperature (http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys317/lectures/planck.html NOT TO BE SENT). Gas molecules, individually or severally, are nothing like black bodies so Planck’s Function does not seem to be particularly useful when discussing the emission from them.
– “ .. carbon dioxide cannot radiate more than 1/2500 of what the atmosphere could radiate .. ”.
I’d appreciate an explanation of how this figure is derived.
– “ .. The radiation from all oxygen and nitrogen molecules (due to acceleration of electrons during collisions) must make up the rest of the observed and necessary atmospheric radiation .. ”.
O2 and N2 are very poor radiators/absorbers of IR due to their homonuclear structure therefore they cannot contribute directly to the radiation of energy from the Earth’s surface.
I see that Dougy, being unable to respond to my “ .. What does that big bite out of the Earth’s radiation around 630-710 Wavenumber tell us Dougy? .. ” and runs away with his tail between his legs. Those plots of IR intensity as a function of IR wavelength such as those obtained from the Nimbus 4 spacecraft suggest otherwise (http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Petty-fig6.6-modified.png) clearly demonstrate that Dougy’s hypotheses fly in the face of empirical evidence.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Here is proof that not all meteorologists are insane:
In spite of great variations in the power of the sun there has been a large part of the earth’s surface at a temperature near enough to 10°C for it to be very suitable for life for 3000 million years. How the earth has avoided much larger variations in climate than actually occurred is a much more important problem because the stabilizing mechanisms might overwhelm any effect due to the activities of mankind.
Richard S. Scorer, Dynamics of Meteorology and Climate, p533
Hi Ken,
Scorer’s suggestion that “ .. the stabilizing mechanisms might overwhelm any effect due to the activities of mankind .. ” appears to be something of an understatement. The pale-record seems to show that there is are natural processes (about which we know virtually nothing?) that limit the swings in global temperature to a comfortable ice-free and an unpleasant ice-bound global conditions.
All of this scare-mongering about Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) has nothing to do with concern about our use of fossil fuels or trying to take over Natures job of controlling the different global climates. The power-hungry, the politicians, the environmental activists and the renewable energy industrialists have other agenda which they are not keen on having publicised.
It’s a bit like John O’Sullivan’s gaggle of “Slayers” and their science(-fiction?) publishing company PSI. They are reluctant put the real agenda into the pubic domain. You’ll recall my efforts, in the spirit of transparency claimed to be so important to PSI, trying to persuade John to publish the “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mail exchanges on the PSI web-site (e.g. http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-125570, #comment126001, 135982, 139848, etc. – search for “transparency” for more). John’s reluctance for such transparency is demonstrated clearly by his response on 17th November (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-139922).
Dougy has clearly not bothered to read (or pay attention to) any of the earlier comments on this thread because he has teamed up with the PSI membership. It is noticeable that he refuses to answer my question about his recent £50 donation to John’s appeal for charity (http://www.gofundme.com/1v39s&aff=GFMse).
John said then “ .. Once obtaining the necessary start up funds PSI will become registered as a charitable association in the U.S. (as per Section 501(c)(3) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code) and chartered to operate as a ‘not for profit’ under the rules of the UK’s Community Interest Company (CIC) initiative. Thus PSI can offer products and services to members free of burdensome federal tax .. ”. At the present rate of charitable donations PSI could achieve CIC status by – 2050 (http://www.gofundme.com/1v39s&aff=GFMse) if that was still the plan.
You will recall that John’s original plan was to form PSI as a CIC and take legal action against some of the most powerful government agencies in the world, like NOAA. No signs of that yet!
It seems to me that PSI is and always will be simply an insignificant Internet publishing blog, so your Stairways Press (http://www.stairwaypress.com/about/) and Philip Foster’s SMP (https://www.pressdispensary.co.uk/releases/q991593.html) publishing companies have no need to worry about the competition.
As usual, if anything that I have said here is considered to be unfair or a misrepresentation of the facts then please let me know and I will consider whether or not a retraction or apology is warranted. The last thing that I wish to de is misinterpret the evidence and present a misleading picture.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Yes Ken – see Q.3 in the Appendix of my Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics. where I discuss stabilising effects.
Hi Ken, when do you propose to respond to my question about the withholding of $9000 out of that $10000 that was claimed to have been paid to Piers Corbyn. As I said in my comment of 13th Feb. “ .. We were talking about the “Ernst-Georg Beck Award for Scientific Integrity and Competence” so proudly announced would be awarded annually by John O’Sullivan’s embryonic publishing company Principia Scientific International .. ” (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-168522).
Why is it that you and the “Slayers” are so reluctant to be transparent about that? After all, your buddies at PSI claim that transparency is very important to their science(-fiction?) publishing company.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
So, despite novice physicist Dougy’s “ .. thousand hours of research and thinking to find a plausible answer that does not violate the SloT .. ” he cannot give an answer to my question “ .. What does that big bite out of the Earth’s radiation around 630-710 Wavenumber tell us Dougy? .. ”. Because his half-baked hypothesis fails to provide any answer at all Dougy tried to get Steven Mosher to answer for him then ran away with his tail between his legs. He must feel a lot safer tucked away in the cage that Roger (Tallbloke) Tattersall provided for him (http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/doug-cotton-radiated-energy-and-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/).
As Roger said “ .. I found the easiest way to stop Doug thread spamming was to give him his own thread to spam. Works like a charm .. ” (http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2012/02/18/the-cotton-war/#comment-72608).
Doug really should reconsider his membership if PSI because the “Slayer” influence prevents him from removing his blinkers and look beyond the SLoT to study some Quantum Physics. I’m sure that one of the undergrads. at the University of Sydney’s Quantum Group (http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/research/quantum/people.shtml) would be prepared to help him. (I must try to remember to keep an eye on the work of the Quantum Information Theory team relating to quantum computers – http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/research/quantum/research.shtml. It looks exciting.)
Best regards, Pete Ridley
I wrote the answer before you even asked the question …
APPENDIX ..
FAQ’s..
Q.6 What happens to the radiation which is absorbed by carbon dioxide?
When spectrometers near the top of the atmosphere (TOA) are pointed at a source of radiation on the surface they will detect rays which get straight through, but the rays with frequencies which can be absorbed by carbon dioxide are mostly missing, indicating that they have been absorbed by carbon dioxide molecules. When this happens ….
(The rest is in my paper – where it’s always been.)
Note:
There is some confusion (as usual) in the mind of Peter Ridley that the Planck function is its own integral. The Planck function (for radiative intensity) is usually plotted against either wavelength or frequency for any given temperature You will see examples in the first graphic in my paper. Without reading the paper you probably won’t understand my reasoning in the above posts. Ridley wouldn’t understand it even if he did.
Future discussion is best continued by picking up at Prof Claes Johnson’s comments on my thread http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/doug-cotton-radiated-energy-and-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/#comment-21742
This is where climatologists go wrong …
When hot and cold bodies are radiating towards each other it’s not the numbers of “photons” going each way that does the trick ensuring that the “net” effect does not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Rather, it all has to do with the intensities of the radiation at various frequencies as per the Planck distributions for the hot and cold bodies radiating towards each other and, most importantly, which frequencies resonate. See Sections 1 to 5 of my paper. http://principia-scientific.org/publications/psi_radiated_energy.pdf
Photons don’t cancel each other out in mid air. The early physicists could only explain it all by assuming their EM energy was first converted to thermal energy in each body. This seemed OK energy wise, because thermal energy can indeed be compounded. So more seems to leave the hot body than it receives, and more is received by the cool one than it emits.
But, the processes each way are independent. In the surface/atmosphere case, more than half the energy from the surface transfers to the atmosphere by evaporative cooling and sensible heat transfer, so where are the photons for that energy?
Because the processes are thus clearly independent, the cold to hot process would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Hence, the assumption of two-way heat transfer is wrong, the early physicists were wrong and we need another explanation.
It is just such an explanation which Prof Claes Johnson and I have been talking about in our papers.
Dougy is so convinced of his self-perceived significance it seems like a virtually impossible task to enlighten him, but I’ll keep trying.
He says “ .. When spectrometers near the top of the atmosphere (TOA) are pointed at a source of radiation on the surface they will detect rays which get straight through, but the rays with frequencies which can be absorbed by carbon dioxide are mostly missing .. ”.
If he bothered to remove his blinkers and looked more carefully at the plots kindly provided by NOAA (e.g. see http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/co2-absorption/nimbus-satellite-emissions-infra-red-earth-petty-6-6.jpg) or even referred to his major source of scientific knowledge, Wikipedia, and their Modtran plots (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ModtranRadiativeForcingDoubleCO2.png) he would notice that the emissions from the global system of atmo/aqua/cryo/litho/bio/spheres at the wavelengths absorbed by CO2 are not “mostly missing”,they are mostly at a much reduced radiance (from a much higher levl in the atmosphere than the majority of the IR emissions to space.
I wonder if he can spot the differences between the Modtran plots and the real thing. I doubt it because the SLoT doesn’t mention it and I’m not aware that his friends the “Slayers” of Professor Johnson or have written any papers or developed any hypotheses about it.
Never mind, it is being looked into not by novice physicists like Doug but by those with relevant expertise who understand the science. I’ll keep trying to enlighten him but it is such a struggle for him to pull off those blinker.
Best regards, Pete Ridley.
The “Slayers” science(-fiction?) publishing company PSI’s new recruit Dougy (a multi-talented Sydney businessman – http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-172459 Para. 3 – is spamming the blogosphere and inviting everyone to visit the PSI web-site. Novice physicist Doug certainly has it right about “ .. it’s all about money .. ” (http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2012/02/18/the-cotton-war/#comment-72933). That’s seems to be the motivation for the “Slayers”, evidenced by those appeals for charitable donations in Dec 2010/Jan 2011/etc. – just search this thread for “charit” without the quotation marks).
I see that we now have PSI co-founder (and Chief Financial Officer?) Hans Schreuder sending out E-mails to CACC sceptics encouraging them to “ .. Please read http://principia-scientific.org/publications/Copernicus_Meets_the_Greenhouse_Effect.pdf .. ”.
It would be prudent for anyone who is contemplating becoming involved with the “Slayers” to first have a look at the comments here. There have been nearly 1300 comments but I recommend that all of those by the “Slayers”, Andrew Skolnick, me be given careful consideration. Andrew is an investigative journalist living in New York state (which I understand is from where John O’Sullivan is running PSI, although I couldn’t find no mention of that on the PSI web-site) and has provided some interesting comments.
Perhaps a good starting point would be at http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-128005, the first comment picked up when searching for “judged by the company” or the “sticks” part of “mud sticks” (without the quotation marks).
As usual, if anything that I have said here is considered to be unfair or a misrepresentation of the facts then please let me know and I will consider whether or not a retraction or apology is warranted. The last thing that I wish to do is misinterpret the evidence that has been made available to me and present a misleading picture to others. Taking into consideration that anyone can place whatever comments they wish onto the Internet, be they self-aggrandising claims about themselves and their projects or derogatory comments about others, it’s best that everyone looks at the available evidence themselves and draws their own conclusions.
I have been involved in numerous E-mail exchanges with the “Slayers”, the most revealing ones being during Dec. 2010/Jan. 2011 which provide much of the detail behind the “Slayer” book “Slaying the Sky Dragon .. ” Chapter 21 “Legal Fallout from False Climate Alarm”” by lead Slayer John O’Sullivan (go to http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/ and search for “Chapter 21” – without the quotation marks). In the spirit of transparency that is claimed to be so important to PSI I tried to persuade John to put those E-mails into the public domain on the PSI web-site but he has declined. Anyone who is interested can have a copy of my 62-page Word Document of “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mails, extracts from some of which are available on the “Letter to the dragon slayers” thread.
PSI’s “mission statement” page is now making a new membership sales offer “ .. During 2012 PSI welcomes membership applications, free to all qualified scientists, engineers and related professionals (inc. media and education) otherwise £10 (Ten British Pounds) for one year for non-scientists .. ”.
On 21st Jan 2011 the offer was “ .. The annual fee for basic membership is £50 for the financial year 2011/12. As an introductory offer the first 2,000 members will receive a free copy of the best-selling climate science publication, ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory’ and the companion volume, ‘Sky Dragon Slayers 2’ (retail value of both volumes is $19.85) .. ”.
Times really are hard. It’ll be interesting to see what the offer will be in another 14 months. It took PSI 14 months to raise only £450 of John’s target of £15000 (http://www.gofundme.com/1v39s&aff=GFMse). More on that at http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2012/02/18/the-cotton-war/#comment-72948 – just search for “gofundme” (without the quotation marks).
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Hi again folks, just a rider to my earlier comment. Perhaps someone can explain to me what benefit there is (apart from trying to sell PSI memebership) for Hans Schreuder to encourage us to visit PSI’s site in order to read the article by Joe Postma. That same article appears to have been available on Hans’s own site since 10th Sept. 2011 (http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Copernicus_Meets_the_Greenhouse_Effect.pdf) and certainly was there on 20th Sept (http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=8364). Hans’s other site (http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/) provides a link to it.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
I don’t read a word of Ridley’s posts now.
He has proven his serious lack of understanding of key laws relating to atmospheric physics and the prerequisites for such to apply.
If anyone wants to see who is involved in PSI and what we all strive to achieve, they need only to read their website. The truth is that Ridley, for some reason, obviously feels threatened.
Today’s post provides further evidence that not all photons are equal. You cannot assume that the electromagnetic (EM) energy being radiated will always be converted to thermal energy in the Earth’s land, ocean or ice surfaces.
The early physicists did in fact assume this when considering (and trying to explain) the observed effect of radiation from a cooler body slowing the rate of heat transfer from a warmer body. This does happen, and is well measured and documented. The “net” heat transfer (as they called it) can be calculated from the difference in the two amounts of radiative flux.
So they assumed that the energy in the radiation was in fact converted to thermal energy in each body. The mathematical subtraction then of course only showed a “net” effect of heat transfer from hot to cold. But the underlying assumption was still there that there were in fact two separate heat transfer processes. Yet one of these would violate the Second Law.
So, can we find an example of EM radiation not being converted to thermal energy when we might expect it to be?
A microwave oven can warm items with water molecules in them, including liquid water. This does not violate the SLoT simply because energy is added using electricity. But it can only melt ice by conduction from adjacent water molecules that it has already warmed, not by direct action on the ice.
However, the process is nothing remotely like the normal natural absorption of sunlight which also warms water and melts ice.
Not all photons striking water or ice molecules automatically convert EM energy to thermal energy as happens with solar radiation. If they did (as some people imply they do because they assume there is two-way heat flow which results in an apparent net one way flow) then why does far less energy flow into ice in a microwave oven than into water?
There is another mechanism which explains all observed facts without violation of the Second Law, and this is discussed in my paper linked from my site http://climate-change-theory.com
The IPCC implies with their energy diagrams that the electromagnetic energy in radiation from a cooler atmosphere is all converted to thermal energy in a warmer surface, which is contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, because it would be an independent process. There is certainly no contrary statement by the IPCC, or any footnote for the energy diagrams.
The IPCC does not specifically state that only the solar radiation transfers thermal energy to the surface, whilst the backradiation does not do so, but only slows the radiative component of cooling for that component of the radiation from the surface which does not get through the atmospheric window. Yet this in fact is all that can happen.
The above is the kind of explanation that should have been what was in their most comprehensive explanation of their GH conjecture, for the benefit of scientists.
Even then, they should further have discussed what compensating effects there might be in the rates of evaporation and sensible heat transfer, both of which would obviously increase if radiation did less for its share of the cooling. It is well known that these processes accelerate if the temperature gap widens, as it would if radiative cooling slowed. None of this is in any IPCC explanation, now is it?
Although novice physicist Dougy continues to spam his version of science on the Internet he seems unable to answer my questions here and has now resorted to pretending to ignore my comments. He makes another ludicrous revelation of his version of the “truth”, saying “ .. The truth is that Ridley, for some reason, obviously feels threatened .. ”.
Jeff Condon said “ .. Doug is one of the oddest people I’ve run across on the Internet and I’ve been at this for some time. He plays science with no background, avoids real questions, pretends extreme narcissism yet is fragile, gives small points when lost, temporarily changes his position to address lost points, and over time returns to the original flawed statements .. ” (http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2012/02/18/the-cotton-war/#comment-72609) and I find it very hard to disagree.
Is it possible that Dougy resorted to getting involved with the “Slayers” and PSI rather than offer his arguments up for proper peer review by professional physicists who specialise in the subject because he craves support, from any quarter. Maybe some expert in psychology would like to comment.
On a more promising note, Dougy now does seem to have accepted that “ .. Any radiation from a cooler atmosphere (including backradiation) .. slows the radiative component of surface cooling for that component of the radiation which does not get through the atmospheric window .. ” (http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/doug-cotton-radiated-energy-and-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/#comment-21989). That certainly is a breakthrough but he still needs to try to understand why that slowing of the radiation to space demands that the global system must increase its temperature (and its radiation to space) until balance is restored between the virtually constant incoming solar radiation and the outgoing IR radiation to space.
Patience is a virtue – I believe that he’ll catch on eventually (I’m a supreme optimist you know). As such I still have faith that he will one day be able to answer the questions that I have put to him which so far he has ignored.
As I said to Dougy on 14th March QUOTE: .. I again draw your attention to “Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not.” (http://kingjbible.com/jeremiah/5.htm Verse 21) .. UNQUOTE (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-185562 Para. 10).
People who were trying to enlighten Dougy over at Roger (Tallbloke) Tattersall’s thread seem to have given up trying. It’s a shame really because there is still hope that Dougy will see the light. As Dougy himself says “ .. So it is my prayer that every non-believing reader will make that effort to find the truth .. ” (http://www.savedbythelamb.com/).
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Since he featured my PSI publication, Tallbloke (Roger) has just published another of the six publications on the Principia Scientific International site.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/04/04/joseph-postma/
Compare: http://principia-scientific.org/publications/Copernicus_Meets_the_Greenhouse_Effect.pdf
By the way, PSI members (nearly 40 of us now) far outnumber the original eight authors who have been called the “Slayers” after the title of their book.
PSI is a rapidly growing group of scientists and others with appropriate knowledge who have banned together to expose the AGW hoax.
Poor old Dougy seems to think that getting blog articles published on Roger (Tallbloke) Tattersall’s blog is a major achievement. It may well be for bloggers who write articles for Principia Scientific International but not for professional scientists with a track record of scientific achievement to protect. Let’s face it, Roger is not an authority on physics or any other discipline contributing to improving our poor understanding of the processes and drivers of the different global climates. I doubt if Roger himself, as a part-time Leeds University web-content editor (https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/12/30/brace-brace-nyt-article-by-leslie-kaufman-incoming/) would claim that.
It appears that what Roger does is to provide cages for those who talk scientific nonsense. As he said on Jeff Condon’s thread “ .. Jeff, I found the easiest way to stop Doug thread spamming was to give him his own thread to spam. Works like a charm .. ” (http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2012/02/18/the-cotton-war/#comment-72608).
In my opinion Dougy does talk a lot of nonsense but not only about physics. On 19th March he said there was “ .. a growing membership of PSI (now over 40 I understand) .. ”. Now he says “ .. PSI members (nearly 40 of us now) far outnumber the original eight authors who have been called the “Slayers” .. ”. He really should listen to what others say, particularly those who know what they are talking about, instead of pontificating from a position of total ignorance.
I’ve provided a link to the PSI “begging bowl” page (http://www.gofundme.com/1v39s) no less than 32 times on this thread alone yet I suspect that he hasn’t visited it once. On 7 occasions I’ve quoted John O’Sullivan’s proud boast on 17th Jan 2011 that PSI’s founders are “ .. 36 respected international scientists .. ”, i.e. the PSI’s founding members were “nearly 40” nearly 15 months ago. Today it seems that the PSI membership is still only “nearly 40” but according to novice scientist Dougy, “ .. PSI is a rapidly growing group of scientists and others .. ”. Dougy’s idea of “rapidly growing” is even less plausible than is his “Radiation & the SLoT” hypothesis.
I ask Dougy to substantiate his claim that the “nearly 40” PSI members have “ .. appropriate knowledge .. to expose the AGW hoax .. ”. The starting point is to name those members then to provide evidence for each individual showing that they have “appropriate knowledge”. After all, transparency is claimed to be very important for PSI.
When I did my “PSI & Due Diligence” exercise in Dec. 2010/Jan. 2011 there were several of those founding members for whom I could find out little more than what they claimed about themselves. Self-aggrandisement can backfire if no evidence is provided that supports the claims made.
While we are waiting for Dougy to get that full list of PSI members perhaps he or some other PSI member can tell us if the following are members. I suggested to John O’Sullivan on 26th Spt 2011 that the “slayer” numbers appeared to be dwindling. On 28th I asked him QUOTE: .. who presently regard themselves as being members of your group of “Slayers”. In Dec/Jan there appeared to be something like 36 (http://www.gofundme.com/1v39s). How many are there now and who are they. If you are considering people who have signed up as members of PSI to be “Slayers” then please, in the spirit of transparency would you provide a list of those members (I have been unable to find one anywhere). I’m not talking about those “ .. exciting pending applications to join the team .. “ but existing committed members. Here’s another opportunity for you to demonstrate how enthusiastic you really are about transparency concerning PSI .. UNQUOTE.
John responded on 29th September with “ .. I can say that currently the most active/influential members of the Slayers team are Hans Schreuder, Alan Siddons, Joe Olson, Joe Postma, Dr Nasif Nahle, Dr Tim Ball, Dr Martin Hertzberg, Derek Alker, .. Ken Coffman and Philip Foster. .. Other highly valued contributors include Bob Ashworth, Dr Charles Anderson, Miso Alkalaj, Malcolm Roberts, Dr Oliver Manuel, Piers Corbyn, Gabriel Rychert, Tom Richards, Dr Norm Kalmonovich, Mark Schwarz, Dr Matthias Kleepsies, Paul Driessen, Dr Klaus Keiser, John Droz. Jr. and Dr Geraldo Luís Lino .. ”
That is 10 less than the “ .. 36 respected international scientists and related professionals .. ” who were claimed to have founded PSI only 8 month earlier. Unless there has been a sudden reversal of that trend I would expect the present number to be around 15. Derek Alker’s current LinkedIn entry says that he is a “ .. Past .. Team member Slaying the Sky Dragon 2010 – 2011 (1 year) ..” (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/derek-alker/24/131/343) so has he too decided to dissociate himself from the “Slayers” and PSI? Even if he is a PSI member I’m sure that he would make no claim to having “appropriate knowledge .. to expose the AGW hoax” (http://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/derek-free-to-all-pdf-to-end-agw-scam-saturday-18_12-version.pdf – see his “Happy Xmas 2010 message).
I said to John in that E-mail of 28th Sept. “ .. In my opinion anyone contemplating joining the “Slayers” or PSI would benefit from reading the “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mails, all of those exchanges in “Slaying the Sky Dragon” http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/31/slaying-a-greenhouse-dragon/) before committing to contributing financially to PSI, whether it is an association, a CIC or other form of private company or charity .. ”. I now add this present thread to that reading list.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Seeing that a microwave oven produces low frequency radiation far more intense than carbon dioxide could ever do, and yet its radiation is not absorbed* and converted to thermal energy in ice, what makes anyone think that radiation from carbon dioxide could warm all the snow and ice covered areas of the planet?
The mechanism by which microwave ovens heat water molecules is totally different from the excitation of atoms which happens when high frequency solar radiation warms water. The oven emits radiation at a very specific frequency which happens to resonate with natural frequencies of the water molecules which then “snap” or “flip” through 180 degrees and back again in synchronisation with the passing waves of electromagnetic radiation. The molecules in water do have the space to do this, and when they flip there is frictional heat generated by collisions of the molecules. In ice there is not sufficient room to move and flip like this.
There is no violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics simply because electrical energy was added to the system.
But the fact that the ice was not melted demonstrates the phenomenon of “resonant scattering” in which radiation is not reflected, not transmitted and not absorbed with conversion to thermal energy. See Section 5 of my publication here.
* Try this home experiment:
Obtain two identical small microwave bowls which do not get warm in the microwave oven. Ensure that they both fit in the oven together. Obtain a small ice cube tray and fill it with filtered or distilled water. Pour that water into one of the bowls. Then refill the tray with similar water and place the ice cube tray in your freezer and both the bowls in your frig overnight. Next day, empty the ice cubes into the bowl without water, then place both bowls in the microwave oven and operate for about 60 to 80 seconds depending on the volume of water – try to bring the water nearly to the boil. Observe that the ice has not been affected – you might even try comparing its temperature with other ice in the freezer. To do this, pack the ice samples in a tall insulated mug and insert a meat thermometer with a metal spike.
Why wasn’t the energy in the radiation shared equally between the water and the ice? If you pour the hot water into the bowl with the ice it will easily melt the ice within a couple of minutes, so this demonstrates that sufficient energy did enter the water.
A final note …
Tallbloke’s comment on the ‘Slayers’ …
This is what Roger has just written yesterday …
In the rush to condemn all things associated with ‘the Dragonslayers‘ some babies may have been thrown out with the bathwater. A lot of non-scientific baggage comes along with some of their members, and this has coloured people’s perceptions. However, because this is a site which sticks to discussing the science, and ‘censors’ off topic and inflammatory comment, we can dispassionately examine the scientific content without having discussion degenerate into a ruckus of noisy invective and insult. Last year on Judith Curry’s site ‘Climate Etc‘, this fate befell Joseph Postma’s paper on the greenhouse effect. It was a technical paper, and argument over its more controversial aspects and ‘slayer politics’ submerged its central point, as I noted at the time. Ulric Lyons has drawn my attention to a less technical paper by Joseph reiterating this central point which I think merit’s discussion.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/04/04/joseph-postma/
I’ve decided to leave you all with a brief summary of key points in my Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics</b
1. An analysis (Appendix Q.1) of the gradient of the gradient of temperature trends since the year 1900 shows a declining rate of increase, going down from 0.06 to 0.05 C degree per decade. Linked papers support the observation of natural 1000 and 60 year cycles. In particular, the current long-term rate of increase is totally in keeping with the known rise since the Little Ice Age, and a maximum can be expected within 50 to 200 years at the most. There is absolutely no anthropogenic influence demonstrated.
2. A new hypothesis is put forward which explains the resonant scattering mechanism leading to the observed slowing of radiative cooling of the surface by the cooler atmosphere. This mechanism is found to depend, not upon the intensity of the backradiation, but upon the frequencies involved and the number of spectral lines. The conclusion is that CO2 has far less effect per molecule than water vapour molecules. Furthermore, all that can be affected is about 20% to 25% of all surface cooling, namely that component of radiation which does not go straight to space through the atmospheric window.
3. In Appendix Q.3 consideration of the Earth’s stabilising effect provides proof that other cooling effects (mostly evaporative cooling and diffusion followed by convection) will accelerate to compensate, so that there is no overall effect on the rate of surface cooling, and thus no effect due to carbon dioxide, even that already present in preindustrial times.
4. Various issues which may be thought to counter the argument are discussed in the Appendix and discounted one by one.
14 months ago we saw Dougy’s hero “dragon slayer” John O’Sullivan holding out the begging bowl claiming to need money for the purpose of “ .. supporting Principia Scientific International (PSI). Help us bring about change .. Give generously for this good cause knowing you can help to counter the creeping folly of misguided societies that appear to have been commandeered by political lobbyists and shills serving self-interested corporations or misguided national governments .. ” (http://www.gofundme.com/1v39s&aff=GFMse).
Having failed miserably with that appeal for money the next bowl went out 12 months ago begging “ .. Help asked for Dr. Tim Ball in legal battle with Dr. Mann .. ” (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/08/help-asked-for-dr-tim-ball-in-legal-battle-with-dr-mann/).
John seems to have set a trend for begging for money for good causes relating to the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) hypothesis. We now have the “other side” begging for money for “The Climate Science Legal Defense Fund: Protecting the Scientific Endeavor” (http://climatesciencedefensefund.org/). This one appears to have been initiated yesterday (4th April) by staunch CACC supporter Scott (Super)Mandia who begged “ .. Help the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund (CSLDF) raise money to cover the costs of Dr. Mann’s legal defense as well as other scientists who face similar challenges .. ” (http://profmandia.wordpress.com/2012/04/04/support-climate-scientists-look-cool-doing-so/).
Eye-catching sales gimmicks seem to be a must for this kind of begging.
John O’Sullivan had his offer of “ . If you contribute £60 (Sixty British Pounds) or more (approx. US$100) we will ensure you receive a copy of ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory’ plus a bonus book (two volume pack RRP: $38.98) .. ” – most science fiction books are far cheaper that than!
Scott Mandia offers “ .. $25 .. t-shirts .. $150 .. three of the t-shirts and a copy of Climate Change: Picturing the Science .. $300 .. a hockey stick signed by Mike Mann.. $1000 .. 16×20 signed silver gelatin print by Joshua Wolfe .. ”.
It seems that there is much more support for the CACC supporters’ begging bowl than there is for John’s. He’s only managed to raise £350 in the first hour then a further £100 in 14 months in his PSI bowl whereas it is claimed that for Scott’s bowl “ .. The outpouring of support was overwhelming. In less than 24 hours, Scott received $10,000 in small donations from scientists, students, and other concerned individuals .. ” (http://climatesciencedefensefund.org/about-us/).
Wow, I can’t wait to add my £0 to those bowls.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
PS: I forgot to add this link especially for Dougy http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/a+fool+and+his+money+are+soon+parted.html.
The following good question was asked on another site: What is the motivation for a new hypothesis, when Statistical Thermodynamics and Quantum Mechanics, as they have been understood for 100 years, completely explain the observed data and come to the same conclusions about CO2 vs WV, the atmospheric window, etc? to which I responded …
There is a huge difference when you understand the mechanism by which the rate of radiative cooling is slowed during the process of resonant scattering.
This results in the degree of slowing effect being related not only to the temperature of the source, but also the number and position of the spectral lines in the emission. Those lines which are at significantly different frequencies from the peak have lower intensity because such is restricted by the Planck curve.
AGW proponents make out that all the CO2 has nearly the same effect in total as all the water vapour, whereas I say it has probably less than 1% the effect of all water vapour, as each molecule has less effect due to few frequencies (spectral lines) in its emission.
This is the kind of thing the Dragon Slayers say all the time. Good company, eh?
A body A at 100C emits toward a body B at 0C exactly the same amount of radiation as toward an equally large and similarly situated body B’ at 1000C. The fact that the body A is cooled by B and heated by B’ is due entirely to the fact that B is a weaker, B’ a stronger emitter than A.
Max Planck, The Theory of Heat Radiation, p 6-7 (translated by Morton Masius)
Many so-called sceptics are not really basing their arguments on the true physics of the atmosphere. By failing to do so, they are demonstrating that they also have fallen for the IPCC bluff that radiation from a cooler atmosphere (including so-called backradiation, but also initial radiation) can transfer thermal energy to a warmer surface.
This is not correct physics and the sooner this is made clear to the public the better. True physics, backed up by basic phenomena such as the fact that radiation in a microwave oven is not absorbed in the usual sense of the word, shows why this is the case. No one has ever proved anything to the contrary in any empirical experiment, and never will.
The only thing any such radiation from the atmosphere can do is slow down that third or so of surface cooling which occurs by way of radiation that does not escape to space via the atmospheric window. Radiation from the atmosphere can have absolutely no effect on evaporative cooling, chemical processes or sensible heat transfer. These non-radiative components plus the radiation to space make up about 70% of all surface cooling. Furthermore, the effect of carbon dioxide with its limited frequencies is far less than a true blackbody, and less per molecule than water vapour. No gas can radiate outside its Planck spectrum (ie more than a true blackbody) and so there is no way that carbon dioxide (1 in 2,500 molecules) can contribute a very large amount of radiation anyway.
The other cooling processes merely accelerate and compensate for any minuscule slowing of radiative cooling. Thus there is absolutely no warming attributable to carbon dioxide. It is time for sceptics to get their facts right and stop giving in to part of the hoax. Only truth will prevail in the long run.
Doug Cotton
Member of Proncipia Scientific International
I spoke above of the frequent incorrect use of formulae by climatologists, so let me give you examples …
A certain Jeffrey A Glassman in an email to myself had tried to convince me that the energy in each photon is proportional to the wavelength of the radiation. Well, does that mean that the photons in shortwave solar radiation have less energy than those in longwave radiation coming from the atmosphere? Try “frequency” Dr Glassman.
Then, if we go back to a paper often relied on by Lindzen and Spencer, namely Manabe and Wetherald’s 1967 Thermal equilibrium of the atmosphere with a given distribution of relative humidity we find them saying that …
the heat capacity of the Earth’s surface is zero.
That then becomes the basis for assuming that the surface acts like a perfect blackbody. But a blackbody has to be totally insulated from any heat loss by any process other than radiation. Too bad about evaporative heat loss, chemical processes or sensible heat loss, let alone conduction underground and downward ocean currents. And don’t worry about the solar radiation which penetrates 100 metres below the ocean surface and can’t exactly cause immediate radiation back up again, let alone radiation identical with the incident shortwave solar radiation.
So what sort of credibility can we place on a statement which says the surface radiates like a blackbody having a certain much quoted temperature?
Nor does Kirchhoff’s Law apply to the surface, simply because it is not a blackbody, or a grey body with a certain emissivity. It’s emissivity is not equal to its absorptivity because not all the absorbed energy exits the surface by radiation – nowhere near all in fact.
Dougy Cotton is a multifaceted businessman (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-172459 Para. 3) but only a novice physicist who, like his bed-fellows at Principia Scientific International, seem unable to see beyond the Second Law of Thermodynamics. PSI is nothing more than an on-line science(fiction?) blogging group dreamed up in 2010 by ex-school teacher John O’Sullivan, retired analytical chemist Hans Schreuder and civil (traffic?) engineer Joe Olson (PSI & Due Diligence E-mail Jan 01 2011, 07:48 PM NOT To BE SENT).
Respected scientists with proven competence in physics reject their opinions yet they seem to be unwilling to remove their blinkers and learn from them. One such is Professor Fred Singer “ .. an atmospheric physicist who is a distinguished professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia ..He received his Master’s and Ph.D. from Princeton University, and has held numerous academic and government positions such as Chief Scientist of the U.S. Department of Transportation. He has also authored and co-authored many influential books, such as Unstoppable Global Warming .. ” (http://www.princeton.edu/~fusion/past-events.html).
Let’s see what Professor Singer has to say about people like Doug QUOTE: .. On the one side are the “warmistas,” with fixed views about apocalyptic man-made global warming; at the other extreme are the “deniers.” Somewhere in the middle are climate skeptics .. warmistas and deniers are very similar in some respects — at least their extremists are. They have fixed ideas about climate, its change, and its cause. They both ignore “inconvenient truths” and select data and facts that support their preconceived views. Many of them are also quite intolerant and unwilling to discuss or debate these views — and quite willing to think the worst of their opponents .. ” (http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/climate_deniers_are_giving_us_skeptics_a_bad_name.html#ixzz1nn0SciyO).
Although Professor Singer went on to say “ . I am going to resist the temptation to name names. But everyone working in the field knows who is a warmista, skeptic, or denier .. ” he may well have been thinking “Slayers” when he said “ .. Now let me turn to the deniers. One of their favorite arguments is that the greenhouse effect does not exist at all because it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics — i.e., one cannot transfer energy from a cold atmosphere to a warmer surface. It is surprising that this simplistic argument is used by physicists, and even by professors who teach thermodynamics. One can show them data of downwelling infrared radiation from CO2, water vapor, and clouds, which clearly impinge on the surface. But their minds are closed to any such evidence .. ”.
Dr. Roy Spencer has more to say on this in his thread “Slaying the Slayers with the Alabama Two-Step” (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/03/slaying-the-slayers-with-the-alabama-two-step/) which, along with the comments, are well worth reading – excepting the spamming from Dougy. It was reassuring to see Dougy at least acknowledging that “ .. radiation from a cooler body can in fact slow the rate of radiative cooling of a warmer body .. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/03/slaying-the-slayers-with-the-alabama-two-step/#comment-38250). Being a supreme optimist I believe that there may be hope for him at last. More on that a Joanna Nova’s “Dr David Evans: The Skeptic’s Case” thread (http://joannenova.com.au/2012/01/dr-david-evans-the-skeptics-case/#comment-1033748).
On 2nd March on that thread Dougy boasted proudly “ .. My Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics is indeed about to be peer reviewed and maybe published within a next or two .. ” – but what a let down. It was “peer reviewed” by members of the Principia Scientific International blog “ .. a group of 36 respected international scientists and related professionals .. ” (http://www.gofundme.com/1v39s&aff=GFMse) who have to go begging for charitable donations because they apparently cannot afford a mere £417 each in order to set themselves up as a limited liability company.
NB: John O’Sullivan, PSI’s co-founder, CEO and Legal Consultant (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/john-o-sullivan/19/6b4/84a) declared 30th Dec. “ .. Advancing Principia Scientific International as a Community Interest Company .. our next objective: defeating NASA GISS, GHCN and NOAA in the federal court in Washington D.C. – http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-128005 Para. 4 ).
What that objective has to do with on-line peer-reviewing and publishing scientific papers beats me.
In my opinion the fact that Dougy has climbed into bed with PSI says it all.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Seeing that Ridley did actually start to talk about his vague physics, let me remind people that my statement that back radiation causes no overall slowing of the rate of cooling of the surface stands regardless of the amount of carbon dioxide, which, incidently has an absolutely minuscule effect on the radiative component of cooling because there are relatively few frequencies in CO2 radiation, even compared with water vapour. All water vapour in the atmosphere probably has much more than 100 times the effect of all carbon dioxide, so doubling carbon dioxide would be like adding 1% to all water vapour.
In any event, for reasons explained in Appendix Q.3, no matter how much the radiative component decreases, the other components of surface cooling will increase to compensate. Hence, the overall rate of cooling is not affected. Hence the same amount of energy enters the atmosphere. Hence there is no net effect on climate. Hence Ridley, as usual, is wrong because he never reads all of what I write, so excuse the bold this time.
“back radiation causes no overall slowing of the rate of cooling of the surface stands regardless of the amount of carbon dioxide, which, incidently has an absolutely minuscule effect on the radiative component of cooling because there are relatively few frequencies in CO2 radiation, even compared with water vapour. ”
1. you dont understand how C02 works in the stratosphere
2. back radiation does not CAUSE the slower rate. RAISING the ERL is what causes the surface to cool less slowly. You’ve mixed up causes here.
back radiation is an EFFECT of the radiative properties of water vapor and C02 and methane. Those gases reflect IR. we know this. We measure it. Your country is defended based on this physics. you cell phone was designed based on this physics. back radiation is an effect. The CAUSE of the surface cooling less rapidly is the raising of the ERL. That is also measured. When the ERL is raised the earth radiates from a higher altitude. That means a cooler altitude. As a system when the Top radiates less rapidly the bottom radiates less rapidiy. the result> the surface is warmer than it would have been otherwise. back radiation is a symptom, not a cause.
I’ve been patiently waiting for someone to suggest gases reflect radiation. This mechanism is so much more effective than absorption, thermalization and reradiation…oh the temptation to reach for it. Oh, it’s certainly true, gases that scatter will also reflect some. Not enough to do anything useful, but still…
The ERL heater idea is brilliant. It’s an easy test to see who has any common sense or intuitive feel for atmospheric physics. The ERL, made of cold, thin air, is very powerful and sets the lapse rate and contributes to the Earth’s average surface temperature. That’s precious.
Hi Ken, you, like PSI, also seem to be very reluctant to be transparent on relevant issues. As I asked on 2nd April “ .. when do you propose to respond to my question about the withholding of $9000 out of that $10000 that was claimed to have been paid to Piers Corbyn. As I said in my comment of 13th Feb. “ .. We were talking about the “Ernst-Georg Beck Award for Scientific Integrity and Competence” so proudly announced would be awarded annually by John O’Sullivan’s embryonic publishing company Principia Scientific International .. ” (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-168522).
Why is it that you and the “Slayers” are so reluctant to be transparent about that? After all, your buddies at PSI claim that transparency is very important to their science(-fiction?) publishing company .. ” (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-189854).
Best regards, Pete Ridley
I haven’t mixed up anything, thank you, Mosher. You have not understood what Prof Claes Johnson and I are explaining. I’m not going to repeat myself yet again here – there’s a discussion thread dedicated to my paper at tallbloke if you want to argue there, but you’d better display an understanding of what we are all saying (about 36 of us now at Principia Scientific International) because that’s what the thread is about. It is not about the post physics which you appear to worship.
To test your understanding of the effect of low frequency radiation on various bodies, perhaps you might care to explain just exactly what happens to radiation in a microwave oven when it strikes a black metal plate, water, food or ice.
Hi Stephen (ref. http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-191200) thanks for once again trying to enlighten Dougy and maybe, just maybe, he’s starting to move ever so slightly those blinkers that the “Slayers” may have given him as a gift when he joined their PSI blogging group. I recall that you made a similar but more detailed explanation for Dougy’s benefit on the 8th Feb. (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-166940). It had no impression on him then but there is always hope, even with Dougy.
You never did get back about my response regarding Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) campaigner Professor Iain Stewart’s deliberately rigged demonstration in the CACC-supporting BBC’s “Climate Wars” propaganda series. In that demo. then Dr. Stewart deliberately tried to mislead the audience into thinking that CO2 is opaque to IR.
I repeat what I said on 8th Feb. QUOTE:
There is one thing that you are totally wrong about, “ .. we know that C02 is opaque to IR. Here is a video that shows how C02 “blocks” IR. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo .. ”.
CO2 is NOT opaque to IR, it is opaque to only a very narrow band of IR. Water vapour, which is opaque to much more IR than CO2 is not opaque to all IR. The set-up for the demonstration to which you linked, presented by Professor (then Dr.) Iain Stewart for the BBC’s “Climate Wars” programme was designed by Dr. Jonathan Hare. He was forcewd to rig the set-up in order to give the impression to the viewers that the IR emitted by the candle flame was prevented from reaching the IR camera by the CO2.
Without the use of a 4 micron filter the demonstration would have provided no indication whatsoever that CO2 absorbs any IR. See my comment here on November 6, 2011 at 9:01 am for further details (I’m surprised that you missed it) .. UNQUOTE (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-166967).
Any comment this time on that bit of BBC CACC propaganda?
Best regards, Pete Ridley
In Feb. 2010 “Slayer” John O’Sullivan wrote an article about the BBC. “Follow the money: BBC exposed in biggest climate racket on planet” (http://www.climategate.com/follow-the-money-bbc-exposed-in-biggest-climate-racket-on-planet). John reported on the link between the BBC pension fund and investments in renewable energy through “ .. The chairman of IIGCC and BBC head of pensions investment Peter Dunscombe .. ”.
If what John said then is correct (and I have no reason to believe otherwise) then this could explain the obvious BBC support for the CACC hypothesis (http://biased-bbc.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/climate%20change). “ .. The Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) is a forum for collaboration on climate change for European investors .. ” (http://www.iigcc.org/) in association with Gore, Soros, UN, etc.etc.etc. (http://www.unepfi.org/fileadmin/documents/14jan_investor_statement_pressrelease.pdf) – ’nuff said?
Best regards, Pete Ridley
pete. you dont know what you are talking about.
If you had been an engineer working for me at Northrop where we designed Aircraft to be resistant to detection in the IR spectrum I would have fired you for gross ignorance. Yes, water vapor, is opaque to IR, mostly. And yes, C02 fills in the gaps. The other thing you dont understand is how important C02 is in the dry stratosphere. Do you know how why and when we measured the water content and C02 content in the stratosphere?
Do you understand that we did that to protect this great country and design better weapons? Go study the history of atmospheric research into the stratosphere.. go find out why C02 matters so much there.
Did you know that one of the techniques used to hide IR that comes from Aircraft making them vulnerable to detection involved using C02 because of its IR blocking properties? I thought not.
Hi Steven (ref. April 9 at 1:56 pm) thanks for your kind words of wisdom “ .. you dont know what you are talking about .. ”. I’ll pass on your message to Dr. Jonathan Hare, designer of that deliberately misleading demonstration set-up used by Dr. Iain Stewart in the BBC’s Climate Wars program that you used as evidence to support your argument that “ .. we know that C02 is opaque to IR. .. ” (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-166940). Last May I raised my concerns about that demonstration set-up with Drs. Stewart and Hare but only Dr. Hare responded. His response included “ ..its true that the CO2 only absorbs in a relatively small bands across the IR spectrum .. ” which even you must agree is significantly different to your “CO2 is opaque to IR”.
You’d think that Dr. Hare, with his First in Physics at Surrey, PhD work with Sir Harry Kroto on Fullerene Science (http://www.creative-science.org.uk/jph.html) and his 2 decades of related research experience (http://www.creative-science.org.uk/jphpub.html) would have a much better understanding of the subject than someone like you with a PhD in English who was “ .. a former data analyst for Northrop Aircraft, former statistican and former software engineer .. ” who has “ .. been unemployed since June of 2009 .. ” (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387b/387we35.htm).
In his ignorance Dr. Hare says that “ .. You would think .. that when you view the candle through the tube using the camera, and you introduce CO2 the bright flame would ‘disappear’ due to the IR absorption. However, when you try this .. the candle doesn’t disappear! The reason is that the CO2 absorptions observable by the IR camera .. are only in a relatively small part of the spectrum. The only way to get the demonstration to work is to have a ‘CO2 filter’ on the camera. This only lets through IR at around 4 µm, close to one of the CO2 absorption’s .. The filter blocks out much of the IR energy so that the CO2 absorption is not so swamped anymore and this allows us to now observe our vanishing candle effect .. ” (http://www.creative-science.org.uk/hollywood15.html).
If, as you declare, CO2 is opaque to IR then Dr. Hare should know that there was absolutely no need for that 4-micron filter. On the other hand, is it reasonable to believe that a specialist in marketing, product design, project management, data analysis and negotiation (http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=5735615&goback=%2Enpp_%2Fsteven*5mosher%2F1%2Fb07%2F27b&locale=en_US&authToken=p4T7&authType=name) like you knows better than an experienced physicist like Dr. Hare? That we are more willing to accept the suggestion from physicists that CO2 does not absorb (i.e. is not opaque to) the entire IR spectrum (“ .. measured from the nominal edge of visible red light at 0.74 micrometers .. to 300 µm .. ” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared) may seem unreasonable to you but that’s a biased opinion.
Most of us with some understanding of atomic absorption believe that CO2 only absorbs over a few very limited parts of that whole IR band, as depicted at http://members.shaw.ca/sch25/FOS/absorbspec.gif. Those “real” satellite measurements that some so-called experts rely upon (e.g see http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Petty-fig6.6-modified.png) surely cannot be totally flawed as you appear to be suggesting.
But then again, there may be a problem of UK/US semantics. According to my Oxford Concise “Opaque .. 1 not able to be seen through; not transparent .. ” which is how I understand “opaque”. Maybe someone with a PhD in English from an American university like UCLA uses a different definition!
No, it must be that as you say “ .. you dont know what you are talking about .. ”.
BTW Steven, perhaps you can make the time to explain what Northrop’s IRCM systems have to do with your mistaken belief that CO2 is opaque to IR (I have to say that I find it very hard to believe that you had anything to do with the technical input to the design of those systems). Perhaps you can provide a link to a patent or peer-reviewed paper of yours from your 4 years 8 months with Northrop Aircraft all those years ago. That might shut me up.
As usual, if anything that I have said here is considered to be unfair or a misrepresentation of the facts then please let me know and I will consider whether or not a retraction or apology is warranted. The last thing that I wish to do is misinterpret the evidence that has been made available to me and present a misleading picture to others.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Huh. Folks can look up my patents and see that they are all post Northrop. Never claimed anything else. They can look up my publications and see that they are all post Northrop. Basically when you work on a black program your stuff is well classified.
Perhaps you dont understand how design and simulation and test works.
Before you build a system. You design it. And then you simulate it. And then you build it. and then you test it. and you collect all the data and see what it says. So, Like I said, C02 is Opaque to IR ( relatively ) If you worked for me as an engineer at Northrop and denied this, I would have fired you for incompetence.
Steven, what if I said I could make an effective back radiating heater with the mechanism of WV/CO2 absorption? Fired?
In Oct 2009 the general public were made aware of the disingenuous nature of certain aspects of CACC science with the release of the first batch of “Climategate” E-mails. John O’Sullivan may have seen Climategate as providing another career opportunity. His 20-year teaching career had come to an abrupt end in Feb. 2003 (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-148855) and he appears to have tried several different career paths since then (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-132934 Para. 4), the latest being CEO and Legal Consultant to the PSI blog (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/john-o-sullivan/19/6b4/84a) .
It seems that John only started assembling his team of “Slayers” in early 2010, pulling together a group of sceptical climate change bloggers and persuading them to join him and contribute to that cobbled-together hodge-podge of blog articles “Slaying the Sky Dragon”. The names of members of the original group started appearing in E-mails that I had from John in Spring 2010. There were Hans, Alan Siddons and me in April, Kent Clizbe (now dissociated) later that month, Joe Olson, Martin Hertzberg and Tim Ball in May, Charles Anderson, Piers Corbyn (now dissociated?) and Will Pratt (now dissociated) in June (Dr Spencer was Ccd on many of those E-mails so perhaps John was trying to get him involved too).
Then came John’s invitation on 3rd July 2010 “ .. Friends, Co-author with me on my new book project .. John .. ” and the outcome, the “Slayers” claiming to be “Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory” (http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/slaying-the-sky-dragon-muddled-confusing/). The comments on Lucia’s thread say it all, especially the final one by Steve Mennie “ .. this tome was definitely not to be taken seriously .. ”.
In his latest offering (April 9 at 12:57 am) dear old Dougy says of the PSI blog membership numbers “ .. about 36 of us now .. ”. On 19th March it was “ .. a growing membership of PSI (now over 40 I understand).. ” then on April 4th it was “ .. nearly 40 of us now .. ”. So from over 40 to about 36 in less that a month. When I dared to suggest on 26th Sept. to John O’Sullivan about “ .. what appears to be a dwindling group of “Slayers” he retorted “ .. your unsubstantiated claim ( in effect, a lie) about the Slayers being in decline is laughable .. ”. Come on Dougy, lets all have a good laugh. Since “transparency” is claimed to be so important to the PSI blog what’s the real number of members. I speculate 10 at the most.
As usual, if anything that I have said here is considered to be unfair or a misrepresentation of the facts then please let me know and I will consider whether or not a retraction or apology is warranted. The last thing that I wish to do is misinterpret the evidence that has been made available to me and present a misleading picture to others.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Dear old misguided Dougy (April 9 at 7:02 AM) seems to think that “ .. PSI members are in agreement and I have received emails from J.O’S. commenting very positively on my posts and internal emails – eg “Nice work, Doug.” .. ” is some kind of accolade (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/03/slaying-the-slayers-with-the-alabama-two-step/#comment-43352). Let me try to bring him to his senses.
On 22nd July 2010 during the time that he was collecting together his gaggle of “Slayers” John E-mailed me “ .. Pete, Thanks for getting in touch. Just read your link- you’ve done excellent research on this and you’re spot on with the analysis over the woeful failure of the IPCC to appoint expert statisticians. There’s scope here for a joint follow up article- I’d be delighted to collaborate with you and put both our names on a co-authored write up .. I’d like to propose you consider coming in on a book project I’m currently developing with leading GHG skeptic scientists. Would this appeal? .. ”.
Then on 24th Dec. 2010 “ .. Pete, Your involvement with PSI is most welcome. Many thanks, too, for rightly drawing our attention to the often overlooked ice core fiasco that has stupidly been set as a “Gold Standard” of climate proxies. Your ongoing research is invaluable to the debate and I would certainly welcome your submission of a chapter on this key issue for our next ‘Slayers’ book scheduled for publication for April/May 2011. To further advance the authority of your research I would heartily recommend that you speak with Hans Schreuder who I know is well placed in advising on the complex chemistry of atmospheric gases .. ”.
Although other members of the group at that time, such as Tim Ball, Alan Siddons, Cliff Saunders did try to give assistance on this vexed issue from their contacts analytical chemist Hans came up with no help whatsoever. (Cliff Saunders is another of those original members who have dissociated themselves from the group.)
John followed up with “ .. From the input gelling together from Alan, Cliff, Tim and Pete there is clearly scope here for another compelling publication via PSI’s publishing subsidiary. We now have a well-knit team to advance further such volumes to follow our successful ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon’ book. Hans Schreuder and myself now have all the necessary means to work with you gentlemen to bring this together if you feel able to co-author such a volume .. ”. My involvement with that “well-knit team” was not s welcome when I started challenging John’s ludicrous plan to set up PSI as a CIC and taking legal action against powerful government agencies like “ .. NASA GISS, GHCN and NOAA in the federal court in Washington D.C. .. ” (April 8 at 2:22 PM).
Hans’s reacted to my “PSI & Due Diligence” objections with an E-mail on 6th Jan. 2010 to John (BCc Joe Olson?) “ .. J&J You are digging a trap into which we will all fall if you guys insist in keeping this pest in the fold. He is, IMHO, a spy who has so far very successfully infiltrated the hub of our undertakings. His constant questioning, bordering on demanding to know, of what we are all doing is self-evident yet again below. Look at the mailing list he is brazenly using to demand to know what our “other pressing business” is – what the fuck has that got to do with him?! He has nothing to offer that we do not already possess. If you insist on keeping this clown in the loop, than I am out of it, simple as that. My sixth sense has yet to be proven wrong and I do not like this pest one bit .. ”.
Be warned Dougy, if you dare to challenge the PSI leadership you too could be excommunicated.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Dear old misguided Dougy (April 9 at 7:02 AM) seems to think that “ .. PSI members are in agreement and I have received emails from J.O’S. commenting very positively on my posts and internal emails – eg “Nice work, Doug.” .. ” is some kind of accolade (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/03/slaying-the-slayers-with-the-alabama-two-step/#comment-43352). Let me try to bring him to his senses.
On 22nd July 2010 during the time that he was collecting together his gaggle of “Slayers” John E-mailed me “ .. Pete, Thanks for getting in touch. Just read your link- you’ve done excellent research on this and you’re spot on with the analysis over the woeful failure of the IPCC to appoint expert statisticians. There’s scope here for a joint follow up article- I’d be delighted to collaborate with you and put both our names on a co-authored write up .. I’d like to propose you consider coming in on a book project I’m currently developing with leading GHG skeptic scientists. Would this appeal? .. ”.
Then on 24th Dec. 2010 “ .. Pete, Your involvement with PSI is most welcome. Many thanks, too, for rightly drawing our attention to the often overlooked ice core fiasco that has stupidly been set as a “Gold Standard” of climate proxies. Your ongoing research is invaluable to the debate and I would certainly welcome your submission of a chapter on this key issue for our next ‘Slayers’ book scheduled for publication for April/May 2011. To further advance the authority of your research I would heartily recommend that you speak with Hans Schreuder who I know is well placed in advising on the complex chemistry of atmospheric gases .. ”.
Although other members of the group at that time, such as Tim Ball, Alan Siddons, Cliff Saunders did try to give assistance on this vexed issue from their contacts analytical chemist Hans came up with no help whatsoever. (Cliff Saunders is another of those original members who have dissociated themselves from the group.)
John followed up with “ .. From the input gelling together from Alan, Cliff, Tim and Pete there is clearly scope here for another compelling publication via PSI’s publishing subsidiary. We now have a well-knit team to advance further such volumes to follow our successful ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon’ book. Hans Schreuder and myself now have all the necessary means to work with you gentlemen to bring this together if you feel able to co-author such a volume .. ”. My involvement with that “well-knit team” was not s welcome when I started challenging John’s ludicrous plan to set up PSI as a CIC and taking legal action against powerful government agencies like “ .. NASA GISS, GHCN and NOAA in the federal court in Washington D.C. .. ” (April 8 at 2:22 PM).
Hans’s reacted to my “PSI & Due Diligence” objections with an E-mail on 6th Jan. 2010 to John (BCc Joe Olson?) “ .. J&J You are digging a trap into which we will all fall if you guys insist in keeping this pest in the fold. He is, IMHO, a spy who has so far very successfully infiltrated the hub of our undertakings. His constant questioning, bordering on demanding to know, of what we are all doing is self-evident yet again below. Look at the mailing list he is brazenly using to demand to know what our “other pressing business” is – what the (f*** spammed out) has that got to do with him?! He has nothing to offer that we do not already possess. If you insist on keeping this clown in the loop, than I am out of it, simple as that. My sixth sense has yet to be proven wrong and I do not like this pest one bit .. ”.
Be warned Dougy, if you dare to challenge the PSI leadership you too could be excommunicated.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
NB: April 9, 2012 at 1:05 pm Para 5 should end
“ .. NASA GISS, GHCN and NOAA in the federal court in Washington D.C. .. ” (Dec 30 2010)
Pete R
Although I no longer read his posts, I have satisfied myself that Ridley’s knowledge of physics is very limited. When I once asked if he had studied it beyond first year university, he avoided replying and never has.
I am proud to be an active member of Principia Scientific International and, as such, I am in daily email contact with many of these main stream scientists, including professors and PhD’s in various disciplines such as physics, applied mathematics, chemistry, climatology and astro physics. The numbers are approaching 40, including well known new members just announced.
What I write are not just my theories. We are all in agreement that standard physics and empirical results back us up.
Hi Dougy, in true “Slayer” style you persist in avoiding pertinent questions. I repeat ” .. lets all have a good laugh. Since “transparency” is claimed to be so important to the PSI blog what’s the real number of members. I speculate 10 at the most .. “.
Best regards,Pete Ridley
Pete,
It may be worth checking out John O’Sullivan’s claim (
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/john-o-sullivan/19/6b4/84a ):
>In the U.S. his work features in the National Review, America’s most popular and influential magazine for Republican/conservative news and Forbes Magazine.
I follow National Review along with other political magazines, and, for decades, I have known of a John O’Sullivan who is indeed featured in National Review. Alas, National Review’s John O’Sullivan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_O%27Sullivan_%28columnist%29 ) will soon be seventy years old, and it is fairly obviously that he is not Slayer O’Sullivan (compare the picture in the wikipedia article to the linkedin picture above).
So, can Slayer O’Sullivan actually point to any specific articles *he* has written for National Review? Or he is just using the fact that a real NR writer has the same name in order to deceive and defraud the public?
Dave Miller in Sacramento
It’s ironic that there are many who call themselves skeptics, yet still cling to some of the false physics invented by the IPCC regarding backradiation (and other radiation from a cooler atmosphere) and its supposed ability to warm the surface. It can’t do so because it undergoes resonant or pseudo scattering.
An example of pseudo scattering can be observed in your microwave oven. The low frequency radiation which it produces is not absorbed by atoms in any matter. None of it is converted to thermal energy in the manner that radiation from sunlight would be converted in the same objects. The only way microwaves warm anything is by causing water molecules to flip through 180 degrees twice as each wave passes. This causes frictional heat to be generated due to grazing collisions with other flipping molecules. Food is cooked by heat conduction from the water molecules.
Doug Cotton wrote:
>It’s ironic that there are many who call themselves skeptics, yet still cling to some of the false physics invented by the IPCC regarding backradiation (and other radiation from a cooler atmosphere) and its supposed ability to warm the surface.
Doug, are you really, truly this ignorant of the history of the concept of the “greenhouse effect”? It really, truly was not invented by the IPCC! I learned about it over four decades ago, *long* before the IPCC existed.
For heaven’s sake, stop pretending that the standard physics of radiation was invented by climate modelers, the IPCC, or anyone except physicist like Maxwell, Planck, et al.
I’m old enough to remember when there was more concern about possible global cooling than global warming, but way back then, the physics of radiation was the same as it is today. Maxwell, Planck, et al. knew that views such as yours were nonsense.
Anyone who wants to see that you guys are just faking it can go into a university library and see that fifty years ago the physics books taught the same facts about radiation as they do today — this is not some grand conspiracy by climate catastrophists!
Dave Miller in Sacramento
Dave Miller in Sacramento appears to be enslaved by the Colbert principle: “Reality has a well-known liberal bias.”
No doubt Dave Miller and Stephen Colbert are part of the world-wide conspiracy, along with Maxwell, Planck, the IPCC, and Jewish bankers led by the Rothschilds…
It’s hardly a coincidence that many of the same groups writing the pseudoscientific claptrap Doug Cotton and his ilk are spewing also churned out the bogus “science” the tobacco industry spewed for decades to ward off tobacco control policies. When money speaks louder than facts, reality doesn’t stand a chance.
Andrew Skolnick says
“When money speaks louder than facts, reality doesn’t stand a chance”
Yes I would agree!
However the big money is spent pushing the CO2 driven greenhouse gas scam.
Skeptical Science was given a single donation £180,000 last year.
Government money, hedge fund bets and carbon trading ploys all push the IPCC agenda.
Pete is obsessed by how the ‘slayers’ allocated £10000.
Doug Cotton and John O’Sullivan seem to have missed the real IPCC gravy train!
Hi Bryan, there is a big difference between being “obsessed by” and being “interested in”. I am very puzzled as to why Ken Coffman, of Stairways Press, who was responsible for donating that £10,000 in prize money, is so reluctant to clarify why Piers only received £1,000 and what happened to the outstanding £9000. The PSI blog claims that transparency is very important to the group yet the group has demonstrate a great reluctance to be transparent about the original plans that John O’Sullivan had for it.
As I told you on 14th Dec. a year earlier John O’Sullivan considered that taking legal action against powerful government agencies like “ .. NASA GISS, GHCN and NOAA in the federal court in Washington D.C. .. ” was “ . the only game in town .. ” (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-149933). He then held out the begging bowl to try to set up PSI as a limited company (http://www.gofundme.com/1v39s&aff=GFMse) when it would have required a measly £417 each from his “ .. a group of 36 respected international scientists and related professionals .. ”.
Doesn’t that sound rather odd to you? It seems as though it sounded odd to those who saw that gofundme appeal because apart from the initial £350 donated in the first hour (by a member of John’s family) there has been little enthusiasm for further donations – £50 a few weeks later then Doug Cottons donation recently.
Have a read of my comment of 20th Nov. (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-140824 Para 4 on).
I was somewhat taken aback on 15th Dec. when Andrew said of you “ .. It’s clear Bryan is a blind idiot .. ” (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-150389) but perhaps he wasn’t being unkind after all.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete Ridley says
“Hi Bryan, there is a big difference between being “obsessed by” and being “interested in”
Anyone who reads Pete’s many posts on this topic can form their own opinions about Pete’s interest in, what most people would regard as ‘petty cash’ rather than ‘grand larceny’.
It seems to me that there is a touch of vanity that drives Pete’s posts.
Is it because he was not included in the inner council of PSI?
Anyway Andrew Skolnick and Pete seem to think that without their ‘digging the dirt’ we would all be in danger of being brainwashed by Doug Cotton and John O’Sullivan.
Chris Ho Stuart on another related thread spoke for all decent readers of these blogs when he called for a halt in these personal attacks mounted by Pete and Andrew.
Stick to the science if you can!
Doug Cotton has done more to damage PSI’s reputation than Andrew and Pete’s joint efforts.
On the other hand Joseph Postma has made a very positive contribution to the climate debate as a read through this thread will show.
Hi Bryan, I forgot to provide this link to a picture of John O’Sullivan in meeting room #10 at the Houses of Parliament on 27th Oct. 2010 proudly presenting that enormous Stairways Press cheque for £10,000 payable to Piers Corbyn (http://climaterealists.com/attachments/ftp/CFD%205.jpg). That happy smile on Piers’s face didn’t last for long though – getting only £1000 must have been so very disappointing for him.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Bryan — descending like the Mercury from Mt. Olympus — now comes to inform us what we think. He says Pete and I “think that without [our] digging the dirt [everyone] would all be in danger of being brainwashed by Doug Cotton and John O’Sullivan.”
Using his godly powers to see into the minds of mortal men, he informs us that Chris Ho Ho Ho Stuart “spoke for all decent readers of these blogs.” And finally declares “Stick to the science if you can!”
Hey Bryan, try sticking to reality. You’re not the messenger god. Except in the dark recesses of your delusional mind, NO one appointed you mesenger for the gods of Olympus — or for all the readers of this blog.
What an arrogant maroon.
And speaking of delusional Bryan, I’m still waiting for you to respond to my demand that you identify ANY credential in my resume that is bogus, as you implied if not outright claimed. So let me tell you what I ACTUALLY think: You’re a shameless liar.
Andrew Skolnick says
“And speaking of delusional Bryan, I’m still waiting for you to respond to my demand that you identify ANY credential in my resume that is bogus”
I don’t think I ever referred to your so called “resume”.
You must be confusing me with some other celestial being.
Bryan, the Mercurial prevaricator, said (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-150342):
“Andrew Skolnick, Its indeed a strange world where folk with genuine scientific qualifications and credibility like Postma, Peirs Corbyn and Claes Johnson seem to need a front man without any formal scientific training and who requires name changing from time to time. …
O’Sullivan seems to be a bit like yourself and indeed makes similar accusations about you. Its hard for the onlooker to form any judgement since I guess both of you can make it up as you go along”.
So Bryan, I’ll repeat my demand: Identify any of my professional and academic credentials that are bogus — or else shut up.
Unlike the sky dragon slayer humbug O’Sullivan’s, all of my professional and academic credentials are publicly documented and are accessible for ANY “onlooker” to verify. If you want to claim otherwise, better be prepared to do so in court.
Andrew Skolnick
I wrote
“indeed a strange world where folk with genuine scientific qualifications”
I honestly did not pick up from your posts that you had any scientific qualifications!
What are they?
I thought that you were an investigative journalist.
Please set the record straight.
Bryan, the record IS straight.
The fact that you are unwilling to acknowledge it is of little concern to me. Any honestly interested person can check for him or herself by searching the National Library of Medicine database, where they would find more than 230 articles I authored in peer reviewed science journals. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/
Andrew Skolnick
Your carefully crafted reply does not clear up the point about science qualifications.
BSc,PHD,DSc etc.
Your ally Pete Ridley is merciless on anyone without these certificates.
For instance on Steve Mosher he writes
..” it’s good seeing people who overstate their credentials being brought to accounts .. ”. BTW, for someone with a PhD in English”
Hi Dave, I was about to point you to the clarifications of your point that John O’Sullivan’s “ .. work features in the National Review .. ” given earlier by Andrew and me in Oct./Nov. (e.g. see http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-122654, #comment-127473, 127566, 127584, 138807, 140569, 140575, 144390, 145028, etc. etc. etc. – just search for “National Review”). John O’Sullivan responded to comments on several occasions but did not once provide any evidence to support his claim that “ .. his work appears in the National Review and Forbes Magazine .. ” (http://en.gravatar.com/johnosullivan).
Apparently you have a PhD in physics (http://homeschoolingphysicist.blogspot.co.uk/) so perhaps you can enlighten poor old multifaceted businessman but novice physicist Dougy Cotton – see http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-172459 Para. 3)?
Dougy has jumped into bed with John O’Sullivan and his merry band of bloggers, the “Slayers” and seems to think that he is in line to share the 2012 Nobel Prize in Physics with Professor Claes Johnson – poor deluded fellow.
Hi Andrew, it’s good to hear from you again – what have you been up to recently? As part of my research for my “Cupboard 55” factional novel “Heads or Tails” I’m awaiting information from a New York State attorney at the Department of Correctional Services (DOCS). You’ll recall our earlier discussions here about John’s Cupboard 55 genre novels (http://cupboard55summitshock.blogspot.co.uk/2008/03/and-what-is-cupboard-55_31.html) “Summit Shock” (http://cupboard55summitshock.blogspot.co.uk/) and “Vanilla Girl” (http://cupboard55vanillagirl.blogspot.co.uk/).
I find the entire John O’Sullivan saga from the end of his teaching career in 2003 to the formation of his PSI blog fascinating. If you’re interested then send me an E-mail and I’ll give you an update.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Hi, Pete, thanks for the links. I’m curious about how the sociology of the Web provides a wonderful feeding ground for con artists. Seems we have found a nice specimen here!
As to enlightening Doug, well, I’ve tried that with Creationists, anti-Einsteinians (which, group, it seems, includes Claes Johnson), etc. and have concluded that you cannot force someone to think.
The funny thing is that I myself am sharply critical of the very real over-reaching and corruption that does exist in science (as, of course, in all other human institutions). Yeah, scientists do sometimes engage in dishonesty, fraud, etc.
But, to criticize scientific misconduct, a person first has to learn enough science to distinguish reality from fantasy. And, that, I fear our Slayers do not wish to do.
Dave
Hi Pete,
I’ve been busy with far more productive stuff than trying to convice con artists to abandon their cons. After a while, banging your head against the wall gets old.
I’ve occassionally looked in and saw that Mr. O’Sullivan and Ken Warner found themselves a new and tireless warrior of woowoo to fight their battle here. Doug Cotton almost seems like an O’Sullivan sock puppet.
I couldn’t blame him if he is — I can understand why he’d like to avoid having to explain his bogus law degree, his fraudulent claims of writing for National Review and Forbes, and the reason his school teaching career came to a screeching halt in 2003 when he was arrested and tried for soliciting sex from a 16 y.o. school girl.
Yes, please update me.
BREAKING NEWS
NASA SCIENTISTS DEMAND END TO GW FRAUD
Continuing man-made global warming fraud triggers a mass NASA rebellion. Rebels demand U.S. government pulls plug on the climate catastrophe cult. Dozens of top experts including astronauts and engineers trigger meltdown in American space agency.
http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2012/04/11/nasa-in-mass-revolt-over-global-warming-fraud/
LMAO!!! Stop the presses! “Physicist” Doug Cotton and John O’Sullivan — that highly successful litigator and world-renowned writer for National Review and Forbes magazines — claim the world-wide global warming conspiracy is a desperate Communist plot that begun after the fall of the Soviet Union!
According to O’Sullivan, the “top expert” behind the anti-communist “mass rebellion” at NASA is none other than Harrison “Jack D Ripper” Schmitt — a former US Senator who was the last astronaut on the moon. And he’s been preaching lunacy ever since he got back to earth.
Among other delusions he’s famous for is his firmly held belief that, after the Soviet Union crumbled, the Communists cooked up the global warming conspiracy in order to enslave America and rest of the world.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/01/27/207409/denier-harrison-schmitt-holdren-communists/#more-41165
People old enough to remember Stanley Kupric’s great 1960s film “Dr. Strangelove,” might confuse Jack Schmitt with Gen. Jack D. Ripper — whose paranoid delusions about the Communist conspiracy to contaminate every American’s “precious bodily fluids” by fluoridating drinking water led to the detonation of the Doomsday device that destroyed all human life on earth.
But that was fiction. Harrison “Jack” Schmitt, John O’Sullivan, and their fellow kooks are a whole lot scarrier.
I attended a speech by Jack Schmitt at a trade show and I thought he was very lucid–overflowing with common sense. At the same talk, Chuck House spoke, but he didn’t say anything about human-caused global warming. Later, I tracked him down and asked what he thought. He wasn’t as hard-over as Jack, but generally agreed with Jack’s thoughts. I’m happy to side with Jack and Chuck.
Chuck House
It’s interesting how people will deny their own direct experience. When you walk around outside, your skin is in contact with the air which has a temperature. How did it get this temperature? From direct solar exposure? From something warmer that exchanged with the air and convected to your location? A piece of paper can block IR. With the sun hiding behind a cloud, hold up a sheet of newspaper and see how much your temperature changes after blocking all the downwelling IR.
Hi Bryan (ref. 12th at 3:46 am), don’t you think that it is rather presumptuous of you to claim to know “what most people” think about an issue? As for your “ .. there is a touch of vanity that drives Pete’s posts .. ”, Steven Mosher might say “you dont know what you are talking about” (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-191339) and I wouldn’t disagree.
My exclusion from “ .. the inner council of PSI .. ” was my choice after recognising and drawing to the attention of the other original participants in the “PSI & Due Diligence” discussions during Dec. 2010 and Jan. 2011 the ludicrous nature of John O’Sullivan’s plans for PSI, which he summarised in “Slaying the Sky Dragon .. “ Chapter 21.
There is no need for you or anyone else to speculate about that matter because the facts are freely available in my 62-page Word document entitled “PSI & Due Diligence E-mails .. ” which I have offered several times here to anyone who wishes to see those 300+ E-mails, the first occasion being to Andrew on 24th Oct (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-127215). It is worth mentioning that those original members of the group discussing John’s proposal to take legal action against government agencies of English-speaking countries (including the most powerful in the world, the USA) included, but were not limited to, PSI’s proposed Chairman (Tim Ball) and Board of Directors (John O’Sullivan – CEO, Hans Schreuder – CFO, Rev. Philip Foster – Compliance Officer, Dr. Martin Hertzberg, Dr. Claes Johnson, Joseph A. Olson, Alan Siddons, Dr. Charles Anderson).
That proposed structure was announced on 1st Jan 2011 by John O’Sullivan in an E-mail to me as an immediate response to my “ .. (PSI) is planning to take legal action against organisations that are protected by the most powerful political machinery in the world. I recognise that there is no restriction on the CICs range of operation however, I still consider that charitable status provides better protection for all concerned, I recommend that we set up PSI as a charity and review this status after successfully completing the first legal action .. ”.
In rejecting my proposal that PSI be formed as a charity John’s 4-page response, Ccd to the proposed board plus Miso.Alkalaj, Cliff Saunders, Oliver Manuel, Geraldo Lino, Ken Coffman, Kent Clizbe, Jerry Oliver, Vincent Gray, Fred Goldberg, John Droz, extolled what he saw as the virtues of setting up PSI as a limited company with a community interest (a CIC).
I was not the only one to recognise why John might be keen to get acceptance of his proposed structure. On 2nd January Kent Clizbe said “ ..
As someone who has formed and closed several types of businesses, including absolute failures and fabulous successes, let me offer a few points of advice.
Objective: It seems pretty clear that the whole “business” idea springs from the need to provide you with a living. If that is the objective, I’d guess that there are not many people who are willing to “subscribe” for that end .. If I’m right in assessing that the main goal in setting up this business, based on what you’ve said, is to find a way to enhance your income, I’d suggest that this project is a NOT a good way to go about doing that. You will NOT be able to create sufficient interest, support, revenue from individuals, or from selling books, to support the various expenses associated with a business, including your salary .. In the meantime, get a part-time job.
While I may be wrong, I’d put my money on my being right .. ”.
I have cherry-picked what I consider to be the pertinent parts of Kent’s E-mail so if anyone would lie to understand the full context then just ask me for a copy of my Word document. As I have said before, anyone considering getting involved with PSI would benefit from seeing those exchanges, which is why I tried to get John to post those E-mails on the PSI web-site. Despite the claims about PSI and transparency he has declined to do so.
Please would you be good enough to provide a link to the “related thread” on which Chris Ho (AKA Sylas) spoke about Andrew and me. Also, you demand that we “ .. Stick to the science .. ” but let me remind you that this is not your personal blog thread. It is not up to you but to the thread moderator to decide what is and what is not permitted here. You are simply another guest, like we are. I point out to you that the lead article on this thread is NOT about the science but about John, his dragon slayers and an E-mail to them. Many of my comments are about other E-mails to the “Slayers” and the moderator has seen fit to raise no objection.
I leave it to others to decide for themselves what and who “ .. has done more to damage PSI’s reputation .. ”, much of the required evidence being available here courtesy Professor Curry, Andrew Skolnick and me.
As for Joe Postma, he did not make an appearance within the group until well after those discussion ended in Jan 2011. The first time that I saw him mentioned in E-mail exchanges with the “Slayers” was on 14th Sept 2011. He did cause a lot of internal friction that led to one former team member of the “Slayers” dissociating himself from them after pointing out what he saw as a serious flaw in Postma’s model.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Hi Steven (Mosher) it’s not like you to run away with your tail between your legs! Don’t you intend to respond to my comment of 10th April at 5:26 pm (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-191483)? I’m sure that there are others who, like me, would love to know the extent of your technical contribution was as a member of that Northrop Aircraft team which “ .. designed Aircraft to be resistant to detection in the IR spectrum .. ”.
As a cautious individual I very rarely bet on other than certainties but I am tempted to bet a significant sum that your involvement at Northrop had nothing to do with the emission spectrum of aircraft or the very limited opacity of CO2 to IR radiation.
In not one of your 20+ comments on this thread can I find any suggestion that you understand any of the science being used to try to improve our poor understanding of the processes and drivers of the different global climates. Your comment of 8th Feb. at 3:30 pm was your one and only attempt to be scientific and you made a mess of that with your “we know that C02 is opaque to IR”. You confirmed your ignorance of the science by using Dr. Iain Stewart’s deliberately misleading demonstration in the BBC’s 2008 “Climate Wars” propaganda program.
As you said on 12th Dec at 1:35 am “ .. it’s good seeing people who overstate their credentials being brought to accounts .. ”.
BTW, for someone with a PhD in English your prose does on occasions reflect badly on you (and ULCA?) but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and put it down to haste – try preparing you comments using Word or the like and its spelling/grammar checker. It doesn’t find all the mistakes but should catch most and certainly catches “dont”, “wont”, “cant”, use of capitals (http://www.informatics.sussex.ac.uk/department/docs/punctuation/node27.html) etc. etc. etc..
Kaizen.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Here, this covers some of it, but not a lot of detail about the specific problems I worked on, mainly radar and Ir and AI.
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/steven-mosher/1/b07/27b
YF23 was one of the programs. There were others. Lot’s of stuff you don’t know and cant ever find out. Bonus points for you if you can find my publications on cockpit displays for Agile aircraft. If youd like a job copyediting my msgs sent from a phone… it pays 1.95. And dont worry I quit the Phd B4 writing a dissertation as I’ve explained a bunch of times Too much fun programming.
Hi Steven, now tell me something that I wasn’t already aware of, such as your precise technical contribution to any Northrop Aircraft product. I understand that your contribution was in the computerised simulation field, not in anything directly to do with the use of CO2 in one of their IRCM systems. Come on, provide a link to any patent of yours (not shared with lots of other developers) or a peer-reviewed paper of yours that was published in a respected journal. I do not believe that you can, so come on, shut me up by providing the irrefutable evidence showing your technical achievements in designing IRCM systems other than as a computer programmer writing software for simulators.
You’re starting to sound a bit like John O’Sullivan. You, like he, appear to have a tendency to embellish your claims to fame (for more information search for LinkedIn on this thread). Don’t you think that it would be more honest to state clearly in your LinkedIn bio that you “ .. quit the Phd .. ”. I’m sure that you wouldn’t wish to deliberately mislead your audience– like Dr. Iain Stewart did – into thinking that you completed that course successfully. Once someone is caught out trying to mislead it is very hard to believe anything else that is said.
Whenever I hear or read anything from Dr. Stewart now I check out the facts carefully. The demonstration that you were fooled by, in which he claimed that “ .. I can show you how carbon dioxide affects earth’s climate using this … ” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfkLHxQe-SU at 21:00 to 21:05 minutes) does nothing of the sort and was deliberately rigged to give the false impression that CO2 is opaque to IR.
Dr. Hare had the decency to respond to my E-mail of 18th April 2011 in which I challenged both him and Dr Hare about that misleading demo. He was honest enough to acknowledge that “ .. the experiment only ‘works’ because there is a filter included that only lets the part of the IR spectrum through where the CO2 happens to absorb – thus showing the effect dramatically .. ”.
CACC campaigner Dr. Iain Stewart simply refused to respond, perhaps because Climategate made him realise that his career would be best served by keeping a low profile on the CACC issue.
As usual, if anything that I have said here is considered to be unfair or a misrepresentation of the facts then please let me know and I will consider whether or not a retraction or apology is warranted. The last thing that I wish to do is misinterpret the evidence that has been made available to me and present a misleading picture to others.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Hi again Steven, it gets worse and worse, doesn’t it “ .. I entered Northwestern University as a Physics and math major, got bored and switched to English and Philosophy and Linguistics .. (http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/04/21/reader-background/#comment-25992).
So you dropped out as a Physics undergrad because you were bored then dropped out of you PhD English – impressive. Word to the wise – stick to your area of expertise otherwise you’ll make a fool of yourself by making statements like “ .. we know that C02 is opaque to IR .. ”.
In my opinion you are an ideal candidate for membership of John O’Sullivan’s PSI blog team. If you hurry you can get in for free but the offer runs out on 31st Dec.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Hi Pete. I saw that you visited my LinkedIn .cool.
I would hardly say I dropped out as a Physics Undergrad. As I described I started as a math and physics major. got bored and completed 2 degrees. One in philosophy and the other in English. I then when to get a Phd. after 4 years of that I got hired at Northrop. eight years later I was a Vice president of engineering. How do you imagine that english major of all people becomes a vice president of engineering? Think hard. You wont figure it out.
Hi Bryan (ref. 12th April at 2:39 pm) don’t you think that it is time that you tried to avoid deliberately distorting what people say. I suspect that you well know and fully understand that my reference to “overstated credentials” was about Steven Mosher and used a quotation from Steven himself. Steven had declared (on 8th Feb. at 3:30 pm) that “ .. we know that C02 is opaque to IR .. ” and tried to support his claim using a deliberately rigged demonstration by CACC campaigner Dr. Iain Stewart in the BBC’s 2008 CACC propaganda series Climate Wars. In my opinion that quite reasonably brought into question Steven’s scientific credentials, especially after he had challenged my engineering credentials (9th April at 1:56 pm). You also know that my reference to his qualifications was with regard to his grammatical errors (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-191782).
Instead of being disingenuous why don’t you let us know why you give your implied support to what Steven claimed about CO2 and that demonstration of Dr. Stewart’s. I doubt if you have even bothered to watch the demonstration, let alone the rest of the series. That demo. starts at 20:55 minutes into 59minute Episode 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfkLHxQe-SU) and my stomach heaves every time that blatant propaganda. There is an even more sickening set of A/Vs that include Dr. Stewart saying about the CACC issue on 3rd March 2008 “ .. we know enough .. right, I’m gonna go and campaign about this .. ” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=hrPjddK2t-I from 3:44 minutes). For the full context watch nt only that 5:55 minute A/V but all of the other presentations at that “greenitlikeyoumeanit” launch (http://www.youtube.com/user/greenitlikeyoumeanit) – but be prepared to puke.
Also, instead of trying to divert attention from your own ignorance how about responding intelligently (if possible) to my comment of 12th April at 1:14 pm. Don’t worry too much if you know very little about the subject of John O’Sullivan, his “Slayers” and their PSI blog. There is no shame in ignorance, only in refusing to recognise the facts.
Best regards, Pete Ridley.
Pete we know that C02 is opaque ( relatively) to IR from more than just that demonstration. we know it from countless tests. Youre ignorant. Id fire you if you worked for me
Hi Steven, have a careful think before you make a bigger fool of yourself – IR band from ? microns to ? microns ?? (hint comment 10th April at 5:26 pm Para 4). Have a proper read of the whole comment then reconsider your belief that “ .. we know that C02 is opaque ( relatively) to IR .. ”.
If you keep on like this you’ll find it very hard to get a job at all (other than doing voluntary work), never mind one where you can hire and fire.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Wow – four screen fulls of waffle – I didn’t read a word as I’m sure there would have been no valid physics. Anyway, as a member of PSI (where there are now at least four professors among us, plus yet another well known new member just introduced, I will outline what Prof Claes Johnson and I are saying, with the endoresement of at least the four members who reviewed my paper prior to publication on seven websites. …
For the benefit of those who have just joined this thread, I will summarise some of the main points in the paper, and add further explanation, such as that regarding microwave ovens. This should answer questions raised above. However, any who advocate that all radiation causes a transfer of thermal energy regardless of the temperatures of the source and target, or that there is some entity representing “net” radiation are asked to read the paper for my response.
Of course radiation can go in all directions. It does so in a microwave oven, but not everything gets warmed in the oven by normal atomic absorption. In fact there is absolutely no atomic absorption involving changes in electron energy states. Instead, liquid water molecules in the food are quickly rotated (flipped or “snapped”) through 180 degrees twice with each passing wave of radiation. It is molecular friction which warms the water, not atomic absorption such as happens in the Sun. The molecules in ice are too close to rotate, so ice is not melted this way. (See experiment in an earlier post above.) The defrost cycle turns power on and off in order to allow time for heat conduction from water to ice. The oven demonstrates that low frequency radiation does not act like high frequency radiation, even if the intensity (flux) is greater.
This is because of the main hypothesis in the paper that radiated energy from a source which is cooler than a target is not absorbed and converted to thermal energy by such changes in electron energy states at the atomic level. If the radiation from such a source is spontaneous, then the peak frequency in its Planck curve is proportional to its absolute temperature by Wien’s Displacement Law. If thermal energy were transferred from such a cooler source to a warmer target then that process, if independent, would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics (SLoT.) There are several pages in the paper explaining why this is the case, so I ask you to read Sections 1 to 5 in this regard.
Radiated energy is not thermal energy. It has to be converted to thermal energy, and that only happens if the source of the radiation was warmer than the target. Some or all of the radiation can and will resonate with the target. When this happens it supplies energy to the target, yes, but the energy is used by the target to do some of its own radiating. It can use it because it is identical in frequency to what it can emit itself. And this happens because the Planck curve for a cooler body is always fully contained within that for a warmer body. So the two-way radiation which corresponds to the area under the Planck curve for the cooler body just resonates in each body and gives it energy that can only be used for new radiation. Because the new radiation is identical, it looks as if the original radiation has been scattered. Hence the term “pseudo scattering” or, as I call it in my paper, “resonant scattering.”
So the process is not in any way violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics (SLoT) because the radiated energy is never converted to thermal energy. However, there is additional radiation in the warmer body which corresponds to the area between the Planck curves. This is the energy which does get converted to thermal energy in a cooler target. And, since S-B calculations are based on the integrals of Planck functions, the normal calculations (subtracting the two S-B values which represent areas under the large and small curve) still apply, because the difference is the area between the curves.
So you may think of radiation being scattered each time it strikes a target, but only “dropping off” some of its thermal energy when it meets a cooler target. The new radiation then continues just as if emitted by that target, so more thermal energy is only dropped off iff the next target is cooler than the last one.
Because the incident radiation supplied radiated energy to the cooler target, that target does not have to convert some of its own thermal energy in order to radiate what it is “allowed” to radiate as per the Planck function. Hence the target’s rate of radiative cooling will be slower, as we observe. So, yes, a wooden table in your back yard may stop dew forming on the ground below it because the table is warmer than the atmosphere and thus slows the cooling more. This is because gases in the atmosphere are cooler, and also because ones like carbon dioxide don’t radiate with a full Planck spectrum. Instead they just have a few spectral lines of radiation which can resonate with the surface. So carbon dioxide is like a picket fence with most of its pickets missing, standing up against a full flood of radiation from the surface. Even water vapour molecules can do much better when it comes to slowing radiative cooling of the surface.
Whilst the calculations are the same, there are huge differences in the physical consequences. These are explained in the FAQ’s in Appendix Q.7 of my paper. Because there is no conversion to thermal energy, there can be no subsequent heat transfer to other bodies instead of radiation. Hence, in the case of radiation from a cooler atmosphere, there can be no effect upon the rates of cooling by evaporation, conduction and other sensible heat transfer mechanisms. Nor is there any slowing of the radiation that gets through the atmospheric window to space. So only about a quarter of all the surface cooling is affected, and only by a minuscule amount by carbon dioxide with its limited range of frequencies.
Now, the temperature of the surface is stabilised by both the underground temperatures and, more importantly, the amount of solar radiation reaching the surface. The temperature gradient in the atmosphere is governed by the adiabatic lapse rate, and that in turn is controlled by the force of gravity. So, if that gradient is represented by a simple linear equation y = mx + b then m is fixed by gravity and b is controlled by solar insolation which only varies a little beyond our control. Thus surface climate is beyond our control and any slowing of the radiative cooling is simply compensated by an increase in sensible heat transfer.
So there is no overall slowing of the rate of surface cooling, no transfer of thermal energy from the atmosphere back to the surface, and so no greenhouse effect.
On the assumption that someone wandering by here might want to know what Doug et al.’s main scientific error is, I will try to explain.
Doug wrote:
>This is because of the main hypothesis in the paper that radiated energy from a source which is cooler than a target is not absorbed and converted to thermal energy by such changes in electron energy states at the atomic level. .. If thermal energy were transferred from such a cooler source to a warmer target then that process, if independent, would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics (SLoT.)
This shows a fundamental, and truly egregious, misunderstanding of thermodynamcis/statistical mechanics. The basic idea of stat. mech., going all the way back to Gibbs and Boltzmann is that there is *not* any new over-arching laws of physics due to thermodynamics. Rather, stat. mech. is simply a summary of what happens when a large number of things (atoms, photons, etc.) each obey the basic microphysical laws: Newtonian mechanics, Maxwellian electrodynamics, quantum mechanics, relativity, etc: An atom does not know that it is hot or cold, it just does its own thing according to the fundamental laws of physics. If a photon hits an atom, the atom can absorb the photon or not, independent of whether or not the atom is “hot” or “cold,” simply because no single atom is “hot or “cold.”
Temperature is a statistical property of a large quantity of atoms, photons, etc., not of an individual atom or photon. And, therefore, whether the emitting atom is hotter or colder than the absorbing atom makes no sense.
Everyone is supposed to pick this up very early in a stat mech. course, assuming of course that he bother to take a stat. mech. course!
All of stat. mech. is based on this very basic presumption, and all of the calculations and experiments done in stat. mech. have provided overwhelming evidence that this presumption is correct.
Doug and his friends want to deny it. Fine, let us see their detailed mathematical development, with detailed experimental predictions, that shows that the last two centuries of work in stat. mech. is all wrong.
They can’t do it.
The statistical mechanics they are challenging is simply a mathematical consequence of the well-established laws of physics.
Anyone wishing to pursue this should seriously study Fred Reif’s Statistical and Thermal Physics.
Dave
Hi physicistdave, thanks for that contribution. Although dear old Dougy (with hs blinkers firmly stuck to his head) and his fellow-“Slayers” at PSI will not take any notice of what you have said there are plenty others reading this thread who will benefit from your efforts.
Dougy’s runs many Internet sites promoting his various business interests (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-172459 Para. 3) and this one (http://www.savedbythelamb.com/) suggests that he will understand the relevance of Matthew 7:6 (http://bible.cc/matthew/7-6.htm).
Best regards, Pete Ridley
You are not telling the truth about stat mech. There are more assumptions than just a large number of atoms following Newton’s laws of motion. You also need statistical assumptions like Boltzmann’s molecular chaos, assumptions which cannot be directly justified, according to Einstein, and thus assumptions which are not scientific.
In this first sentence, Doug Cotton reveals for all to see how and why he will always remain a hopelessly blind fool:
“Wow – four screen fulls of waffle – I didn’t read a word as I’m sure there would have been no valid physics.”
He “didn’t read a word” he says, but he is sure all that was written is “full of waffle” without any valid physics. This is the conviction of a man of great and blind faith. It is not the reasoning of a man of science.
For the benefit of those who have just joined this thread, I will summarise some of the main points in the paper, and add further explanation, such as that regarding microwave ovens. This should answer questions raised above. However, any who advocate that all radiation causes a transfer of thermal energy regardless of the temperatures of the source and target, or that there is some entity representing “net” radiation are asked to read the paper for my response.
Of course radiation can go in all directions. It does so in a microwave oven, but not everything gets warmed in the oven by normal atomic absorption. In fact there is absolutely no atomic absorption involving changes in electron energy states. Instead, liquid water molecules in the food are quickly rotated (flipped or “snapped”) through 180 degrees twice with each passing wave of radiation. It is molecular friction which warms the water, not atomic absorption such as happens in the Sun. The molecules in ice are too close to rotate, so ice is not melted this way. (See experiment in an earlier post above.) The defrost cycle turns power on and off in order to allow time for heat conduction from water to ice. The oven demonstrates that low frequency radiation does not act like high frequency radiation, even if the intensity (flux) is greater.
This is because of the main hypothesis in the paper that radiated energy from a source which is cooler than a target is not absorbed and converted to thermal energy by such changes in electron energy states at the atomic level. If the radiation from such a source is spontaneous, then the peak frequency in its Planck curve is proportional to its absolute temperature by Wien’s Displacement Law. If thermal energy were transferred from such a cooler source to a warmer target then that process, if independent, would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics (SLoT.) There are several pages in the paper explaining why this is the case, so I ask you to read Sections 1 to 5 in this regard.
Radiated energy is not thermal energy. It has to be converted to thermal energy, and that only happens if the source of the radiation was warmer than the target. Some or all of the radiation can and will resonate with the target. When this happens it supplies energy to the target, yes, but the energy is used by the target to do some of its own radiating. It can use it because it is identical in frequency to what it can emit itself. And this happens because the Planck curve for a cooler body is always fully contained within that for a warmer body. So the two-way radiation which corresponds to the area under the Planck curve for the cooler body just resonates in each body and gives it energy that can only be used for new radiation. Because the new radiation is identical, it looks as if the original radiation has been scattered. Hence the term “pseudo scattering” or, as I call it in my paper, “resonant scattering.”
So the process is not in any way violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics (SLoT) because the radiated energy is never converted to thermal energy. However, there is additional radiation in the warmer body which corresponds to the area between the Planck curves. This is the energy which does get converted to thermal energy in a cooler target. And, since S-B calculations are based on the integrals of Planck functions, the normal calculations (subtracting the two S-B values which represent areas under the large and small curve) still apply, because the difference is the area between the curves.
So you may think of radiation being scattered each time it strikes a target, but only “dropping off” some of its thermal energy when it meets a cooler target. The new radiation then continues just as if emitted by that target, so more thermal energy is only dropped off iff the next target is cooler than the last one.
Because the incident radiation supplied radiated energy to the cooler target, that target does not have to convert some of its own thermal energy in order to radiate what it is “allowed” to radiate as per the Planck function. Hence the target’s rate of radiative cooling will be slower, as we observe. So, yes, a wooden table in your back yard may stop dew forming on the ground below it because the table is warmer than the atmosphere and thus slows the cooling more. This is because gases in the atmosphere are cooler, and also because ones like carbon dioxide don’t radiate with a full Planck spectrum. Instead they just have a few spectral lines of radiation which can resonate with the surface. So carbon dioxide is like a picket fence with most of its pickets missing, standing up against a full flood of radiation from the surface. Even water vapour molecules can do much better when it comes to slowing radiative cooling of the surface.
Whilst the calculations are the same, there are huge differences in the physical consequences. These are explained in the FAQ’s in Appendix Q.7 of my paper. Because there is no conversion to thermal energy, there can be no subsequent heat transfer to other bodies instead of radiation. Hence, in the case of radiation from a cooler atmosphere, there can be no effect upon the rates of cooling by evaporation, conduction and other sensible heat transfer mechanisms. Nor is there any slowing of the radiation that gets through the atmospheric window to space. So only about a quarter of all the surface cooling is affected, and only by a minuscule amount by carbon dioxide with its limited range of frequencies.
Now, the temperature of the surface is stabilised by both the underground temperatures and, more importantly, the amount of solar radiation reaching the surface. The temperature gradient in the atmosphere is governed by the adiabatic lapse rate, and that in turn is controlled by the force of gravity. So, if that gradient is represented by a simple linear equation y = mx + b then m is fixed by gravity and b is controlled by solar insolation which only varies a little beyond our control. Thus surface climate is beyond our control and any slowing of the radiative cooling is simply compensated by an increase in sensible heat transfer.
So there is no overall slowing of the rate of surface cooling, no transfer of thermal energy from the atmosphere back to the surface, and so no greenhouse effect.
physicistdave is mistaken because he does not appear to realise that the statistical distributipn is already taken account of in the Planck distribution of frequencies, which is what the hypothesis is based on. He needs to study my previous post and the paper, wherein he will find reasons if he is open minded and genuinely seeking new knowledge. At no point in the paper am I discussing individual atoms or molecules, and neither does the SLoT because in classical thermodynamics (which is quite appropriate to use here) the law relates to regions with measureable temperatures. We are indeed talking about masses of more than a few picograms, so the SLoT applies for all practical purposes.
This is one item on Wikipedia which is not in error.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. I also show in the Appendix that the rate of increase of SS temperatures has decreased since the year 1900, The long-term trend, following a ~983 year cyclic pattern, is likely to pass a maximum of no more than 1 C degree above the current level within 200 years at the most.
But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation. –Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1927)
Hi Steven, responding to your E-mail via LinkedIn, I was aware of three patents that you have your name attached to but they appear to have nothing to do with your time at Northrop Aircraft, which is what we are talking about here. Also, they are not a result of your own efforts but of several other contributors (6 for the EFOV display assigned to Eidetics International and one other for the two on media content assigned to Creative technology). Why don’t you stop making a fool of yourself and just acknowledge that you were wrong to say that CO2 is opaque to IR. You are digging yourself deeper and deeper into that hole.
You suggested in your E-mail that I might be “ .. wondering how somebody goes from being an english major to a VP of engineering.. ” but – sorry to dent your inflated ego – I wasn’t. I’m only interested in helping you to understand why Dr. Jonathan Hare fitted that 4 micron filter without which Dr. Iain Stewart could not have given any gullible individuals watching his Climate Wars demonstration the false impression that “ .. CO2 is opaque to IR .. ”. Just acknowledge that CO2 is nothing like “ .. opaque to IR .. ” and we can drop this discussion.
You weren’t the only one to be fooled by Dr. Stewart’s demo. A group of “educators” also fell for it and are pushing it as a part of their CACC propaganda to school children in your vicinity. “ .. ClimateChangeEducation.org is an organization of volunteers dedicated to education on climate change and global warming solutions — since 1999. We are science museum docents, teachers, students, scientists, university staff, parents and artists. Most of us are in California (U.S.), but we have volunteers all over the world .. ” (http://climatechangeeducation.org/about/who_we_are/index.html). On their homepage they include Dr. Stewart’s demo. as one of the “ .. the scientifically strong, vetted, authentic hands-on science demos .. ” (http://climatechangeeducation.org/) and link to it, just like you did. I speculate that that is where you became aware of it.
I submitted a comment to them on 8th Jan. pointing out their gullibility but they declined to post it.
I have no reason to doubt that you are a competent programmer but you are no more a physicist than I am. There is no shame in that. We all have our limitations.
Anyone else who is interested in Dr Iain Stewart’s CACC campaign and area of scientific expertise (not CACC) can find more at http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=541&cp=1#comment-200279 and http://globalwarmingsupporter.wordpress.com/2011/05/08/suzuki-elders-we%E2%80%99re-doomed/#comment-448 from Para. 5 and http://globalwarmingsupporter.wordpress.com/2011/05/08/suzuki-elders-we%E2%80%99re-doomed/#comment-449
Best regards, Pete
physicistdave
If a photon hits an atom, the atom can absorb the photon or not, independent of whether or not the atom is “hot” or “cold,” simply because no single atom is “hot or “cold.”
___________________________________
So all the atmospheric oxygen and nitrogen can absorb any or all of the IR radiation from the surface?
You seem to place a lot of confidence in Boltzmann – why not in Johnson who has the benefit of hindsight over an extra century of physics?
Boltzmann and Co were wrong in assuming that the net heat transfer between hot and cold bodies was the result of the algebraic sum of two actual heat transfers in opposite directions. Only one heat transfer occurs in nature. There is no spontaneous heat transfer from a cold body to a hot body.
Boltzmann was also wrong (to a degree at least) in his H-theorem because it was dependent upon the assumption of molecular chaos. That assumption has a degree of error in it because, after a collision, the velocities of the molecules involved are no longer independent.
So I take quantitative results of statistical mechanics with a grain of salt, though I suggest no one really knows just how inaccurate or otherwise they may be.
In any event, there is no need for such when considering the issue of radiation between regions of the surface and atmosphere, where “region” refers to a mass of at least several picograms in which we would normally expect the temperature to be measured as sufficiently uniform. After all, with the atmospheric region being perhaps 1 to 100+ C degrees cooler than the surface below it, we need hardly have any doubt as to which region is the warmer and which the cooler.
I stand by my statement in which the reference to “changes in electron energy states at the atomic level” does not imply that I am talking about heat transfer between individual atoms: rather, it is merely a description of the nature of the process which is happening in all the molecules in the body in question, which is not gaining thermal energy in the microwave oven by way of such a process.
Maybe you would like to apply statistical mechanics to the issue of microwave radiation not warming or melting ice cubes.
Though at this point I’m highly sensitized (on a hair-trigger!) to nonsensical postmodern physics as practiced by modern climatologists, I’m pleased to report, after a perusal of Thermal Radiation Phenomena, there is nothing I saw in this book that would offend the sensibilities of my fellow Sky Dragon Slayers. You have no idea how refreshing this is.
In this volume we present a compilation of data needed for the quantitative description of thermal radiation phenomena in heated air, over a wide range of temperature and density. Use of a temperature to describe the state of the air implies some type of partial thermal equilibrium. In the case of complete thermal equilibrium, there can only be an uninteresting homogenous system with no net transport of radiation at all.
—Thermal Radiation Phenomena, Radiation Properties of Air, Volume 1, edited by Rolf K. M. Landshoff and John L. Magee, IFI/Plenum, 1969
Now, onward to finish Max Planck’s lovely little book.
I see that John O’Sullivan is boasting on his several blogs about having recruited Professors Ian Plimer and Paul Reiter into the PSI blog team (see also http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/2009/04/10/heaven-and-earth-ian-plimers-new-book/#comment-6751). They and anyone else contemplating teaming up with John O’Sullivan and his “Slayers” should have a careful read of the comments here. A good starting point is investigative journalist Andrew Skolnick’s comments from 15th Oct 2011 (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-122654). Reading the comments by Andrew, me and the “Slayers” provides a fair understanding of what the team of bloggers at PSI is all about.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
I’m pleased to report that I read through Max Planck’s The Theory of Heat Radiation and I did not see any of the postmodern nonsense we’re used to seeing from academic climatologists. I feel comfortable saying this book could comfortably bear the Sky Dragon Slayer seal of approval.
Generally we may say: Emission without simultaneous absorption is irreversible, while the opposite process, absorption without emission, is impossible in nature.
— Max Planck, The Theory of Heat Radiation, p. 178. Translated by Morton Masius, 1914
Sorry, that’s page 98, not 178. My bad.
Hi Ken, you keep on slipping in a few comments giving your support to the “Slayers” gaggle of CAC science(-fiction?) bloggers but the silence from you and the “Slayers” about that fictitious £10,000 “Ernst-Georg Beck Award for Scientific Integrity and Competence” has been deafening. That award, so proudly announced to be made annually by John O’Sullivan’s embryonic publishing company Principia Scientific International, like so many other claims by John, turned out to be a myth.
This is an outstanding question that we were discussing back in December (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-149671). You will recall that I pointed out in my E-mail to the “Slayers” et al. on 8th Dec. “ ..The award was heralded on numerous Web-sites across the globe .. John O’Sullivan will inaugurate an annual scientific award .. A cheque for US$10,000.- will be presented to the first recipient of the Award, Mr Piers Corbyn .. The main donor is Ken Coffman .. (http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6536). .. I also pointed out that Piers Corbyn had recently told me that .. Last year’s “$10k” was in fact “ .. $10k of which we are giving $9k to our own things and you can have $1k .. ”.
You must admit that it is unusual for an award to be made then the majority of it withheld by the donor. I ask again “ .. Would you like to explain to us all what Piers was talking about when implying that he only received $1,000 of that $10,000. Also, who won the award this year? .. ”. Why did you, John and the other “Slayers” give such a false impression to the general public globally?
Please don’t shy away from clearing up this oddity. Either Piers was lying about not receiving the full £10,000 that you donated – and I have no reason to believe that he was – or the “Slayers” gaggle has again demonstrated that it pays to be cautious about accepting any claims that the group makes, whether regarding CACC science or anything else.
See also http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-191957 final para.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete, would you please make up your mind about whether the amount in question is £10,000 or $10,000? Thank you.
Why Ken? You’re not going to answer his question no matter what symbol is put in front of the 10,000. It’s obvious you’re hoping the scandal will just go away.
If anyone wants to ask further questions about my paper, please do so on the tallbloke’s talkshop site where you will find my thread among the most commented in the left margin.
It appears the self-renowned leader of the Sky Dragon Slayer denier pack just reallized most people aren’t going to believe he earned his “law degree” from the University of Surrey the SAME time he was earning an art degree at a DIFFERENT school!
John O’Sullivan has deleted his entire profile from FriendsReunited website.
http://www.friendsreunited.co.uk/JohnOSullivan
No problem. I took the precaution of archiving it in Webcitation last November:
http://www.webcitation.org/63Xa5IrrY different college!
Apparently, the humbug thought he was a quantum particle — able to occupy two places in the universe at the same time. LOL!
Genuine statement through current NASA employee …
“My son is a nuclear physicist with NASA and knows GHG theory is bogus and NASA distorts AGW data. BHO won’t allow Civil Servants to express skepticism. James Hanson is actual spokesman for NASA on GHG theory, picked by Al Gore and BHO”
This was said by a father to a contact I have who spoke personally with that father on April 13th.
I know from personal experience this sort of thing goes on. I have a nice quote from a prominent meteorologist I’d like to use to promote Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion. The ugly political climate makes it unsafe for this person to express a thoughtful opinion. I suppose consensus scientists are proud of that insidious form of censorship.
I’m finding it very hard to believe that Doug Cotton is a real person!
I expect that very soon he will be unmasked as a very effective practical joker.
His epic “peer reviewed” content free expose of IPCC science has astonished bewildered readers.
He has now revealed that insider information from distant (though secret contacts) from someone who really knows what he is talking about has exposed IPCC science as a fraud.
There is now no room for any doubt!
And so says a person who only dares reveal his first name. You will find me in the Sydney University graduation records for 1967. I am also a member of Principia Scientific International.
http://douglascotton.com
A general energy balance on a volume element includes conduction, convection, internal heat sources, compression work, viscous dissipation and energy storage due to transients, as well as the contribution by radiative heat transfer. Storage of radiant energy within an element is generally negligible; hence no modification of the usual transient terms will be considered here as a result of the radiation field.
—Thermal Radiation Heat Transfer, Second Edition, Robert Siegel and John R. Howell, McGraw-Hill, 1981.
I take this to mean the idea of heat storage in the atmosphere must come from thermalization in a thermal mass derived from specific heat, air density…and temperature. If someone thinks I’m interpreting this incorrectly, I’d be happy to hear about it.
Hi again Ken (ref. April 15 at 10:27 am), my sincere apologies. At what John O’Sullivan called on his FriendReunited page “ .. a Parliamentary meeting on October 27th 2010 to discuss latest developments in the climate change controversy” (http://www.webcitation.org/63Xa5IrrY) he is quite clear proudly displaying a cheque that is made out to Piers Corbyn for TEN THOUSAND $ from your publishing company Stairways Press (http://climaterealists.com/attachments/ftp/CFD%205.jpg). What is not at all clear is why Piers only received $1,000 and the remaining $9,000 was withheld.
Being a bit of a musician (http://www.owlband.com/history.htm) among all of your other talents (berry picker, cat food factory worker, dish washer, Air Force Sergeant, rock-n-roll bass player, concert promoter, author, publisher, electrical engineer and manager) you have probably heard of that popular song “Multiplication, that’s the name of the game” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiW0UV39hPc). Replacing “multiplication” with “procrastination” is relevant here. What’s the “Slayers” game as far as pretending to make an award of $10,000 to poor old Piers but retaining $9,000 for other purposes and why the procrastination by you (and the “Slayers”).
Others can draw their own conclusions from this about how important transparency is to the PSI gaggle.
It would be prudent for Professors Ian Plimer and Paul Reiter and anyone else considering getting into bed with them to have a careful read of the comments here, especially those from Andrew, me and the handful of “Slayers” who have put in an appearance.
I’ve asked Lord Monckton to pass that message on to Professors Plimer and Reiter.
BTW, perhaps you and the “Slayers” can get some help from Steven Cutler (http://how-to-stop-procrastinating.info/). He might even consider joining PSI.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
As I have said, the standard S-B equations still work and my hypothesis is not trying to change these. So I thought I’d set out the following not using my hypothesis at all – just standard physics, which shows why the effect of carbon dioxide on surface temperatures is zero.
1. No solid, liquid or gas can radiate more than a perfect blackbody.
2. A gas will radiate certain frequencies only, but the intensity of each frequency will still be limited by the Planck function, which itself is a function of temperature. (S-B is derived from the integral of the Planck function.)
3. So, depending on the temperature of the region, carbon dioxide will emit at frequencies which may well be (and usually will be) off to one side or the other under a Planck curve – thus strongly attenuated.
4. Hence, over all temperatures in the atmosphere, the mean intensity of carbon dioxide radiation falls a long way short of a true blackbody. (Whereas a blackbody radiates with the full filled in area under the curve, CO2 has just a few thin lines, most of which are not near the top of the curve, but instead have lower intensity at the sides.)
5. Hence its emissivity must be very small. I suspect most likely less than 0.01.
6. When using standard S-B calculations to determine the effect on the rate of radiative cooling, you need to take into account both the temperature of the region from which the radiation comes, and the emissivity.
7. So, when such low figures for emissivity are used in the standard S-B calculations it is obvious that carbon dioxide can have very little effect.
8. Considering the fact that some radiation from the surface goes through the atmospheric window to space, the remaining radiative cooling is well under half (maybe under 30%) of all surface cooling processes.
9. The effect of carbon dioxide is absolutely minuscule and, even then, it only affects the cooling effect of radiation that is absorbed by itself in the atmosphere.
10. Various considerations (such as in the Appendix of my paper linked from my site) present very plausible reasons for other non-radiative cooling rates to increase. Thus the effect on overall cooling rates is most likely zero.
Dougy has waffled on about membership of the “Slayers” science(fiction?) group of PSI bloggers being:
– “ .. a growing membership of PSI (now over 40 I understand).. ” 19th March
– “ .. nearly 40 of us now .. ” 4th April
– “ .. about 36 of us now .. ” 9th April
then we had John O’Sullivan proudly boasting about having recruited {rfessors Ian Plimer and Paul Reiter (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-192564).
I would be most surprised to see any confirmation of John’s claim from either of those professors and speculate that they will instead do similar to what Professor Claes Johnson did here on 15th Oct. “ .. I am not a member of any group .. in particular not the slayers group .. ” (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-122522).
Best regards, Pete
I don’t normally read Ridley’s posts, but I just happened to notice this reference to Prof Claes Johnson who is shown as a member of PSI on their website. I am in frequent internal group email communication with him and other members. Yet again Ridley gets his facts wrong.
When he can explain why the low frequency radiation in a microwave oven is not absorbed at the atomic level then Ridley will find himself having to use Prof Johnson’s hypothesis that radiation with a lower peak frequency than the target is not absorbed. Just another real life example (along with spectroscopy), which proves that what Claes and I are saying in our papers is correct. But even without that, all we need is the fact that, in about 150 years of physics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics has never been proven incorrect.
Hence, the process of radiation passing from a small region in the atmosphere to a small region of the surface which is warmer cannot transfer heat, because the SLoT says it can’t.
Just a final note regarding the so-called “Slayers” group.
My understanding is that the name was attached to the group of eight authors whose papers were included in the book Slaying the Sky Dragon and whose brief bio’s may be read here.
These authors were founding members of Principia Scientific International and some of the more prominent members of PSI, such as Prof Claes Johnson, have short bio’s on the PSI website here), which I would imagine confirms their agreement to be called members thereof.
People can judge for themselves whether or not they consider such a group of members, together with several others, will make a significant contribution in exposing what even existing staff of NASA believe to be “bogus” claims about CO2 and past climate trends.
From my own communications with many members, I can assure you PSI will not be going away. The truth will prevail, as history will one day reveal.
To those who play an ongoing role in perpetuating the hoax, I would suggest that it is getting very close to seeing ring-leaders severely punished at law.
All should think about what it is they hope to achieve in the complete absence of any evidence or valid atmospheric physics supporting the possibility of carbon dioxide (1 molecule in 2,500) having anything but an absolutely minuscule effect on the rate of radiative cooling of the surface. Any such effect is outweighed by its own cooling effects (sending backradiation from solar insolation back into space) and compensating increases in the rates of non-radiative cooling.
Money could be far better spent in developing countries on better food and water supplies and life -saving medical products and services.
So dear old Dougy thinks “ .. that it is getting very close to seeing ring-leaders severely punished at law .. ” (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-192733). It looks as though he has swallowed hook, line and sinker, the ludicrous plan outlined by lead “Slayer”, PSI CEO and “Legal Consultant” John O’Sullivan’s in “Slaying the Sky Dragon” Chapter 21 “Legal Fallout from False Climate Alarm”.
For more on that bit of “Slayer” nonsense please search for “Chapter 21” on this thread. As I pointed out way back on 22nd Oct. it is over 15 months since John proclaimed “ .. I’ve staked my reputation, sweat and own money on beating the AGW fraud in the courts-its the only serious game in town. My legal associates and I are ready and waiting to take the battle on .. ” (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-126001), targeting no less powerful government agencies than “ .. NASA GISS, GHCN and NOAA in the federal court in Washington D.C. .. ” (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-128005).
Shortly afterwards out came the begging bowl (http://www.gofundme.com/1v39s) targeting £15,000. The amount raised so far is a pathetic £450 (of which £350 was donated in the first hour by a member of John’s family and £50 appears to have been donated about a month ago by Dougy when he joined the PSI blogger group. At that rate we just could see PSI taking legal action against those government agencies in around 2050 – I can’t wait!
It is time that the Dougy, “Slayers” and the PSI blogger group woke up to reality.
See also http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-191957 last paragraph.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Let me make it quite clear that I did not imply that PSI would have anything to do with taking any legal action against perpetrators of this criminal hoax.
I assume from Dougy’s earlier comments (e.g. 16th February at 4:52 pm) that when he talked about “ .. taking any legal action against perpetrators of this criminal hoax .. ” (ref. 16th April at 8:36 pm) he was referring to those who are deliberately supporting the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) hypothesis for personal gain, financial or otherwise. There appear to be several hoaxes running alongside each other and they not only involve those perpetrators who support CACC but also those who reject it.
Although there are far more reliable sources, Wikipedia appears to be Doug’s favourite source of information (scientific or otherwise) so here’s a link to the definition there of “hoax” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoax). Note those words “deliberately fabricated falsehood made to masquerade as truth” because in my opinion there are relativley few, on both sides of the CACC debate, who are deliberately fabricating falsehoods.
In the comment here on 15th Oct. at 2:46 pm MattStat’s QUOTE: .. The word “hoax” would be unfortunate .. UNQUOTE almost hits the nail on the head with “ .. interested parties are demanding the transfer of monies to themselves, their companies .. and so forth .. ”. I say almost because of that word “demanding” which I would replace with “inviting”. There is a web-site “Hoax-Slayer” (http://www.hoax-slayer.com/about.html) run by Australian Brett M.Christensen and he has a page of “Charity Hoaxes” (http://www.hoax-slayer.com/charity-hoaxes.html). Charitable appeals, usually are made along the lines of “ .. Please help .. We need funds .. ”, can be just as much a hoax as any demand for money.
I doubt very much if anyone who has been reading the comments here since 26th Oct. (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-128005) would have imagined that “ .. PSI would have anything to do with taking any legal action against perpetrators of this criminal hoax .. ”. As I said on 7th Nov. on 4th Jan. (2011) John O’Sullivan (head “Slayer”, PSI CEO and “Legal Consultant”) said “ .. The Slayers know we are a team operating a book authoring and publishing business and that I’m running this aspect for profit .. my concerns are for the book publishing core of the group .. ” (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-134549).
John was claiming in Dec. 2010/Jan. 2011 that “ .. beating the AGW fraud in the courts-its the only serious game in town .. My legal associates and I are asking your support to help raise funds for our next objective: defeating NASA GISS, GHCN and NOAA in the federal court in Washington D.C. .. what is needed is an effective fund raising strategy .. .. ”. As I pointed out to Bryan here on 14th Dec. PSI is now simply another publishing organisation and an insignificant one at that (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-149933).
Maybe, in the spirit of transparency that is claimed to be so important to PSI, dear old Dougy will enlighten us as to who he understands will be taking legal action against which perpetrators of which criminal hoax.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Dougy says that he doesn’t normally read my comments but in my opinion claims made by those associated with the ”Slayers” and their PSI blog should be taken with a pinch of salt. On more that one occasion I have had reason to challenge their claims, e.g:
– in September 2010 the PSI web-site was claiming that PSI had CIC status in the UK – that was not true, or as John O’Sullivan might put it “ .. in effect, a lie .. ” (16th Nov. at 4:54 pm. Para 3).
– in Sept. 2011 John O’Sullivan responsed to my “ .. your new recruits .. ought to be aware of the exchanges we all had back in Dec/Jan about your grand plans for PSI as a CIC .. ” with “ .. I can further assure you that PSI is no longer contemplating seeking CIC or charity status .. ”. Despite that assurance, until recently PSI was seriously discussing CIC status in its “Why PSI is a Private Association” Web-page, mentioning CIC 24 times. It still talks about being a “ .. start up .. yet to determine whether .. as either a business .. or a charity .. ” (http://principia-scientific.org/about-us/why-psi-is-a-private-assoc) and “ .. with a view to .. a limited company .. CIC .. or charity .. ” (http://principia-scientific.org/about-us/principles-of-association) – see links for the full context.
– in September 2011 PSI’s “Why PSI is a Private Association” was declaring “ .. Our Founding Members and stakeholders include: Dr. Tim Ball, Dr. Martin Hertzberg, Dr. Claes Johnson, Joseph A. Olson, Alan Siddons, Dr. Charles Anderson, John O’Sullivan, Hans Schreuder, Joseph E. Postma, Professor Nasif Nahle, Dr. Matthais Kleespies, Tom Neveu, Derek Alker .. ”. The unanswered question is are they all happy to be described as such? On 19th Sept. one of those listed gave me permission to draw this to the attention of the “Slayers” QUOTE: .. One of the authors of “Slaying the Sky Dragon” who is also named as one of the founding members of PSI .. advised me during these exchanges that he is not a “Slayer” and will not be involved in PSI as there little agreement between him and the “Slayers”. I see that as an important relevant issue – why has someone who is being promoted by PSI as a founder member of this embryonic organisation that is seeking to establish itself internationally with the Core Values declared on its homepage .. chosen to disassociate himself from it. .. UNQUOTE.
Around that time there were others listed who indicated to me that they had dissociated themselves from the group. What does the PSI web-site now say about Founding Members and stakeholders? – Tim Ball, Alan Siddons, Joe Olson, Martin Hertzberg, Charles Anderson, Hans Schreuder, John O’Sullivan, Tom Richard, Philip Foster (http://principia-scientific.org/about-us/why-psi-is-a-private-assoc). That’s down from 13 to 9 with some in and others out. It is noticeable that Professor Claes Johnson is one of the “out”s and is simply presented now as “ .. * Consultant/ Friend of PSI .. ”. Of course he did state categorically here on 15th October that he is “ .. not a member of any group .. in particular not the slayers group .. ” – wise man methinks.
If Doug had spent some of his time reading the comments on this thread instead of wasting it on writing his pseudo-scientific article and spamming it all over the blogosphere he might have understood why Professor Johnson might prefer to publicly dissociated himself from the “Slayers” with those words. In his comment on 18th April at 1:36 am Dougy said “ .. I just happened to notice this reference to Prof Claes Johnson who is shown as a member of PSI on their website. I am in frequent internal group email communication with him and other members. Yet again Ridley gets his facts wrong. .. ”. Something that Dougy didn’t notice but would have if he read more carefully and more widely about the “Slayers” and their PSI blogging group is that Professor Johnson is now no longer presented as a PSI founding member/stakeholder but merely as a Consultant/ Friend of PSI.
It is also noticeable that PSI CEO, Legal Consultant & Founder Member John O’Sullivan has decided not to include among his self-aggrandising claims (http://principia-scientific.org/about-us/why-psi-is-a-private-assoc) that “ .. In the U.S. his work features in the ‘National Review,’ America’s most popular and influential magazine for Republican/conservative news .. ”. Perhaps he has decided to drop that questionable claim to fame, previously made on Blogger, LinkedIn, Suite101, Gravatar, Livejournal, Blogspot, webcommentary, etc. etc. etc. and last, but by no means least, slayingtheskydragon and The International O’Sullivan Clan’s Hall of Fame IV (http://www.osullivanclan.com/halloffamegalleryiv.html) – what a joke.
Another claim made on the PSI blog that I am dubious about is that “ .. Transparency is as important to PSI as it was to Karl Popper .. ” (http://principia-scientific.org/about-us/principles-of-association). I have never had reason to doubt the importance of transparency to Popper. On the other hand I have repeatedly but unsuccessfully encouraged “Slayers”/PSI members both here and in E-mails since Sept. to demonstrate transparency on important issues like motivation, funding, membership and that claimed annual award and the initial $10,000 award to Piers Corbyn that he says became only $1,000.
I prefer not to accept anything from the “Slayers” or PSI on face value. As far as the claimed or implied membership is concerned I would only be convinced by each named individual publicly acknowledging having joined and remained a member – of course excluding John O’Sullivan, Hans Schreuder, Joe Olson, Joseph E. Postma and last but by no means least, dear old Dougy Cotton,
See also http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-191957 last paragraph.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Phew – that took some posting. It was the “B u n g a y” part of “Beccles and … Journal” that caused the problem.
The comment referred to here ( 19th April at 12:23 pm) has been removed by the moderator and I await an indication of what the problem was. See my follow-up comment at on 18th at 5:43 pm.
the comments are getting too personal and too repetitive, violating blog rules
Hi Professor Curry, thanks for the clarification. Message received and understood (in part).
My comment that you removed was aimed at pulling together and cementing earlier comments in order to present a clearer picture of what is behind the “Slayers” and their association PSI. Readers can still get to the facts by ploughing through the comments here by Andrew Skolnick, me and the few “Slayers” who were prepared to contribute.
I’ll take my comment and (with his permission) Andrew’s responses elsewhere but hope that you will not be applying a blanket ban on my comments here. I’ll modify my comment that you objected to and resubmit in th ehope that it meets your blog rules.
The part of your message that is not clearly understood is the “too repetitive” bit considering the amount of repetition from new “Slayer” Doug Cotton without any apparent moderation.
On the matter of “too personal” it is hard to avoid being personal on a thread that is dedicated to “ .. a fitting finale to our engagement with the skydragons .. ”. In your opening article you said “ .. The letter that I am highlighting here was stimulated by this statement from Joe Postma: > In a large way, we are driven to do the research we do because of the myriad and countless other fraudulent claims, presumptions, and sophistries related to climate science .. ”. I don’t often agree with Joe but have no argument on that one.
My comments here were stimulated by my aversion to self-aggrandising but unsubstantiated claims emanating from within the skydragon “Slayers”/PSI group which, in your opinion QUOTE: .. has damaged the credibility of skepticism about climate change and provides a convenient target when people want to refer to “deniers” and crackpots. .. UNQUOTE.
I am highly sceptical of the claims made by supporters of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) hypothesis and consider that much of what we are told through the media is simply pseudo-scientific propaganda that has more to do with politics than science. Deliberately misleading claims are made by various groups for reasons of vested interest having nothing to do with trying to control the different global climates and these have damaged the credibility of honest (but misguided?) individuals and groups. On the other hand there are those who reject the CACC hypothesis who also do so out of self-interest which has just as damaging an effect on the credibility of the genuine sceptics. In my opinion too the “Slayers”/PSI group falls into that category.
It is all very well to express an opinion but the acid test is does the evidence support that opinion. The scientific aspects of the debate have been addressed quite thoroughly in your previous “Slayer” threads. On this thread I have been presenting non-scientific evidence that has led me to form mine about the “Slayers”/PSI group so that others can make their own assessment of what my opinion is worth. I believe that applies to almost everything that I have posted (and tried to post) here.
There is much more to this debate than the science. There is much more to the “Slayers”/PSI group than their version of the science. There is much more to each of the individuals involved with that group than their scientific arguments.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete, I think it’s unfortunate readers of this Sky Dragon Slayer Discussion are not able to read about the snowballing legal troubles of Slayer leaders Tim Ball, John O’Sullivan and their association Principia Scientific International.
A Supreme Court of British Columbia hearing in the matter of Michael Mann vs. Timothy Ball, et. al, is scheduled for May 2, for which I was asked to submit a 180-page affidavit documenting the results of my investigation. I expect my affidavit and exhibits will have a serious if not devastating effect on the defendants’ case. It’s unfortunate that readers here will not be able to read about the developments in the case that John O’Sullivan calls “the science trial of the century.”
Pete this message is ok. Off limits is discussion that brings in family members or extraneous accusations. It is ok to discuss topics related directly to their role in the science debate, and their professional credentials
If there is any further discussion, may I suggest we all transfer to this newer thread, picking up from this comment ….
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/04/new-evidence-our-record-warm-march-was-not-from-global-warming/#comment-44353
Or, if you wish, you can write on the tallbloke thread. Tallbloke and RoySpencer will be the only sites I reply on in future as my time is limited.
Hi Andrew, it looks as though Professor Curry’s moderator is not prepared to allow comments to be posted about John O’Sullivan’s activities between 2003 and 2008. I’ve saved the copies of your two comments that came through in E-mails as comment notifications and if you would like a copy of my 3-part comment that you were responding to (which must only have stayed on the thread for a short while) I can E-mail it.
Please moderator would you explain what is wrong with us posting relevant comments about members of the “Slayers” on a thread about the “dragon slayers”.
Mine was mainly pulling together much of what has been posted here already in sundry comments, along with other relevant facts.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
DELETED. no reference to Vanilla Girl, etc. and all this is getting repetitive
What I find ironic and a bit comical is that right now, at the heart of what the Sky Dragon Slayers call the “the science trial of the century,” is John O’Sullivan’s role in the matters described in that “true story” novel as well as his role in his wife’s law suits, which are described in his other “true story” novel.
In two weeks, the court hearing climatologist Mann’s libel suit against John O’Sullivan’s partner Tim Ball, will consider whether John O’Sullivan is a lawyer or a fraud. Among the exhibits of evidence the court will review before deciding are John O’Sullivan’s writings about those affairs — which are now banned from this discussion about the Sky Dragon Slayers. Go figure.
Pete Ridley
But what if he /she /them/ or us are right about the science?
I have posted in the past about Al Gore and O’Sullivan.
Neither of whom have an educated clue about what they are talking about.
Why do scientists defer to personalities?
If you had been following the science debate you would realise that Doug Cotton has done more to discredit the slayers than yourself and Andrew.
Yet Joserph Postma has made a very important contribution to the climate debate.
To smear all with allegations that should be subject to the criminal courts does not advance the examination of ideas about our climate.
The internet is a open format for gross abuse of unfounded allegations where only the very rich has a recourse.
You would appear to be advocating that we can disregard without reason any comment from ‘the slayers’.
This is outrageous censorship that should be condemned in any liberal society.
Chris Ho Stuart was entirely correct when he said that on a science blog like Judiths we should concentrate on the science if we can.
Hi Bryan (19th April at 6:50 pm) I see that you are once again distorting what I have said. Perhaps you’d be kind enough to elaborate on what are those “ .. allegations that should be subject to the criminal courts .. ” that you suggest I “ .. smear all with .. ” and how I “ .. appear to be advocating that we can disregard without reason any comment from ‘the slayers’ .. ”. Even if I was advocating such a thing, which I am not, that in itself does not constitute censorship (i.e the suppression of such comments). You ought to be aware that choosing or encouraging others to ignore someone’s comments is not censorship).
Just because – after reading through their hodge-podge collection of blog articles known as “Slaying the Sky Dragon .. ”, the numerous E-mail exchanges that took place during Sept/Oct and the volumes of nonsense that Doug Cotton has been pouring out for the past month – I personally have been put right off reading their pseudo-scientific arguments does nothing to suppress them.
Regarding the poorly understood science relating to claims about CACC, I have no disagreement with scientific hypotheses being properly presented, reviewed and debated as long as it is done by those who understand the arguments. Isn’t that how scientific understanding has developed so spectacularly over the millennia? What I am concerned about is the distortion of the scientific arguments by others who are concerned more about their own vested interests than about improving scientific understanding.
You don’t need to concern yourself about me following the science debate about the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) hypothesis. I do the best that I can with my limited knowledge of the numerous disciplines involved in trying to improve our poor understanding of the processes and drivers of the different global climates. In my arrogance I consider that I have an advantage over many others involved in the debate in that I recognise my own limitations and am prepared to openly admit them.
We have not often agreed on anything during our exchanges here but I do fully agree with your comment on 15th Dec. (at 12:22 pm) “ .. Its indeed a strange world where folk with genuine scientific qualifications and credibility like Postma, Peirs Corbyn and Claes Johnson seem to need a front man without any formal scientific training and who requires name changing from time to time .. ”. Only people like Postma, Corbyn, Johnson and the rest of those who have jumped into bed with John O’Sullivan and his PSI blogging group can explain that one. As I said here to Vernon Kuhns on 26th Oct. “ .. The point that I .. continued to make to the “Slayers” during those “PSI & Due Diligence” exchanges was that everyone involved with the “Slayers”/PSI would be affected by questionable activities by any one individual member. As the sayings go “You are judged by the company you keep” and “Mud sticks” (See also my comment on 7th Nov. at 4:22 pm. Paras 6 & 7).
Picking up on your theme about allegations, courts and your comment of 15th Dec. when you said QUOTE: .. “legal action” ….. I don’t see any of that directly involving PSI .. UNQUOTE you should remember that Tim Ball is Chairman of PSI and John O’Sullivan is PSI’s CEO and “Legal consultant”. You should be aware of the implied allegation made by Dr. Tim Ball of criminal behaviour by Dr. Michael Mann, who has now taken legal action against Ball for libel (http://judithcurry.com/2011/04/09/lawyering-up/). I don’t think that anyone would claim that either of these two are among the “ .. very rich .. “ that you mention and the begging bowls have come out for each party. I raised this with the “Slayers” group et al. on 30th Sept. (Postma had joined by this stage) QUOTE: .. My understanding is that Dr. Mann would have accepted an apology (http://rabett.blogspot.com/2011/03/coming-soon-to-courthouse-near-you.html) which might have avoided the need for you to make another funding appeal, “Top Climate Skeptic Seeks Help in Double-barrel Courtroom Shootout By John O. Sullivan” (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/08/help-asked-for-dr-tim-ball-in-legal-battle-with-dr-mann/). In his Email of 27th May @ 06:02 PM John claimed that “ .. Part of helping Tim defend himself .. has been in raising funds via public donations .. Dr. Ball’s supporters have .. donated well over $100,000CAD 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 .. 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 .. ” .. UNQUOTE.
Although John O’Sullivan was at that time his usual bullish self about defendant Ball’s outcome (after all, look who he has as a legal consultant on his team! – see John O’Sullivan’s comment here of 16th Nov. at 7:17 am) Mann appears to have a strong case. Andrew Skolnick advised us all in his comment of 19th April QUOTE: .. A Supreme Court of British Columbia hearing in the matter of Michael Mann vs. Timothy Ball, et. al, is scheduled for May 2, for which I was asked to submit a 180-page affidavit documenting the results of my investigation. I expect my affidavit and exhibits will have a serious if not devastating effect on the defendants’ case. It’s unfortunate that readers here will not be able to read about the developments in the case that John O’Sullivan calls “the science trial of the century.” .. UNQUOTE.
I look forward to 2nd May.
On 14th Dec. (at 4:04 am) you said “ .. Pete Ridley Unlike you my only knowledge of the ‘slayers’ is from reading Postma’s papers and Claes Johnsons ideas expressed here and in his blog .. ” so like most people you really speak about them (as well as the science) from a position of relative ignorance. After the Ball v Mann case has been decided we may all have a better understanding of what was the motivation for setting up PSI.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Hi Bryan, regarding your “ .. on a science blog like Judiths we should concentrate on the science if we can .. ”
I think that I have said before that I am happy to leave it to Professor Curry to dictate what and what is not permitted on her blog.
Hi Bryan, in your comment of 19th April at 6:50 pm. when complaining about “outrageous censorship” you made reference to “ .. Joserph Postma .. very important contribution to the climate debate” and went on to say “ .. Chris Ho Stuart was entirely correct when he said .. we should concentrate on the science .. ”.
It would be wonderful if everyone did only that and only had the objective of getting to the scientific truth. Unfortunately, as far as CACC is concerned, politics and vested interest are the drivers – at all levels.
On 7th September, following discussions on Professor Curry’s “Physics of the atmospheric greenhouse effect” thread (http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/30/physics-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect/#comment-108941), E-mail exchanges (involving several “Slayers” and others who had been involved in the discussions about setting up PSI as a CIC) on the subject of “Back Radiation” were started by Roger Taguchi. Because Roger’s discussions focussed on parts of Professor Grant Petty’s text book I asked him and Dr. Robert Kknuteson to participate, which they were good enough to do – Professor Petty went even beyond the “Letter” that is the subject of this thread and despite the insults that came his way.
Professor Curry was added to the circulation on 10th Dec. and the subject was broadened to “Back Radiation and the Greenhouse Effect” (64 pages of Word). It was the science that was being discussed, nothing else.
Consequent upon those exchanges, on 17th Dec. Roger started another E-mail thread “Resolution of conflict between me and Prof. Grant Petty” in which previous misunderstandings were acknowledged and resolved. Unfortunately the tone changed, with insulting comments from Slayers Joe Olson and John O’Sullivan after I had expressed my opinion (after reading the free chapters of “Slaying the Sky Dragon”) that “ .. the book wasn’t of any scientific significance and there are more worthy sources of information .. ”. Having read the whole book now my opinion has not changed one bit.
It was then Professor Curry’s turn to be insulted, first by the lead “Slayer” then by his henchman Joe Olson. At this point (18th Sept) I drew to the group’s attention the fact that the debate on “ .. Professor Curry’s “Slaying a greenhouse dragon” thread (http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/31/slaying-a-greenhouse-dragon/) after a three month quiet period had been kicked back into activity on 4th June by one Andrew Skolnick, who was questioning the self-promotional claims that John had made. I don’t recall John taking up the challenge from Andrew to provide convincing evidence supporting those claims .. ”. Hopefully those answers will be disclosed on and after 2nd May during the Mann v Ball libel case in British Columbia.
I also said then that “ … I predict that attempts to establish PSI as a significant international scientific association with an executive comprising Tim Ball (President), John (CEO), Hans Schroeder (CFO), Rev. Philip Foster (Compliance Officer) plus Dr. Martin Hertzberg, Dr. Claes Johnson, Joe, Alan Siddons and Dr. Charles Anderson .. will be no more successful than the attempt to raise funds on gofundme .. ” (£450 of a targeted £15,000 raised in 15 months!! – http://www.gofundme.com/1v39s&aff=GFMse).
Those exchanges, covering several subjects including “PSI & Poltics” “John O’Sullivan’s specious claims” and “Derogatory Claims Against the Slayers”, continued into January and Joe Postma figured large. On 12th Dec. he jumped to John O’Sullivan’s defence after John had acknowledged his alter-ego John Daly O’Neal and his own involvement in a British court for what he described as being “ .. maliciously prosecuted for allegedly sending sexual text messages and for allegedly assaulting the girl .. ”.
Joe Postma’s supportive comment included QUOTE: .. The attempt to infringe John O’Sullivan’s character, and thusly connect such an attempt to a scientific issu .. is the basest form of debate. It is not actually debate, it is simply the attempt to murder someone and throw dirt on them, as a means of implicating said person’s acquaintances .. Chris Ho-Stuart has summed it up nicely on the ClimateEtc thread “Andrew: .. Your continued focus on the person — indeed only one person — is a classic case of the purest ad hominem in this more general discussion of the greenhouse effect and backradiation and so on. Furthermore, you have really gone over the edge in bringing up his work as a private tutor, or his marriage. That’s beyond ridiculous. Cut it out.” .. Peter Ridley: .. I don’t care what you think you know about John O’Sullivan…I don’t even care if you are right. It has NOTHING to do with the anti-human & bigoted fraud of alarmist environmentalism based on the greenhouse effect .. Same goes for you Andrew .. UNQUOTE.
It is not unknown for Joe Postma to have views that differ significantly from those of even his closest associates (and that goes for some among the PSI blogging team, past and present – although it is proving very difficult to identify who is in and who is out of that lot right now).
Anyone wishing to understand the full context of those exchanges need only ask and I’ll send a copy of my 187-page Word document containing the E-mails.
Best regards, Pete Ridley