Tim Curtin’s incompetence with basic statistics is the stuff of legend. Curtin has now demonstrated incompetence at a fairly new journal called The Scientific World Journal. Consider his very first “result” (emphasis mine):

I first regress the global mean temperature (GMT) anomalies against the global annual values of the main climate variable evaluated by the IPCC Hegerl et al. [17] and Forster et al. [28] based on Myhre et al. [29], namely, the total radiative forcing of all the noncondensing greenhouse gases [RF]

Annual(Tmean) = a + b[RF] + u(x)

The results appear to confirm the findings of Hegerl et al. [17] with a fairly high R^2
and an excellent t-statistic (>2.0) and P-value (<0.01) but do not pass the Durbin-Watson test (>2.0) for spurious correlation (i.e., serial autocorrelation), see Table 1. **This result validates the null hypothesis** of no statistically significant influence of radiative forcing by noncondensing GHGs on global mean temperatures.

Any first year stats student or competent peer reviewer should be able to tell you that you a statistical test cannot prove the null hypothesis. But it’s far worse than that as Tamino explains:


The DW statistic for his first regression is d = 1.749. For his sample size with one regressor, the critical values at 95% confidence are dL = 1.363 and dU = 1.496. Since d is greater than dU, we do not reject the null hypothesis of uncorrelated errors.

This test gives no evidence of autocorrelation for the residuals. But Tim Curtin concluded that it does. He further concluded that such a result means no statistically significant influence of greenhouse gas climate forcing (other than water vapor) on global temperature. Even if his DW test result were correct (which it isn’t), that just doesn’t follow. …

In other words, the regression which Curtin said fails the DW test actually passes, while the regression which he said passes, actually fails.

And — the presence of autocorrelation doesn’t invalidate regression anyway.

I have to wonder what kind of “peer-reviewed” scientific journal would publish this. Who were the referees for this paper?

And do check out Curtin’s responses in comments where he insists that he didn’t get it wrong. Curtin’s understanding of statistics is so poor that he can’t recognize his own mistakes.

Comments

  1. #1 Tim Curtin
    www.timcurtin.com
    May 25, 2012

    Thanks Lotharsson, but you omit to mention Foster’s refusal so far to admit his error re the D-W in my ACE2011 paper. I am fully aware that 0-180 covers only half the globe, I leave it to you to do the other half and prove me wrong.
    Fitting trends, it seems worth seeking the best fit, and that’s why Excel etc facilitate it. A linear fit on PW with R2=0.0002 hardly supports you guys’ belief in PW as a powerful feedback. The polynomials fit ENSO and PDO amazingly well.
    Was Tyndall wrong to consider [H2O] as a forcing not a feedback? His physical experiments proved it is a forcing because by heating his cylinder with pre-inserted H2O he found the absorption and radiation by the H2O was more than 6 times larger than from CO2:
    “Air direct from the laboratory, containing therefore its carbonic acid and aqueous
    vapour, produced an absorption of 15.Deducting the effect of the gaseous acids, it was found that the quantity of aqueous vapour diffused through the atmosphere on the day in question, produced an absorption at least equal to thirteen times that of the atmosphere itself.” Thus removing the CO2 reduced absorption by both H2O and CO2 by only 2.
    .
    I have now done bivariate LSR of ESRL surface air temperature on PW and [CO2] from 1959 to 2011, and using Foster’s D-W tables, it is clear there is autoregression, with D-W=1.325 while the lower D-W limit is 1.49 (n=53, 2 variables, 5%), unless the intercept is through the origin, in which case D-W at 1.415 is in the uncertain zone (lower 1.382, upper 1.424).
    Differencing, as recommended by Granger (won real Nobel prize in 2003) and Newbold (1974) if not by Foster, raises the D-W to 2.65 but eliminates any statistical significance for effects of changes in [CO2] on temperature change (intercept through origin).

  2. #2 Robert Murphy
    May 25, 2012

    “In my paper [H2O] is a primary radiative forcing, rather than merely a secondary feedback. ”

    In the real world, however, it can’t be.

    “My paper also shows the absurdity in the Trenberth claim (quoted verbatim at its endnote 17) adopted by AR4 that natural [H2O] cannot be a primary forcing, as it is not a “long-lived” GHG because it precipitates down within 10 days or less, whereas [H2O] arising from the claimed global warming is a long-lived and powerful GHG because apparently it NEVER precipitates, presumably through some magical property of Clausius-Clapeyron that is not actually stated therein.”

    Never is it claimed that H20 is anything but a feedback. Nowhere is it claimed it can’t precipitate out of the atmosphere if the water vapor increase is the result of global warming – you made that claim up by pulling it out of your posterior. You are full of shit Tim. You are a lying moron.

  3. #3 Robert Murphy
    May 25, 2012

    “whereas [H2O] arising from the claimed global warming is a long-lived and powerful GHG because apparently it NEVER precipitates”

    Rereading your last post,Mr. Curtin, it appears you meant to say CO2 there (one would hope, anyway). Of course it is true that CO2 doesn’t precipitate out of the atmosphere. The only GHG that does is water vapor. What you have completely confused is the difference between the residence time of an individual CO2 molecule (which is short- about 5 years) and the time it takes for added CO2 to be removed from the atmosphere (which takes decades or longer). Add it to the long and ever growing list of things that confuse you. Natural carbon sinks simply take a very long time to work. Water vapor, on the other hand, changes essentially instantaneously.

    “the NCEP data sets provide no evidence that what it calls “Precipitable Water” (i.e. [H2O]) has increased because of global warming between 1948 and 2011…”

    That specific humidity has increased because of warming is a well documented observation. It’s expected from basic physics, and it happens. That you are willing to accept the early NCEP upper atmosphere data that is known to have serious problems is very in keeping with your general propensity to incompetency. You don’t know stats, you don’t know physics, and you don’t know jack. I have no more inclination to waste my time on a dishonest hack like you. Have a nice life of willful ignorance. :)

  4. #4 Marco
    May 25, 2012

    Lotharsson, did you just compare Bernard to TC? ;-)

    Ouch!

  5. #5 Tim Curtin
    www.timcurtin.com
    May 25, 2012

    Robert Murphy said above: You are full of shit Tim. You are a lying moron.

    If that is not abuse, what would be?

  6. #6 bill
    May 25, 2012

    Calling people ‘Goebbelistic’?

  7. #7 Tim Curtin
    www.timcurtin.com
    May 25, 2012

    Reply to Murphy 25 May:

    Murphy: “That specific humidity has increased because of warming is a well documented observation. It’s expected from basic physics, and it happens”. Really?
    Yes, with a pathetic linear trend fit at R2 of 0.26 (at 1000 mb), whilst at poly #6 the prediction for 2012 is negative (R2=0.57).

    Get real.

    Tim

  8. #8 Lotharsson
    May 25, 2012

    I am fully aware that 0-180 covers only half the globe…

    So you’re admitting making deliberate and uncorrected mistakes now?

    That’s a tiny bit of progress.

    Fitting trends, it seems worth seeking the best fit,…

    But still making the same idiotic fundamental mistakes, I see. I won’t bother to explain why this is a mistake, since it’s been dealt with several times on this thread alone and you are clearly either intellectually unable or determinedly unwilling to grok it – or you’re simply lying about it. None of the options makes you look good.

  9. #9 Lotharsson
    May 25, 2012

    If that is not abuse, what would be?

    To demonstrate that it’s abuse, you’d have to show that it’s not a reasonable inference from the evidence provided (e.g. on this blog, and perhaps others).

    Allowing for the colloquial form of expression used, I’m not at all convinced you will be able to plausibly achieve that. Your best shot appears to be to vigorously dispute one of either “lying” or “moron” by enthusiastically embracing the other, given that “Full of shit” has been beyond all reasonable dispute for quite some time.

  10. #10 Lotharsson
    May 25, 2012

    Get real.

    I nominate this for Best Clown-Trolling One-Liner in May!

    In just two words the guy touting the completely unphysical implications of a 6th order polynomial fit ironically undermines his entire faux thesis by bringing the audience crashing back to the ground and bounds of physical reality – and most remarkably of all plays the entire thing completely deadpan, inviting the audience to speculate as to whether he’s actually in on the joke, or not.

    Sunspot at his best rarely approached such compact brilliance.

  11. #11 JamesA
    May 25, 2012

    > Was Tyndall wrong to consider [H2O] as a forcing not a feedback? His physical experiments proved it is a forcing because by heating his cylinder with pre-inserted H2O he found the absorption and radiation by the H2O was more than 6 times larger than from CO2:

    TC, you blatantly still haven’t bothered to learn the difference between a forcing and a feedback like I suggested right back at the top of the thread. Contrary to what you seem to think, just because something acts as a GHG, it does not make it a forcing. This is something I teach to second-year undergraduates and I can’t be bothered trying to explain it to you any further. There are very concise definitions of both terms in the IPCC report and I suggest you try reading it. You won’t catch cooties, I promise.

  12. #12 Lionel A
    May 25, 2012

    TC

    To Robert Murphy, Marco, Wow, P. Lewis, Lionel A:
    Dear all, do read my paper.

    You seem to have overlooked the part in a previous post of mine where I stated that I had, but then you overlook much.
    As it was, I found your paper turgid and often ambiguous. It would appear that the same clarity of thought that you have displayed here and at Tamino’s is a hallmark of yours.
    Another hallmark is the ideological basis of much of your production, so much so that it nearly always comes across as a rant. Here is a brief selection to illustrate, although we have to imagine the ‘redacted’ parts:
    A href=”http://www.skepticalscience.com/search.php?Search=Curtin&x=0&y=0”>Curtin’s Capers
    Little wonder that you are non too popular because of your habit of calling malfeasance where there is none. It seems typical that those who are quick to denigrate the thoughts and words of others are so thin skinned when it comes to getting some of their own back. Also, such people nearly always blur the difference between personal attack (Ad hominem) and a disagreement with thoughts and ideas.
    In short, any discussion with those who have failed to develop rational and reasonable mores in debate is likely to be non-productive.

  13. #13 ianam
    May 25, 2012

    “If that is not abuse”

    If it is, it is well deserved.

  14. #14 Tim Curtin
    ww.timcurtin.com
    May 26, 2012

    Grant Foster at his “Open Mind” (joke?) along with TL here has aggressively and rudely criticised my paper “Applying Econometrics to the Carbon Dioxide Control Knob” in The Scientific World Journal 2012.

    What really puzzles GF is the way I rejected regression with the un-differenced variables. My first regression was temperature (GISStemp) against greenhouse-gas climate forcing.

    My paper stated (inaccurately as GF rightly points out) “The results appear to confirm the findings of Hegerl et al. [17] with a fairly high R2 and an excellent t-statistic (>2.0) and P-value (2.0) for spurious correlation (i.e., serial autocorrelation), see Table 1. This result validates the null hypothesis of no statistically significant influence of radiative forcing by noncondensing GHGs on global mean temperatures”.

    GF helpfully provided Tables that I was unaware of that set out the critical values of the DW or d statistic, which for one independent variable and n=31 observations, are dL = 1.36 and dU = 1.5, but my Table 1 reported DW at 1.75, so although well below 2, it was still above the dU critical value below which there is a possibility of autocorrelation, but also well above dL which unequivocally spells autocorrelation.

    However there are various statistics textbooks for which DW around 2 is treated as a rule of thumb for detecting autocorrelation. For example, Feinstein & Thomas (2002: 315): “If there is no autocorrelation, the value of d will be approximately 2”.

    More directly applicable is Statistical Analysis in Climate Research (von Storch and Zwiers 1999). At p.14 they state “meteorological time series are generally auto-correlated”, a fact evidently unknown to TL, and at p.254: “Samples taken from white noise processes will have values of d (i.e. DW) near 2.” Plainly my Table showed d=1.75.

    There are ways of dealing with auto-regression, and one is the first differencing I employed in the rest of my paper (see von S & Z: 204, equation 10.6).

    But in his second attack on me (“Big Difference” 23 May) GF derided me for using first differences: “Curtin claimed that the absence of autocorrelation is required for valid regression, which is also wrong. Nonetheless he uses that claim to justify requiring regression be performed on differenced variables. Curtin isn’t the first (and won’t be the last) to claim that regression of climate variables like global temperature should be done using differenced variables.” Actually real Nobel Economics prize winner Clive Granger (with Newbold 1974) recommended that, so can we expect TL and GF to be nominated for Nobels soon for reversing that?

    Then von S and Z have this to say about DW and differencing: “Since first differencing filters out low-frequency variability and ENHANCES high-frequency variability (cf.11.4.4 and Figure 11.9) time series from processes more persistent than white noise will tend to have values of d less than 2… Samples from processes that have relatively more high-frequency variability than white noise will tend to have values greater than 2” (1999:254) (my caps).

    That is what my paper confirms, as the DW in its differenced regressions are all >2. However von S and Z state in fn1 on p.254 that “a time series that has been differenced to remove [auto-regressive] trend will also show excessive high-frequency variability” – but is that not what we observe in the climate of the real world?

    But as I have noted before, while the von S and Zwiers textbook is examplary, Zwiers as co-lead author of WG1 Chapter 9 NEVER deploys ANY of the techniques he expounds in his co-authored textbook. To me that suggests he knows that if he had, the whole edifice of his Chapter 9 (the SOLE source of the AR4 claim that “most” of observed global warming since 1950 is due to rising [CO2]) would crumble into dust, as my paper shows, despite the meretricious attacks on it here, and not least because at no point do Hegerl and Zwiers as leads of that chapter even mention Tyndall’s demonstration of the primary radiative forcing from non-anthropogenic atmospheric water vapour.

  15. #15 Lionel A
    May 26, 2012

    And so to Windmills

  16. #16 ianam
    May 26, 2012

    ” aggressively and rudely criticised my paper ”

    Ooh! Ooh!

    You are so pathetic, Tim Curtin; one cannot help but feel sorry for you.

  17. #17 Lotharsson
    May 27, 2012

    BTW:

    …aggressively and rudely criticised my paper…

    Pot. Kettle. Black.

  18. #18 P. Lewis
    May 27, 2012

    I’ve entered “corrigendum” and “corrigenda” as search items in SWJ‘s search field, and the results were “Your search returned no results” both times. I entered “econometrics” just to check things were working and it returned Timmy’s paper as the only result. There doesn’t appear to be any information from SWJ‘s home page about Corrigenda and Errata policies, which seems unusual.

    Is this journal just too young to have any corrigenda perhaps, or have all their authors to date just published perfect papers/results?

  19. #19 Tim Curtin
    www.timcurtin.com
    May 27, 2012

    Lewis: I do not think corrections are necessary:

    1. Re D-W, as I have noted above D-W around 2 has been an acceptable benchmark even to von Storch and Zwiers of AR4 WG1 Ch.9. Moreover pace Foster’s false allegation, the D-W in my ACE2011 paper that he also attacks is well below the lower DW (dL).

    2. As for my 1st differencing , criticised by Foster, but recommended in dozens of texts including Granger & Newbold 1974 and even by Enders 2010. Foster is entitled to his opinion like you but has either of you published anything of value and honesty?

  20. #20 Lotharsson
    May 27, 2012

    Is this journal just too young to have any corrigenda perhaps,…

    I’ve seen comments strongly suggesting it’s pretty much a vanity publication journal, in which case perhaps a section for corrections would merely deliver negative ;-)

  21. #21 Tim Curtin
    www.curtin.com
    May 27, 2012

    Loathsome Lotharssome: have you ever made a peer reviewed PUBLISHED comment here or anywhere which is a useful contribution to knowledge? Do tell us.

  22. #22 Tim Curtin
    www.timcurtin.com
    May 27, 2012

    Despite the risk of being off thread, may I make the point here, as I have in my paper which is a follow-up to my TSWJ paper, but this time under peer review in a mainstream Australian academic journal, that John Tyndall (1861) actually showed by his physical experiments that it is the non-GHG gases, namely Oxygen and Nitrogen (+ derivatives other than CO2 and H2O), which have what climate scientists (all of whom are flat earthers) believe is the alleged heat trapping effect of atmospheric H2O and CO2.

    Tyndall’s experiments showed that heating a cylinder at one end which had only N and O produced no measurable change in T at the other end, whilst if both CO2 and H2O were present there was a strong absorbing and radiative effect.

    With only H2O and CO2 in the cylinder, the heating emerging at the far end was 15 times that when only N and O were present. Eliminating the CO2, the heating was 13 times larger.

    If any of you can read, Tyndall’s experiments show that N and O are the real GHGs, as they neither absorb nor radiate heat, while it is the aqueous water vapour and carbonic acid (as JT called them) that both absorb and radiate the heat diffused from the earth’s surface, thereby creating a cooling equilibrium, unlike the N and O, which in the absence of the [H2O] and [CO2] really would cook us.

  23. #23 Robert Murphy
    May 27, 2012

    Tim Curtin#1:
    “The second key aspect of water vapor is that it is a potent greenhouse gas”

    Tim Curtin#2:
    “…it is the non-GHG gases, namely Oxygen and Nitrogen (+ derivatives other than CO2 and H2O), which have what climate scientists (all of whom are flat earthers) believe is the alleged heat trapping effect of atmospheric H2O and CO2. “

  24. #24 chek
    May 27, 2012

    Tim (as in Lambert, not Curtin) in light of T.C.’s comment @ 2.26 p.m. 27 May 2012 may I suggest correcting the thread title from “Tim Curtin’s incompetence with basic statistics” to “Tim Curtin’s Topsy-Turvy Incompetent and Most Sublimely Fcukwitted Non Comprehension Of Basic Science In The World Like, Ever”. The corollary to Tim C’s headsplitting scientific “logic” of course being that moreatmospheric CO2 can only be a good thing. Quelle surprise.

    It’s beyond parody and deserves to be forwarded to the editors of every currently publishing science journal so they know what to expect when a Curtin paper lands on their collective if virtual doormats. Heartland might have bought it, but they’re broke and in a high-G death spiral from which little can escape before impact.

  25. #25 Bernard J.
    May 27, 2012

    Tyndall’s experiments showed…[blah, blah, blah].

    This is the most amazing display of cluelessness I’ve seen in a long time, and I’ve seen plenty of cluelessness from the Denialati.

    The only other wingnut pseudoscience that I could possibly compare it to is Grima Wormtongue’s bizarre abuse of statistics and graphs – and in keeping with the latter Dunningly-Krugered individual I suspect that there is not a single person on the planet who could explain to Curtin why he is so painfully wrong.

    It’s been a good laugh, but the fact that there are hundreds of folk who will be completely suckered by this mumbo-jumbo makes it merely sad, and concerning.

    If this nonsensical affectation of science is where the world is at, we’re FUBARed.

  26. #26 ianam
    May 27, 2012

    we’re FUBARed

    That’s where the evidence points.

  27. #27 Lionel A
    May 27, 2012

    Bernard @ 5:10 pm

    This is the most amazing display of cluelessness I’ve seen in a long time, and I’ve seen plenty of cluelessness from the Denialati.

    Have a mung through the comments here and and here for some more Curtin’s capers..

    As for being FUBARed, yes you could call it ‘curtins’ I suppose as the world would have been ‘Curtined’..

  28. #28 DarylD
    William Lamb's Town Down Under
    May 27, 2012

    So Tim Curtin, expects me to believe his denialati horse hockey incoherent alchemy econometrics mathematical nonsensical high pass filter, purely designed to amplify the noise and eliminate the basic signal, actually overturns two hundred years of modern peer reviewed science since the days of Joseph Fourier. As, if that would happen in the real world, where global warming is a reality.

    TC’s new econometrics illogical paper, fails “Occam’s Razor Test”, at every level possible.

    The definition of “Econometrics” is……………………………………….

    It ignores the latest paper, in the long line of many, published in a real peer reviewed journal under the title “Evidence of unusual late 20th century warming from an Australasian temperature reconstruction spanning the last millennium”.

    link: – http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00649.1?journalCode=clim

    Personally, on a grading of “0 to 100″, I would grade TC’s paper of econometric mathematical nonsense, zero out of possible score of one hundred. I suspect a consensus opinion from a 97% plus of all real mathematicians among us, would concur on the same grading as well. I.E. a complete waste of bytes in digital cyberspace.

    Reality has a liberal bias and an “open mind”.

    The irony here in this thread, is that every time Tim posts a reply, the bigger the hole he digs and the larger the volume of horse hockey he buries himself in, by his own hand.

    Tim Curtin, infestation to be removed in 10, 9.8………………

  29. #29 P. Lewis
    May 28, 2012

    I won on the lottery this weekend. The winnings are almost enough to meet the costs of publishing in TSWJ, so I’ve decided I’m going to submit a paper there. The $1000 question, of course, is what subject area I should write about.

    Now, I’ve been following the discussions on a couple of right- and left-wing economics blogs over the past week or three and feel I now have a good handle on where everyone has been going wrong with regard to economics theory(ies) these last 150 years or so. None of the bona fide economists [sic] writing on those blogs have had a good word to say about my ideas. Leftists and rightists have been ganging up on me. What do they know? All they seem to do is berate me for my “silly” uneducated views and point me here! They are blind to the fact that my 43-degree polynomial describes Burkina Faso’s GDP better than any of their under-parameterised models. And I’ve pointed out to them that by using my theory and a 74-degree polynomial that a way out of the Greek/euro-zone crisis exists where everyone is a winner: yes, low inflation, wiping out of national debts, full employment, … and there is no need for any austerity programmes.

    When I’m published they’ll all have to bow down to my superior knowledge then, won’t they!?

    Oh sh… TSWJ doesn’t publish economics papers (well, that seems to be true anyway). What to do now?

  30. #30 JamesA
    May 28, 2012

    > If any of you can read, Tyndall’s experiments show that N and O are the real GHGs, as they neither absorb nor radiate heat, while it is the aqueous water vapour and carbonic acid (as JT called them) that both absorb and radiate the heat diffused from the earth’s surface, thereby creating a cooling equilibrium, unlike the N and O, which in the absence of the [H2O] and [CO2] really would cook us.

    Good grief. Read Tyndall yourself (or any textbook on the subject) and you’ll see you have it all completely back to front. It’s the IR absorbing gases that act as GHGs and keep the planet warm.

    This has been somewhat entertaining but by now I am genuinely hoping you are just engaging in some kind of masochistic form of trolling or this is some elaborate form of character assassination, I really do.

  31. #31 Hank Roberts
    May 28, 2012

    Folks, remember, there are youngsters reading this who don’t have a clue about the statistical claims being made. Surely one of you can take up where Tamino dropped TC off and clarify the revised claims TC is making.

    Not “This result validates the null hypothesis of no statistically significant influence” — that’s done already.

    This stuff:
    “white noise processes will have values of d (i.e. DW) near 2.” Plainly my Table showed d=1.75″
    or
    Citation for
    “regression of climate variables like global temperature should be done using differenced variables. … Nobel Economics prize winner Clive Granger (with Newbold 1974) recommended that”
    or
    “the critical values of the DW or d statistic, … for one independent variable and n=31 observations, are dL = 1.36 and dU = 1.5, but my Table 1 reported DW at 1.75, … l above the dU critical value below which there is a possibility of autocorrelation, but also well above dL which unequivocally spells autocorrelation. …”
    or
    “excessive high-frequency variability” – but is that not what we observe in the climate of the real world?”

    Don’t chase after the Gish Gallop, ignore the nitrogen and oxygen, the blatant errors get thrown out to distract from the claims that actually take some expertise to make sense of.

  32. #32 Tim Curtin
    www.timcurtin.com
    May 28, 2012

    I knew it – none of you can understand what Tyndall really showed, least of all JamesA.

    In the absence of CO2 and H2O Tyndall’s cylinder did not absorb or radiate the heat he applied to its oxygen and nitrogen (which constitute 95-99% of the atmosphere), with barely a flicker of his temperature dial at the far end of the cylinder. Thus eliminating CO2 and H2O as Hansen, the IPCC, and Gillard desire, the heat absorbed by the globe’s surface would remain in situ (but for convective winds stirring it up a bit).

    Adding CO2 caused his dial to register some heat reaching the far end, and adding H2O as well brought the increase up to 15 times that in the absence of the CO2 and H2O. That heat radiated and radiates above the surface in all directions but eventually mostly upwards and outwards to space.

    That is why the CO2 and H2O are not GHGs, as they are what enable the incoming solar heat to be radiated and reach space – recall that a real greenhouse is designed to keep heat in and not allow it to escape. Just as Hank cannot do sums, 97% of climate scientists by their own admission are illiterate.

  33. #33 bill
    May 28, 2012

    Tim C, you’re just making a fool of yourself.

  34. #34 Tim Curtin
    www.timcurtin.com
    May 28, 2012

    Further to my last, I just saw this from “jaymam” at Bishop Hill 27 May:
    “Dr Myles Allen, you say ‘the solution is perfectly simple. Anyone who extracts fossil carbon out of the ground should be obliged to put a fraction of that carbon back underground in the form of ‘sequestered’ (buried) CO2. Oxford’s Physics department says ‘Estimated cumulative emissions from fossil fuel use, cement production and land-use change since industrialization began are 557,768,000,000 tonnes of carbon’”.
    According to jaymam’s calculations, “if you manage to sequester that amount of carbon as CO2, you will be sequestering 1,486,000,000,000 tonnes of oxygen as well. That sounds very bad.”
    That’s because as I showed in my ACE2011 paper, using a typical hydrocarbon to generate electricity produces H2O as well as CO2 as by-products:
    C3H8 + 5O2 → Energy + 3CO2 + 4H2O …(1)
    The volume of H2O is large at well over 50% of the CO2, at least 18GtH2O, but with 6 times the radiative effect as per Tyndall, so reducing hydrocarbon usage by 50-80% from the 2000 level could make for some very cold winters by 2050.
    It is not surprising that just as climate scientists never divulge equation (1) they also never mention (2), the formula whereby a large proportion of the emissions of CO2 and H2O are absorbed by photosynthesis both on land and in the oceans:
    2CO2 + 2 H2O + photons → 2CH2O + 2O2 …(2)
    Or, in words, carbon dioxide + water + light energy → carbohydrate + oxygen.
    That means falling wheat yields in addition to that from the cooling, see the CSIRO study commissioned by Ross Garnaut (2008) which showed the rise in CO2 and warmth would produce significant gains in wheat yields across Australia, with bigger gains at 550 ppm than at 450 ppm (Table 6.5), by as much as 18.9% cumulative by 2100 at Katanning WA, and 14.1% at Moree NSW. By the same token, reducing [CO2] and warmth would send yields in the opposite direction, suggesting a hungry as well as chilly future for all of us.

  35. #35 Bernard J.
    May 28, 2012

    In the absence of CO2 and H2O Tyndall’s cylinder did not absorb or radiate the heat he applied to its oxygen and nitrogen (which constitute 95-99% of the atmosphere), with barely a flicker of his temperature dial at the far end of the cylinder. Thus eliminating CO2 and H2O as Hansen, the IPCC, and Gillard desire, the heat absorbed by the globe’s surface would remain in situ (but for convective winds stirring it up a bit).

    That is why the CO2 and H2O are not GHGs, as they are what enable the incoming solar heat to be radiated and reach space…

    Oh, for fuck’s sake Curtin.

    Do you understand what you’re saying?!

    Using your bizarre interpretation of Tyndall’s work, that ‘greenhouse’ gases cool an atmosphere and thus a planet (“…eliminating CO2 and H2O as Hansen, the IPCC, and Gillard desire, the heat absorbed by the globe’s surface would remain in situ…”), a planet with no atmosphere (or with no atmosphere containing greenhouse gases) would, given insolation, continue to heat until it evaporated away.

    Do you not see this?!

  36. #36 JamesA
    May 28, 2012

    > I knew it – none of you can understand what Tyndall really showed, least of all JamesA.

    Do you honestly think that the more likely reason the overwhelming majority of scientists disagree with you is because they misunderstood one of the core fundamental physical principles that forms the foundations of climate science, or because you have?

    The earth’s surface does not rely on gases to remove its heat, contrary to what you seem to think. It is perfectly capable of radiating heat itself as a black body (give or take), the majority going out in the form of IR. Gases like water and CO2 absorb part of this outgoing radiation and keep it in the atmosphere, thereby creating a warming effect.

    To illustrate how much of a compete tit you are currently making of yourself, I pose you this: The moon is (on average) the same distance to the sun as the earth but has no atmosphere to speak of. By your logic, this means it should cook itself and yet it is (on average) much colder than the earth. How can this be?

  37. #37 Robert Murphy
    May 28, 2012

    One Tim Curtin says:
    “That is why the CO2 and H2O are not GHGs”

    The other Tim Curtin disagrees:
    “The second key aspect of water vapor is that it is a potent greenhouse gas”

  38. #38 P. Lewis
    May 28, 2012

    Not only that, RM, but from his “ground-breaking paper at TSWJ we have:

    The paper distinguishes between forcing and feedback impacts of water vapour and contends that it is the primary forcing agent, at much more than 50% of the total GHG gas effect.

    I noted above that water vapor is the most potent greenhouse gas because it absorbs strongly in the infra-red region of the light spectrum, first demonstrated by Tyndall [10],

    Major corrigenda required at TSWJ in light of his recent pronouncements here!?

  39. #39 Tim Curtin
    www.timcurtin.com
    May 28, 2012

    Bernard: what helps to cool is absorption and then radiation, whilst what warms is retention via N and O.

    JamesA:

    You said: “Gases like water and CO2 absorb part of this outgoing radiation and keep it in the atmosphere, thereby creating a warming effect”. But the warming effect is less than it would be if only N and O were in the atmosphere.

    JamesA: read Arrhenius and you will see wnat garbage you have parroted here re the Moon.

    Lewis: you are thicker than a miilion planks.

  40. #40 P. Lewis
    May 28, 2012

    Lewis: you are thicker than a miilion planks.

    Which is nowhere near as thick as you, Tim Cretin!

  41. #41 Hank Roberts
    May 28, 2012

    Svante Arrhenius      
    On the Influence of Carbon Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground.      
    Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, Series 5, Volume 41, April 1896, pp.237-276

    http://www.geocities.jp/nomonomoglobalwarming/Papers/Arrhenius/Arrhenius.pdf

  42. #43 adelady
    city of wine and roses
    May 28, 2012

    Bernard J – if I see anyone else at all repeat any of this dimwittering anywhere else at all, I think you’re right.

    We;re FUBARed.

  43. #44 EFS_Junior
    May 28, 2012

    So TC,

    Is 1,486,000,000,000 tonnes of oxygen a large number? Relative to the total mass of oxygen in Earth’s atmosphere?

    Nope. It’s only 0.13% (by mass) or ~0.09% (by adjusted volume).

    Is 18GtH2O a large number?
    Relative to the total mass of H2O in Earth’s atmosphere?

    Nope. It’s only 0.14% (by mass).

    So even if we were to magically sequester ALL the cumulative 557,768,000,000 tonnes of carbon TODAY (in zero time even), your “large numbers” don’t even amount to a hill of beans.

    But wait, how about atmospheric CO2? Now that would drop by ~20% (by mass) or get us back to about ~320 ppmv.

    So O2 and H2O don’t change for squat, while CO2 drops significantly.

    But of course, at only 320 ppmv we’ll all freeze to death or all die of hunger first, using your own math impaired logic.

  44. #45 Bernard J.
    May 28, 2012

    I note that Curtin is still pushing the notion that there’s a CO2 crisis:

    By the same token, reducing [CO2] and warmth would send yields in the opposite direction, suggesting a hungry as well as chilly future for all of us.

    It seems to escape the guy that the planet’s biosphere is adapted to a cycle of atmospheric CO2 concentration that fluctuates between 180 and 280 ppm.

    For those who prefer a dynamic illustration, with voicing-over, Richard Alley’s comments here, at around the two minute mark are, (indirectly) demonstrate the same thing.

  45. #46 JamesA
    May 28, 2012

    > You said: “Gases like water and CO2 absorb part of this outgoing radiation and keep it in the atmosphere, thereby creating a warming effect”. But the warming effect is less than it would be if only N and O were in the atmosphere.

    No it isn’t. CO2 and water vapour absorb infra red. Nitrogen and oxygen don’t. The peak in the earth’s thermal emission spectrum is in the infra red. It’s not complicated.

    > JamesA: read Arrhenius and you will see wnat garbage you have parroted here re the Moon.

    Ooh, your standard brush-off. Do I sense a bit of cognitive dissonance there?

  46. #47 ianam
    May 28, 2012

    Tim C, you’re just making a fool of yourself.

    That’s like saying that a rock is just making a rock of itself.

  47. #48 Brent
    May 28, 2012

    With a moniker like “ianam” (he is not called “Ian”. Readers may wish to try to figure out this acronym: he’is denying being… something), methinks the gentleman doth protest too much. Oyyaam.

  48. #49 DarylD
    William Lamb's Town Down Under
    May 28, 2012

    Ah, Tim Curtin, you mentioned Bishop Hill’s blog, the author of this complete anti-science horse hockey delusional fiction, called “The Hockey Stick Illusion : Climategate and the Corruption of Science”. It is a goldmine of pure ” BS” and gish gallop of failed furphies, from the first page until the last. Andrew is a parrot and he is not an original thinker. He is well known for his almost daily head in the sand denial of reality gish gallop garbage. Neither he, nor a majority of his parrot readers, have a clue about how real science works, such is their level of pure ignorance of the real world.

    Mean while, back in the real world of reality, down in Antarctica, both the “Filchner-Ronne Ice Shelf” and the “Pine Island Glacier”, are cracking up rapidly, in the middle of a Southern Hemisphere winter of 2012, as we speak.

    Up north, in the Arctic Circle, the usual rapid summer thaw, is underway and is allowing the release of an even more potent highly reactive greenhouse gas called “Methane”.

    As I said before, Tim, every time you open your mouth, an incoherent gish gallop flows forth and you bury yourself deeper in your own Mount Everest size pile of horse hockey.

    Epic face palm. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RA06Z5e1ZFc

  49. #50 Lotharsson
    May 29, 2012

    Loathsome Lotharssome…

    For a guy who complains that attacks on his claims are abusive personal attacks, you sure do engage in a lot of personal attacks that appear to be “abusive” by your standards.

    …have you ever made a peer reviewed PUBLISHED comment here or anywhere which is a useful contribution to knowledge?

    As I’ve pointed out in the past (and in response to you, IIRC), yes I have. I have a Ph.D., a couple of peer-reviewed papers from that time period (and I guess one could also count 15+ issued patents).

    And yet, the validity of my comments here is entirely unchanged by providing those facts, and your attempted ad hominem on this point, if anything, appears to reinforce the impression that you can’t defend your claims. Furthermore I suspect you would look even worse if I didn’t have peer-reviewed publications to my name yet still see gaping flaws in your argument, so perhaps that wasn’t a very smart attack to attempt…

  50. #51 Hank Roberts
    May 29, 2012

    TC, would you listen to Spencer? He speaks to your confusion: “The SECOND misconception is that because greenhouse gases allow the atmosphere to cool to outer space, adding more GHGs can’t cause warming.”

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/02/more-musings-from-the-greenhouse/

  51. #52 Lotharsson
    May 29, 2012

    Tyndall’s experiments show that N and O are the real GHGs, as they neither absorb nor radiate heat…

    …and even more determined doubling down on that claim demonstrate that you can “prove” anything you like as long as you get to arbitrarily redefine the meaning of key words, and have no particular commitment to logical coherence or aversion to looking incredibly foolish.

    For TC’s sake I rather hope that he is attempting to gain a place in the dictionary under “Poe” or launch an entertainment career based on idiosyncratic faux-scientific comedic stylings, rather than seriously attempting to out-TC himself. On the latter I fear that he has succeeded, apparently even topping “sea water is potable if enough CO2 is added”.

    Epic face palm indeed.

  52. #53 Bernard J.
    May 29, 2012

    Curtin is one of those stunningly Dunningly-Krugered folk who are completely convinced of their brilliance in spite of overwhelming empirical evidence to the contrary and who, in the process of espousing their theories on perpetual motion, free energy, vaccine/HIV conspiracies, alian-lizard British royals, and climate “fraud”, manage to generate more humour than could a determined and talented comedian.

    At the top of page two of this thread Curtin promotes his ACE2011 ‘paper’. I came across it recently for entirely different reasons, when I was involved in the review and audit of hundreds of 2011 publications for my institution, across many disciplines. Government funding procedure specifies that scholarly articles and conference papers must be demonstrably peer-reviewed, and finding that Curtin had put a paper in ACE2011 flagged all the other ACE2011 papers from our university for particular scrutiny – guilt by association. Given that Curtin’s nonsense was permitted, we are concerned that the whole review process for the conference is inadequate, and that passing such papers could have consequences if it turns out that they were inappropriately claimed…

    Seriously, you couldn’t make this stuff up. This is his introduction – see how many logical fallacies and outright errors and misrepresentations of fact can be found in this alone:

    Econometrics has a long history as the technique of choice for testing the merits of alternative hypotheses across most of the social sciences as well as many of the natural and materials sciences, not to mention pharmaceutical science, where it is widely used to evaluate the efficacy of alternative medications, including the use of placebos as counterfactuals. It is acknowledged by most climate scientists that the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (hereafter denoted [CO2]) and other greenhouse gases (in aggregate denoted as [CO2e]) is not necessarily the only determinant of climate change, as they accept that there are natural factors also at work. Nevertheless one will in vain search the literature of climate science for any evidence of the use of econometrics to test the core hypothesis that “most” of the temperature change observed over the last century is attributable to the build-up in the atmosphere of anthropogenic emissions of CO2e, of which CO2 is by far the largest in volume terms. In particular none of the leading texts such as the IPCC‟s Solomon et al. (2007), Stern (2006) and Garnaut (2008, 2011) performs or reports any econometric analysis of their core hypothesis. This chapter seeks to begin filling that gap, and finds that the core hypothesis is falsified at a wide variety of locations with lengthy time series data on various climatic variables, including atmospheric water vapour (i.e. [H2O]), opacity of the sky (OPQ), and solar radiation (SR) received at the earth‟s surface (as opposed to the top of the atmosphere). Multi-variate econometric analysis shows that at none of these locations is the role of [CO2] statistically significant, and even that it is can be negatively correlated with changes in temperature, whereas these other variables play highly significant roles. If the core hypothesis of climate science cannot be confirmed at any specific location, then by Popper‟s Black Swan paradigm, it cannot be confirmed for the globe, as that is the average of the local.

    If the Australian conference of economists passes this level of intellectual incompetence, it says a lot about the state of economics as a respectable (or otherwise) discipline. It also makes me somewhat relieved that we have people other than just economists making economic decisions for the country…

  53. #54 Mack
    May 29, 2012

    Yeah Bernerd we’ve got politicians….
    Aaahahahahahahahaha

  54. #55 Bernard J.
    May 29, 2012

    Sunspot’s off his medication again.

    And notice that he has nothing substantive to say about the subject of Curtin’s extraordinary scientific incompetence. Although having said that, I guess that Sunspot just doesn’t have the intellectual capacity to understand that Curtin’s blowing it from out of his arse.

    Watch it spotty, or Tim Lambert might pull in the slack and do unto you as he has done to that other bent tresspasser.

  55. #56 Mack
    May 29, 2012

    You don’t have to worry any more Bernerd. I’ve said all I have to say at Tim’s place. Just read Nasif Nahle over at Jennifer Marohasy’s place.
    Cheers
    Mack.

  56. #57 chek
    May 29, 2012

    “read Nasif Nahle” = look at sciency-looking, densely worded pictograms filed under alt.science.crank.

  57. #58 bill
    May 29, 2012

    I’ve said all I have to say at Tim’s place.

    Could we have a rule that every time a troll says this they really can’t return?

  58. #59 Tim Curtin
    May 29, 2012

    Dear Hank Roberts

    Many thanks for your link to Spencer who like me shows how “because greenhouse gases allow the atmosphere to cool to outer space, adding more GHGs can’t cause warming.”

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/02/more-musings-from-the-greenhouse/

    Spencer (plus 9 out of 10 posters there in just a week) provides massive support for my contention that it is N and O that are the real greenhouse gases, as [CO2] and [H2O] are what absorb and then radiate heat, ultimately all to space.

    I missed that Spencer post as I was busy writing my now under peer-review paper at a mainstream journal here showing exactly what he demonstrates.

  59. #60 chek
    May 29, 2012

    Tim Curtin, given that N and O are transparent to IR wavelengths, and you yourself have stated previously “Tyndall’s experiments show that N and O are the real GHGs, as they neither absorb nor radiate heat then by what magical, or even transdimensional and hitherto unknown mechanism do they manage to achieve the properties of a GHG that you assert?

  60. #61 Tim Curtin
    www.timcurtin.com
    May 29, 2012

    Dear Bernard J; Many thanks for the publicity you accord me.

    But you are in error when you imply my ACE2011 paper was not peer reviewed by saying “At the top of page two of this thread Curtin promotes his ACE2011 ‘paper’. I came across it recently for entirely different reasons, when I was involved in the review and audit of hundreds of 2011 publications for my institution, across many disciplines. Government funding procedure specifies that scholarly articles and conference papers must be demonstrably peer-reviewed”,#

    My paper was so reviewed, and this year for ACE2012 I was asked to review no fewer than 3 papers, of which only 2 on climate issues.

    You claim to have academic credentials, but never disclose them. I do, and I doubt you can rival my publication record ( at http://www.timcurtin.com), despite me not having been a paid academic since 1970.

  61. #62 P. Lewis
    May 29, 2012

    What [Dr Spencer wrote is (emphasis added):

    The SECOND misconception is that because greenhouse gases allow the atmosphere to cool to outer space, adding more GHGs can’t cause warming.

  62. #63 JamesA
    May 29, 2012

    Spencer (plus 9 out of 10 posters there in just a week) provides massive support for my contention that it is N and O that are the real greenhouse gases, as [CO2] and [H2O] are what absorb and then radiate heat, ultimately all to space.

    Seeing as you are under the delusional impression that the work of Tyndall and Arrhenius (of all people) support that laughable notion when they clearly said the opposite, it’s understandable that you would think that. Roy Spencer may employ some pretty twisted logic from time to time, but at least he knows some basic physics.

    I missed that Spencer post as I was busy writing my now under peer-review paper at a mainstream journal here showing exactly what he demonstrates.

    I venture that you need to spend less time writing and more time reading. I suggest you start with an undergraduate physics textbook and work your way up.

  63. #64 Lionel A
    May 29, 2012

    TC @12.00 (ATTLG time – Dodgson)

    Spencer (plus 9 out of 10 posters there in just a week) provides massive support for my contention that it is N and O that are the real greenhouse gases

    Those 9 out of 10 are being as absurd as you, something I would have expected from WUWT or CardinalPuff but Spencer should know better, but then given the rich crop in ‘Spencer Slip Ups’ elsewhere maybe we should not be too surprised.

    Reality is rather different:

    In 1859 Tyndall found that the dominant components of the Earth’s atmosphere – nitrogen (in the form of N2) and oxygen (in the form of O2) are very nearly transparent to infrared radiation.

    Principles of Planetary Climate by Raymond T. Pierrehumbert page 5.

    Now you should ask yourself what is the difference between the form of the molecules N2 and O2 to that of the H2O and CO2 molecules which make one set unresponsive to the IR band of the electromagnetic spectrum whilst the other absorbs and re-emits energy in those wavelengths.

    I would suggest a good book on Physical Chemistry – P.W. Atkins would go a long way to help you out.

    For now a hint:

    Tyndall took a few steps in the direction of working out why some gases interact with IR light and some do not.The IR-transparent ones are simply single-element gases like O2, N2 and H2. The molecular formulas of the gases were not available to Tyndall, so he assumed these to be simple atoms, as opposed to molecules comprised of multiple copies of the same element. The IR behavior of these gases was very different from that of the compound gases like H2O, CO2 and ethylene (C2H4) [Olephiant gas as then known], which he found to be IR active.

    Archer & Pierrehumbert, The Warming Papers page 23.

    Look that latter up to discover what it is about those molecules that make it so.

  64. #65 Robert Murphy
    May 29, 2012

    What Tim Curtin choose to excerpt:
    “Many thanks for your link to Spencer who like me shows how “because greenhouse gases allow the atmosphere to cool to outer space, adding more GHGs can’t cause warming.”

    What Spencer actually wrote, along with what Curtin excluded (in bold):
    The SECOND misconception is that because greenhouse gases allow the atmosphere to cool to outer space, adding more GHGs can’t cause warming. While it is true that GHGs do lead to an overall decrease in the mass-weighted average temperature of the atmosphere, their altering of the energy budget of individual layers leads to net warming of the lowest layers of the atmosphere.

    Yet again Curtain dishonestly twists the sources he uses in an attempt to make them say the opposite of what they actually said. That’s the type of deceit one grows to expect from his ramblings. That’s the type of thing that would count as academic fraud if he were still in academia.

  65. #66 Lotharsson
    May 29, 2012

    I suggest you start with an undergraduate physics textbook and work your way up.

    Good grief, based on the evidence on Deltoid alone he’s got far more fundamental things to learn about physics than that…

  66. #67 Robert Murphy
    May 29, 2012

    That should be Curtin, not Curtain.

  67. #68 Bernard J.
    May 29, 2012

    …you are in error when you imply my ACE2011 paper was not peer reviewed…

    You have a profound comprehension difficulty.

    First I said:

    Government funding procedure specifies that scholarly articles and conference papers must be demonstrably peer-reviewed…

    which is true. I then said:

    …we are concerned that the whole review process for the conference is inadequate…

    which is also demonstrably the case, as your incompetent work was permitted to be presented at what is supposed to be a high quality professional conference of national/international significance.

    Those two statements of mine are not inconsistent. You may well have been ‘reviewed’, and my own previous corroboration of the ACE2011 process confirmed that “referreeing” occurred, but this does not mean that you were reviewed by people expert, or even competent, in the matters that you tried to address in your ‘paper’. The resulting publication proves indeed that you were not adequately reviewed.

    The fact that ACE2012 asked you to review other climate change-related presentations further demonstrates that they are likely to have lax reviewing procedures, at least in some corners, which would not be surprising as they have to clear a lot of material in a short time. Proper review for large conferences has always been a fraught endeavour.

    In fact the whole issue of ACE reviewing is sufficiently concerning to me that I will be making it a point of discussion at an academic audit committee meeting: for ACE conferences we may require supplementary evidence of professional peer-review as required by the HERDC specification, if the current standard is as lax as it appears.

    On the matter of publications I have a more than a few, and they are in credible journals with good impact factors – not remotely like the vanity presses and under-the-radar missings of slip-shod pseudoscience that you squeeze out. But my publications are irrelevant to this discussion – the subject is you and the nonsense that you promulgate, and the tricks that you employ to have it printed.

    Look back over the thread, Curtin. You’ve been unequivocably demonstrated to have both basic statistical analysis and fundamental scientific principles completely wrong – something that you have been consistently doing for years. You’re a climate astrologer with a severe cognitive scotoma. You might not be able to perceive this reality, but the rational world does, and your silliness will be remembered long after the last of those desperate to hear your snakeoil message have given up the ghost.

  68. #69 Bernard J.
    May 29, 2012

    Good grief, based on the evidence on Deltoid alone he’s got far more fundamental things to learn about physics than that…

    I reckon that Lotharsson’s on the money!

    I had Atkins for undergrad physchem, and it’s far too dense for Curtin’s own brand of density. Even an old high school edition of that favourite, Messel, would be a labour for one as challenged in basic physics as Curtin shows himself to be.

  69. #70 Lotharsson
    May 29, 2012

    Yet again Curtain dishonestly twists the sources he uses in an attempt to make them say the opposite of what they actually said.

    It’s worse than that. That bolding in the quote from Spencer was present in the original comment that told TC to go look at Spencer. TC clearly read the comment which contained the quote…and then proceeded to claim the quote said the very opposite of what it said. In front of people who had just read the quote complete with the emphasis.

    Either TC is cognitively challenged, or he’s highly dishonest. And if the latter, he’s also deeply delusional about his ability to slip plainly false claims past the readers here.

  70. #71 Lionel A
    May 29, 2012

    Robert @2:20 pm

    Yes.I have just visited Spencer’s place and would have pointed out those omissions of Curtin’s which kinda hangs him out to dry as either dishonest or lacking comprehension skills. Spencer does not back up Curtin’s position vis-a-vis molecules with differing dipole characteristic’s.

    Of course playing fast and lose with the statements of others is a key tactic of those such as Ian Plimer and Bob Carter (see recent Skeptical Science post) and so Tim Curtin has now joined what could be called ‘The Three Stooges’, or the ‘Ian, Bob and Tim Show’ or from their initials ‘Not the I PCC show’.

  71. #72 Mark Schaffer
    United States
    May 29, 2012

    Welcome back Dr. Lambert and I hope this means you are feeling well.

  72. #73 Hank Roberts
    May 29, 2012

    Wow.
    Just … wow.
    TC, you didn’t read what Spencer wrote, and misquoted what you saw on his site.

    Question for Tim Lambert — can you make the permalinks to the individual posts visible to the readers? It would be useful to point directly to the individual post, as we used to dol

  73. #74 Majorajam
    May 29, 2012

    Isn’t there a quote in the Deltoid archives where TC earned a rebuke from Hans Erren by reading into the latter’s comment something about there not being a greenhouse effect. Hans told Tim that he was thick and Tim’s response started off with “I know I’m thick”.

    So you can’t accuse the man of a complete lack of self-awareness. Though clearly there are lapses.

    On the plus side, Tim’s ignorance of statistics is not nearly as impressive as his ignorance of economics. So he does have that going for him. Which is nice.

  74. #75 Tim Curtin
    www.timcurtin.com
    May 30, 2012

    Here is the full quote from Spencer

    “The SECOND misconception is that because greenhouse gases allow the atmosphere to cool to outer space, adding more GHGs can’t cause warming. While it is true that GHGs do lead to an overall decrease in the mass-weighted average temperature of the atmosphere, their altering of the energy budget of individual layers leads to net warming of the lowest layers of the atmosphere.”

    Note the statement “…GHGs DO LEAD TO AN OVERALL DECREASE IN THE MASS WEIGHTED AVERAGE TEMPERATURE OF THE [TOTAL] ATMOSPHERE…”

  75. #76 Bernard J.
    May 30, 2012

    Tim’s ignorance of statistics is not nearly as impressive as his ignorance of economics. So he does have that going for him. Which is nice.

    Yes, he takes ‘knowing a lot about very little’ to a whole new, inverted level. That he can do so and made a living from it (albeit partly as an ‘economist’ in Africa and New Guinea…) says a lot about some brands of economics.

  76. #77 Hank Roberts
    May 30, 2012

    > MASS WEIGHTED AVERAGE TEMPERATURE
    > OF THE [TOTAL] ATMOSPHERE

    TC, you did not use that temperature measurement in your paper.

    You used surface temperatures.

    Spencer says “adding more GHGs …. leads to net warming of the lowest layers of the atmosphere.”

  77. #78 Lotharsson
    May 30, 2012

    I doubt you can rival my publication record…

    Few can, TC, if you’re talking about anything related to science. Few can.

  78. #79 Tim Curtin
    www.timcurtin.com
    May 30, 2012

    Hank, you are referring to my TSWJ paper, which indeed does not address Spencer’s point; my new paper that does is still under peer review.

    My new paper quotes Tyndall thus:

    In examining the separate effects of the air, carbonic acid, and aqueous vapour of the atmosphere …the following results were obtained:-
    Air sent through the system of drying tubes and through the caustic potash tube produced an absorption of about 1.
    Air direct from the laboratory, containing therefore its carbonic acid [i.e.CO2] and aqueous
    vapour, produced an absorption of 15.
    Deducting the effect of the gaseous acids [e.g. CO2], it was found that the quantity of aqueous vapour diffused through the atmosphere on the day in question, produced an absorption at least equal to thirteen times that of the atmosphere itself” (Tyndall, 1861: 276).

    Clearly his physical experiment showed that an atmosphere without CO2 and H2O absorbed only 1/15 of that when those gases were added. They are the ones that allow heat to be radiated via IR eventually to space, the N and O do not, and that is what I take Spencer to be saying. Even Hansen et al 1981 describe the IR wavelengths through which CO2 escapes as a “window”, i.e. not a trap:

    “Carbon dioxide absorbs in the atmospheric
    “window” from 7 to 14 micrometers
    which transmits thermal radiation
    emitted by the earth’s surface and lower
    atmosphere”.

    Unfortunately Hansen added without any observational evidence that “Increased atmospheric CO2
    tends to close this window and cause
    outgoing radiation to emerge from higher,
    colder levels, thus [sic] warming the surface
    and lower atmosphere by the socalled
    greenhouse mechanism”.

    My new paper notes how Hansen then also overlooks the very limited infrared bandwidth for infrared radiation of atmospheric CO2, only 5-7μm in total, relative to that of atmospheric water vapour [H2O] at nearly 80μm (Hoyle 1981).

    It is these IR windows that offset the closed doors of the N and O.

  79. #80 P. Lewis
    Welsh Marches
    May 30, 2012

    I’m still chuckling at this:

    Even Hansen et al 1981 describe the IR wavelengths through which CO2 escapes as a “window”,

    The mental picture this conveys of CO2 escaping into space, taking its IR with it just tickles my funny bone.

    That’s what we want: more CO2, not less, to take away that pesky IR where it can’t do any harm.

    More please!

  80. #81 ianam
    May 30, 2012

    Even Hansen et al 1981 describe the IR wavelengths through which CO2 escapes as a “window”, i.e. not a trap:

    “Carbon dioxide absorbs in the atmospheric
    “window” from 7 to 14 micrometers

    I honestly didn’t realize until now that Tim Curtin could be that stupid.

  81. #82 Lotharsson
    May 30, 2012

    I honestly didn’t realize until now that Tim Curtin could be that stupid.

    Me neither:

    It is these IR windows that offset the closed doors of the N and O.

    He hasn’t the first clue about the effects of various gasses on outgoing longwave radiation, even after several people have explicitly pointed out his errors. It’s as if he has a write-once-read-many memory system.

  82. #83 Robert Murphy
    May 30, 2012

    Curtin says:
    “Here is the full quote from Spencer…”

    You are either incredibly stupid or incredibly dishonest, though it certainly is possible for both to true. As was pointed out above, Spencer said that lower atmospheric temps increase with increased GHG’s, which is the claim that climate scientists make. Again you feel it necessary to distort:

    Note the statement “…GHGs DO LEAD TO AN OVERALL DECREASE IN THE MASS WEIGHTED AVERAGE TEMPERATURE OF THE [TOTAL] ATMOSPHERE…”

    The entire sentence shows you to be a liar:
    While it is true that GHGs do lead to an overall decrease in the mass-weighted average temperature of the atmosphere, their altering of the energy budget of individual layers leads to net warming of the lowest layers of the atmosphere.

    Have you no shame? How many times do you have to be caught lying in plain sight? Did you show the same lack of integrity when you did your economics work?

  83. #84 Tim Curtin
    www.timcurtin.com
    May 30, 2012

    I have found a supporter at Spencer’s:

    Ken Coffman says:
    March 14, 2012 at 11:01 AM
    I think Dr. Spencer is a national resource and is certainly entitled to his opinion. He’s right about many things, but not everything. The real greenhouse gases are Nitrogen, Oxygen and Argon. These atmospheric gases (let’s call them 1,000,000 PPM, close enough, right?) which have a temperature, don’t radiate much at IR wavelengths. However, they couple their energy to water vapor and CO2, which resonate and radiate at certain IR wavelengths.

    Up to a certain altitude, convection dominates the energy flow. Would an added CO2 molecule enhance convection or retard it? And, guess what? At the altitudes where radiation dominates energy flow over convection, then who cares? The air is cold and thin and can’t do much…except in the mind of an academic climatologist who thinks radiation from cold thin substances can work warming miracles at the Earth’s surface.

    Radiation can be a tough thing to grasp, but the operation is easy to visualize. Conduction, convection and radiation always work in the same direction. If you’re puzzled by an overall effect, then imagine a thermally conductive channel between point A and point B. Whatever conduction does, that’s what radiation will do. Much more weakly and more slowly, sure, but always in the same direction. Don’t believe it? That’s fine with me.

    It’s fun to think about the 33C average that “greenhouse” gases supposedly contribute to the Earth’s surface temperature. Since its an average, then it must have a range and a distribution. What is the range? Plus or minus 10%, 20% or 100%? What is the distribution? Is it Gaussian? Does it depend on latitude? Is it the same at the poles and the equator?

    To simplify this, I have a policy: if a thing can’t be measured, then it does not exist.”

    How very true!

    AS for Lotharsson and Bernard et al continuing to insult me at Foster’s Cliose Mind, when they know I have no right of reply there, that is all you need to know about the integrity of that kind of person.

  84. #85 Robert Murphy
    May 30, 2012

    “I have found a supporter at Spencer’s…”

    But it’s not Spencer, as you falsely claimed. Did you think nobody would notice the difference? I’ on the other hand have found a supporter for the claim that water vapor is a in fact a strong GHG:
    “The second key aspect of water vapor is that it is a potent greenhouse gas”

    Do you agree? You should, since you’re the person who said it, above. Remember that? That was when you you were lying about what the IPCC said about water vapor, when you claimed the IPCC didn’t count water vapor as a GHG. Now you say of course it isn’t! What a clown, Mr. Curtin.

  85. #86 Bernard J.
    May 30, 2012

    Tim Curtin.

    If you hadn’t repeatedly insulted Tamino, and the competence of thousands of professional scientists who understand their own disciplines much better than you, you’d very liekly still have right-of-reply at Open Mind.

    And if you don’t want to be insulted yourself, stop engaging in such profoundly wrong-headed mangling of basic physics and statistics, long after more knowledgable people have tried to set you straight. That would be the simple solution.

  86. #87 Tim Curtin
    www.timcurtin.com
    May 30, 2012

    Robert & Bernard: just try to submit a rebuttal of my TSWJ paper to them. Until you get to be published there, no more from me to you here.

  87. #88 Marco
    May 30, 2012

    Hilarious! Tim Curtin cites “Dragon Slayer” Ken Coffman!

  88. #89 Mark Schaffer
    May 30, 2012

    Tim Curtin is an idiot.

  89. #90 Robert Murphy
    May 30, 2012

    “Robert & Bernard: just try to submit a rebuttal of my TSWJ paper to them…”

    How is that in any way responsive to my post? “Them”? What does your being banned at Tamino’s blog have to do with your distortions here of what other people have said? Why does your being banned at Tamino’s leave you unable to explain your claims here that water vapor is both “a potent greenhouse gas” and not a GHG at all?

    How pathetic. Caught lying so now you run away. Was your economics work this dishonest too? Maybe someone should do some checking…

  90. #91 Hank Roberts
    May 30, 2012

    > Up to a certain altitude, convection dominates the
    > energy flow…. an added CO2 molecule …… At
    > the altitudes where radiation dominates energy
    > flow over convection….

    In the upper atmosphere — high, thin, and dry air — an emitted photon has a higher likelihood of escaping into space than of being recaptured by another molecule in the atmosphere. “Mean free path” between collisions is the term.

    Water vapor, CO2, methane, etc. — in the lower, wetter, denser atmosphere — share the heat with nitrogen and oxygen. Heat is equally shared out among all the molecules — in the denser wetter lower atmosphere — by collisions, which are far more frequent there.

    Some of those collisions “wind up” the greenhouse gases putting energy into their vibrations.

    If they don’t collide with some other molecule and lose that energy by sharing it, they can get “wound up” eventually to the point the bond energy will go “sproing” and emit an infrared photon.

    The photons are emitted in purely random directions, anywhere in a sphere. Depending on what’s between the emitting molecule and space or the ground, some of those infrared photons interact with other greenhouse gases, winding those up a bit.

    In the lower, wetter, thicker atmosphere, all of those molecules are whacking and banging at each other. Most of the energy is just shared around among them all.

    The upper atmosphere is extremely low in water vapor.
    The upper atmosphere is very thin, lots of room between molecules, far fewer collisions to steal energy away from the greenhouse gases, which can continue to be “wound up” by infrared photons that reach them.

    In the upper atmosphere, the greenhouse gases emit infrared photons that have more than half a chance of escaping into space before they hit anything else.

    Sorry to get all technical here but this is basic stuff.

  91. #92 Lotharsson
    May 30, 2012

    AS for Lotharsson and Bernard et al continuing to insult me at Foster’s Cliose Mind,…

    Readers can judge for themselves whether TC is willing and able to distinguish disdain for fallacious claims from personal insult.

    They will also have noted that he engages in frequent personal insults here, which makes his complaints doubly pathetic.

  92. #93 adelady
    city of wine and roses
    May 30, 2012

    I doubt that Hank could get ‘ basic’ enough to deal with the conceptual confabulations we’re dealing with here.

    I dread to think what kind or level of science education *would* meet the ‘ basic enough’ criteria.

  93. #94 Hank Roberts
    May 30, 2012

    adelady, it’s always worth trying to be clear about this difficult stuff — try to write for the audience, remembering the US average reading comprehension for general (not scientific) topics is around the 8th grade level. For radiation physics, this is a real challenge.

    Likely lots of economists don’t understand it.

  94. #95 John
    May 30, 2012

    If you hadn’t repeatedly insulted Tamino,

    He didn’t just insult Tamino – he threatened defamation action if his irrelevent misdirections weren’t published, all while calling Tamino “Goebbelistic”.

    And Curtin, you do not have an automatic “right of reply”. It is Tamino’s blog and he can run it how he wishes.

    If you want to post there again perhaps you should publicly apologise for your attempted bullying and, most importantly, stay on topic and not continually repeat the errors you’ve been shown are wrong. Why should Tamino waste his time refuting the same arguments ad nauseum? Because you have some entitled idea about “right of reply” that allows you to troll with impunity?

  95. #96 Lionel A
    May 30, 2012

    Tim Curtin

    There is light available to help you with your blundering around in the dark here and I would suggest starting at Lecture 2.

  96. #97 P. Lewis
    Welsh Marches
    May 30, 2012

    And here are here some absorption (and some transmittance) data in IR (UV and visible) for various atmospheric gases.

    Put all this together with Prof Archer’s lectures linked by Lionel A, Timmykins, and you should come to a conclusion very similar to the mainstream view, rather than the crackpottery you’re famed for!

  97. #98 Lionel A
    May 30, 2012

    Just in case Tim cannot get past the superfluous, and unintended quote at the tail try this instead , the lack of preview here is a stumbler at times.

  98. #99 ianam
    May 30, 2012

    He hasn’t the first clue about the effects of various gasses on outgoing longwave radiation, even after several people have explicitly pointed out his errors. It’s as if he has a write-once-read-many memory system.

    Perhaps he could learn from this site. Even some of the comments are illuminating … although from what I’ve seen of Tim, he’s likely to ignore

    it is an observed fact (supported by theory) that monatomic gases (like argon) or symmetric diatomic gases (like N2 and O2) do not have vibration modes or rotation modes that would allow them to absorb (or emit) IR photons. Just like yellow light is not absorbed or emitted by H atoms, IR is not absorbed or emitted by N2 & O2

    and instead seize on

    The mass of the earth is one trillion, that’s 1 followed by 12 zeros, greater than the mass of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. There is no way that an infinitesimal amount of gas could contain enough energy to significantly change the earth’s temperature. Any heating of the earth is by direct absorption of energy from the sun.

  99. #100 JamesA
    May 30, 2012

    TC says: “Robert & Bernard: just try to submit a rebuttal of my TSWJ paper to them. Until you get to be published there, no more from me to you here.”

    Awww, I think he’s finally spat the dummy out. Shame, it was fun listening to him babble in his determination to misinterpret some very basic science.

    In fairness, it should be pointed out that TSWJ isn’t a complete joke of a journal, like most denier stomping grounds; its impact factor of 1.524 is approaching respectable and for it to be listed by ISI at all is an achievement by open access standards. Still, it’s hardly what anyone would call mainstream and their peer-review process obviously screwed up in this case if they let this paper in. I can’t say I would be bothered to put in a reply because if TSWJ want to let their standards slip, that’s their perogative and I’m not paying their page charges to point out their own mistakes. If TC somehow manages to sneak his nonsense into somewhere more noticable, then that would be the time to push back, but I’d like to think that the more mainstream places would have better standards than that.

    I await his under review paper where he overturns basic physics with bated breath. Should be good for a laugh, if nothing else.

Current ye@r *