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 Rattus Norvegicus
    May 31, 2012

    JamesA,

    I checked ISI recently on TSWJ and it wasn’t listed. I would also add the the publisher looks pretty damn sketchy to me. But paying $1K to rebut TC? You’ve got to be kidding.

  2. #2 Bernard J.
    May 31, 2012

    But paying $1K to rebut TC? You’ve got to be kidding.

    My thoughts exactly.

    However, if they offer to print a rebuttal gratis then I’d consider it. TSWJ would be cutting their own throats though, because a refutation of Curtin would necessarily draw attention to the extremely poor reviewing (cough, cough) that permitted the ‘paper’ to be published in the first place.

  3. #3 JamesA
    May 31, 2012

    Rattus: I know they look sketchy, but they are in there, just listed under the pretty stupid name “TheScientificWorldJOURNAL”, with the appreviation “THESCIENTIFICWORLDJO”. You can find it if you search for the ISSN 1537-744X. Interestingly, the publisher’s details are different in the journal citation reports to the master journal list, but they could have moved at some point.

  4. #4 Hank Roberts
    May 31, 2012

    > ISSN 1537-744X

    Oh, that’s a lovely search result. The ScienceBloggers could have a field day dedicated to this particular journal.

    E.g.

    Research Article
    TheScientificWorldJOURNAL (2011) 11, 1667–1678 ISSN 1537-744X; doi:10.1100/2011/462736
    Seasonal Variation of the Effect of Extremely Diluted Agitated Gibberellic Acid (10e-30) on Wheat Stalk Growth: A Multiresearcher Study
    Peter Christian Endler, Wolfgang Matzer, Christian Reich,
    Thomas Reischl, Anna Maria Hartmann, Karin Thieves, Andrea Pfleger, ürgen Hoföcker, Harald Lothaller, and Waltraud Scherer-Pongratz
    Division Complementary Health Sciences, Interuniversity College for Health and Development Graz, Castle of Seggau, 8042 Graz, Austria
    Received 21 March 2011; Revised 9 August 2011; Accepted 9 August 2011
    Academic Editor: Joav Merrick
    The influence of a homeopathic high dilution of gibberellic acid on wheat growth was studied at different seasons of the year. Seedlings were allowed to develop under standardized conditions for 7 days; plants were harvested and stalk lengths were measured. The data obtained confirm previous findings, that ultrahigh diluted potentized gibberellic acid affects stalk growth. Furthermore, the outcome of the study suggests that experiments utilizing the bioassay presented should best be performed in autumn season. In winter and spring, respectively, no reliable effects were found.
    KEYWORDS: homeopathy, ultra high dilution, bio-assay, gibberellic acid, wheat
    Correspondence should be addressed to Christian Reich, college@inter-uni.net
    Copyright © 2011 Peter Christian Endler et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Published by TheScientificWorldJOURNAL; http://www.tswj.com/

  5. #5 Tim Curtin
    www.timcurtin.com
    May 31, 2012

    Hank, I am at a loss, what’s wrong with this article?

    BTW, I suggest that TWSJ would accept comments on my paper without demanding their $1000 fee for initial submissions. Hank, James & co, who have never so far as I know ever published any paper anywhere, do try!

  6. #6 chek
    May 31, 2012

    Homeopathically grown wheat, Tim Curtin’s non-GHG GHG’s – perhaps the title of ‘journal’ confers altogether too much gravitas.

    How about the quackerazzi?

  7. #7 Robert Murphy
    May 31, 2012

    “Hank, I am at a loss, what’s wrong with this article?”

    It’s homeopathic nonsense. The Scientific World Journal has a propensity for publishing such twaddle:
    http://www.tswj.com/search.aspx?startindex=1&field0=9&q0=homeopathic

  8. #8 P. Lewis
    May 31, 2012

    You need to ask? Why am I not surprised?

    The “active” ingredient has been diluted 10^30 times! At around 10^24 or 10^26 times dilution with pure water (though how a homeopath can guarantee their water source is uncontaminated I know not — and care less) there won’t be a single molecule of the active ingredient present.

    I hear the sound of quacking!

  9. #9 Eli Rabett
    http://rabett.blogspot.com
    May 31, 2012

    FWIW, do a G&T

    a. crowd source the rebutal
    b. put it up on arXiv. The net will find it.

  10. #10 Lionel A
    May 31, 2012

    Robert @ 2:31pm

    It’s homeopathic nonsense.

    Indeed. Now I wonder if absorbing too much ‘gibberellic acid‘ in ones ‘crispies’ helps in the production of these impressive papers. The name of that hormone could not be more inspired.

  11. #11 Bernard J.
    May 31, 2012

    I’ve just had a thought…

    Curtin, if we homeopathically dilute CO2 in, say, rainwater, then surely its amazing benefits would be magnified, a la the gibberellin paper that you seem to find so plausible.

    Less is more. If CO2 promotes plant growth, we should be diluting it in the atmosphere, rather than concentrating it. That’s the inference from the homeopathy that you are apparently happy to accept.

    Surely.

    Of course, using this logic we could collect just twenty dollars in tax from the whole of the nation’s annual productivity, and with this single redback we could build all of the infrastructure and fund all of the human services that the country needs. And get change. Homeopathy meets economics. Econopathy.

    In many quarters that’d be the same old same old, really…

    And I like Eli’s idea. Let Arvix smack the arse of scientific Stupid.

  12. #12 JamesA
    May 31, 2012

    TC: “Hank, James & co, who have never so far as I know ever published any paper anywhere, do try!”

    For your info, I’ve contributed to 69 papers since 2003 (8 as first author), notching up an average of 47 cites per paper and an h-index of 29. I don’t care to count how many I’ve reviewed over the years but I wouldn’t consider the fact I have two to do this week to be unusual. I’ve never submitted anything to any journal with an impact factor as low as 1.5 and I’m not about to start on your account.

    What does concern me more is that Thomson ISI are listing a journal that lets in such nonsense (Scopus as well, for that matter). Between TC’s paper and that one on homeopathy, I am seriously thinking about bringing that to their attention.

  13. #13 ianam
    May 31, 2012

    Hank, I am at a loss, what’s wrong with this article?

    Tim doesn’t know how much 10e-30 is.

    Tim, you’re a moron, a crank, an ignoramus, and a buffoon. Congratulations on finding someone inept enough to publish your droolings.

  14. #14 Hank Roberts
    May 31, 2012

    Tim, that paper is about dilutions in excess of parts per billion.

    Parts per billion.

  15. #15 DarylD
    William Lamb's Town Down Under
    May 31, 2012

    A great find Hank, a journal that has a trending tendency to publish horse hockey bunkum, instead of real science!

    For even organic seeds for cultivation, are allowed the option to have organic based seed coatings to enhance growth and germination etc.

    For TC’s education , debunking “Homeopathy” James Randi.

    Youtube link : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWE1tH93G9U&feature=related

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

    Cheers. ;)

  16. #16 bill
    June 1, 2012

    I am at a loss

    Never were truer words spoken.

    Seriously, you don’t know what the problem with Homeopathy is? And concentrations of hundred-parts per million (CO2) have no effect, while concentrations of single parts per billion (or less!), on the other hand…?

    Here’s my favourite primer on the subject.

    PS. David Bellamy is a patron of the British Homeopathic Association.

  17. #17 Hank Roberts
    June 1, 2012

    > that one on homeopathy
    Oh, way way more than one.
    More than dozens, in fact.
    With extensively detailed statistical treatment in the papers.
    You might ought to look into this stuff a bit more.
    Whatever it is, there’s a vast amount of it being published.

  18. #18 Hank Roberts
    http://hankroberts.wordpress.com
    June 1, 2012

    This seems typical of the publisher/journal

    Full text: http://downloads.tswj.com/2010/378193.pdf

    TheScientificWorldJOURNAL
    Volume 10 (2010), Pages 2330-2347, doi:10.1100/tsw.2010.224

    Review Article
    A Review of Three Simple Plant Models and Corresponding Statistical Tools for Basic Research in Homeopathy

    Lucietta Betti, Grazia Trebbi, Michela Zurla,1
    Daniele Nani,2
    Maurizio Peruzzi,3 and
    Maurizio Brizzi4

    1 Department of Agroenvironmental Sciences and Technologies, University of Bologna, Italy
    2 Italian Society of Anthroposophical Medicine, Milan, Italy
    3 Association for Sensitive Crystallization, Sondrio, Italy
    4 Department of Statistical Sciences, University of Bologna, Italy

    Received 23 July 2010; Revised 4 November 2010; Accepted 5 November 2010
    Academic Editor: Joav Merrick Copyright © 2010 Lucietta Betti et al.

    ABSTRACT In this paper, we review three simple plant models … to study the effects of homeopathic treatments. We will also describe the set of statistical tools applied in the different models. …

    … the most significant results were achieved with the 45th decimal potency, both for As2O3 (As 45x) and water (W 45x) ….

    The statistical analysis was performed by using parametric and nonparametric tests, and Poisson distribution had an essential role when dealing with germination experiments.

    Finally, we will describe some results related to the changes in variability, which seems to be one of the targets of homeopathic treatment effect.

    [full details of their statistical methods are in the PDF.]

    —– There ya go. That’s the level TC needs to match, to get published by TSWJ

  19. #19 bill
    June 2, 2012

    I think we can assume the Homeopaths are making use of these ‘soft-approach’ journals to gain ‘publishing’ credibility.

    Now, why does that sound familiar?

  20. #20 Lionel A
    June 2, 2012
  21. #21 DarylD
    William Lamb's Town Down Under
    June 3, 2012

    Say, Lionel A. , an interesting ‘gish gallop’ of complete nonsense “Tim Worstall” writes, just like Tim Curtin, like peas in a pod.

    Such gems or howlers as “the vilenesses that are Greenpeace, FoE and the rest of the forward-to-the-Middle-Ages crowd over there” and the list just continues from the first paragraph until the last.

    Epic face palm.

  22. #22 adelady
    city of wine and roses
    June 3, 2012

    Yup! Sometimes I’m half tempted to feel a bit guilty about the piling on when deniers are making fools of themselves.

    And then Tim Worstall turns up and proves, yet again, that they really are as blinkered, silly and nasty as they always were.

  23. #23 bill
    June 3, 2012

    Amazingly, over on the hysteria-about-Flipper side, Nasa’s James Hansen manages to get the point: a tax on fossil fuels as they come out of the ground, rebated to households.

    What an egregious, pontifical wally. Classic ‘I looked into this for 2 days last week, and, based on my rigid political outlook, here’s the reality of the situation.’ He’s trying to place himself between Delingpole and ‘the hippies’ but, let’s face it, he’s Delingpole.

    Well, he is from the Adam Smith Institute. Like Marx, I doubt that he really deserves many of his followers…

  24. #24 bill
    June 3, 2012

    PS I’ll also point out that it’s the ‘Flipper side’ that’s going to favour the very tax plan he’s supposedly supporting, whereas the Delingpoles will be the ones ‘howling at the Moon’ because this is precisely the kind of ‘violating the sacred principles of the economy (i.e. pure selfishness)’ measure they’ve beaten themselves into an onanistic, apocalyptic frenzy over. This coward simply hasn’t the guts to call out the real idiots here…

  25. #25 Lionel A
    June 3, 2012

    Worstofall this ignoramus, as Bill points out, writes, ‘Nasa’s James Hansen‘ not having appreciated that NASA is an acronym and not a name and so he should have written, ‘NASA’s Jim Hansen‘, what a tool.

    I’ll bet that shortly some pedant will try to point out that Nasa’s OK in this instance.

    Then Worstofall writes this bunkum:

    The science tells us that there is uncertainty; uncertainty is an economic problem to be solved through economic methods.

    Strewth, ‘uncertainty is an economic problem‘ . FFS, this man is a tool of the first magnitude. But then over the year the Telegraph has seen plenty of those as columnists.

    Do many economists go to a brain transplant centre that swaps out for monkey brains I wonder. No, that would leave them with more intelligence than shown by Worstofall, Axolotl I would go for – an organism that never grew up.

  26. #26 bill
    June 3, 2012

    Economics – the political struggle overseen by accountants. And one of the few ‘sciences’ where being consistently wrong will most-likely make very little difference to your career, and may even enhance it if you’re wrong in the right (Right) way. Alan Greenspan, for instance.

    Hang on, though; are we seeing a bit of a trend here? Peter Sinclair describes Arthur Laffer pulling the same routine, complete with the tired canards.

    But they’re apparently accepting that the reality of the situation is that Denial is an untenable position, and so they’re suddenly throwing out the solutions with minimal economic impact.

    The very solutions they were telling us up to only last week would cause civilization to grind to a halt, much wailing and gnashing of teeth, and, all-in-all, oceans of tears before bedtime.

    You know, all you Deniers reading this – that’s a Carbon Tax. Because that’s actually the most rational and cost-effective strategy – and you’ve just bleated and complained about it, and put off its implementation for years, and you’re still making hysterical pledges of blood to wind it back and pronouncing your ridiculous Jeremiads.

    And we’ve been telling you for ages it was actually your policy.

    But he sees a fundamentally backward system in the United States that imposes taxes on things people want more of: income and jobs. At the same time, the U.S. allows something we want less of — carbon dioxide pollution — to be emitted without penalty… Congress should offset a simple carbon tax with a reduction in income or payroll taxes.

    Well, whaddyaknow – the Australian Government’s very strategy!

    Make the Polluters Pay, people! If they want to pay less they can pollute less – that’s the point.

    If you ignore the hare-brained disinformation, and, particularly in Worstall’s case, the insults (this wally’s condescending to Jim Hansen!?!) this is actually encouraging. And don’t forget, the reactionary shibboleths are a way of saying ‘look, I’m one of you, it’s safe to listen to me.’

    Heartland’s tanked. BEST and ‘we never said it wasn’t warming’. The excommunication of the SkyDragons. The hard-core nutters are losing, folks.

  27. #27 Hank Roberts
    June 4, 2012

    > uncertainty is an economic problem to be
    > solved through economic methods.

    For sale: fresh-water ice, in form of large ice shelf, variable thickness*, approximate area the size of France, available in convenient coastal West Antarctic location. Suitable for hauling to any desert country. You provide tow vehicles.
    _________________
    *decreasing, price will rise as amount of ice decreases. When there’s almost none left, it will be immensely valuable. Trust us, we’re economists.

    —-
    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1468.html

  28. #28 Tim Curtin
    www.timcurtin.com
    June 4, 2012

    Hi fans
    Apologies for my silence here over the last few days, Roland Gaross is more compelling than you lot, not least because of your belief that when Rafa serves at 200 kmh and there’s nobody who actually lays a racket on it, nevertheless the ball comes back to him at 300 kmh.

    For that is the message of the infamous Kiehl-Trenberth (K-T) cartoon (1997) that is the total intellectual underpinning of both TAR and AR4.

    My papers unjustly lampooned here provide the econometric support for Claes Johnson’s compelling physics showing that CO2-based AGW is garbage.

    I deeply regret not knowing his work until very recently (but do now thanks to one of you-lot citing Slaying The Sky Dragon).

    What CJ does is to show that K-T’s “back radiation” at 324 W/sq.m despite only 168 of incoming solar radiation of 342 W/sq.mt. reaching the surface is what causes AGW. What does the back radiation? K-T do not say, it can hardly be the sun, given the laws of thermodynamics (am I right that the sun is a little bit hotter than the earth?). Please tell, perhaps it’s the ballboys.

    What Claes has shown is that there is NO basis in physics for the K-T and IPCC claim that back radiation is what causes global warming, and my econometrics provides massive empirical support to Claes.

    Grant Foster of Closed Mind in rightly pointing out that I had just once is dozens of regressions wrongly interpreted the Durbin-Watson statistic (albeit not without authority from none other than Zwiers of AR4 WG4 Chap. 9).

    Characteristically, Foster did not notice that my Table 1 in my TSWJ paper (2012) reported a regression of Temperature against increases in ALL so-called greenhouse gases. I was wrong to do that, because the rates of increase in CH4 and CFC etc all have different growth profiles from that of atmospheric CO2, and that is why the D-W test for auto-regression was inapplicable, unbeknown to both Lambert and Foster. I admit my errors, but they will never admit it. The rest of my TWSJ paper reported only the results of regressions using the first-differencing method recommended by Nobel-winner Granger (cited in my paper) and many others

    In his second attack on me, Foster, having suppressed my above comments, turned his attention to my ACE2011 (peer reviewed) paper, available also from my website (www.timcurtin.com).

    Again he disallowed my comment that in fact my Table 1 in my ACE2011 paper regressed only temperature change against the rising atmospheric concentration of CO2, with a Durbin-Watson test that unequivocally revealed autocorrelation using Foster’s own Tables. Foster’s impeccable accuracy meant that he did not notice the difference between correlations where the independent variable was ALL GHGs, which in fact have different time series and stationarity, and atmospheric CO2 on its own.

    Interestingly, none of Foster, Lambert and their commentators has challenged any of my differenced results in either of my ACE2011 and my TSWJ2012 papers. Those results provide strong support for Claes Johnson’s contention that

    “Global climate can be described as a thermodynamic system with gravitation subject to radiative forcing by blackbody radiation… Understanding climate thus requires understanding blackbody radiation. “..`backradiation’’ is unphysical because it is unstable and serves no role, and thus should be removed from climate science. Since climate alarmism feeds on a “greenhouse effect” based on “backradiation”, removing backradiation removes the main energy source of climate alarmism.

    Hank: Thanks for your comments, the only intelligent ones here! But I note that at Real Climate you seem to be unaware that solar-induced evaporation is the main determinant of sea-level changes. I can cite the evidence, email me at tcurtin bigblue.net.au,

  29. #29 Lotharsson
    June 4, 2012

    Characteristically, Foster did not notice … that is why the D-W test for auto-regression was inapplicable, unbeknown to both Lambert and Foster.

    Shorter TC:
    You guys are wrong! You didn’t point out that I wasn’t checking my rear view mirrors with sufficient rigour due to your unseemly haste to point out that I hadn’t removed the handbrake!

  30. #30 Lotharsson
    June 4, 2012

    I admit my errors, …

    ROFL!

    You refuse to admit high-school level errors if they impact your ideological claims – those errors must be clung to at all costs. Do you still think CO2 will make seawater potable, amongst several other doozies?

  31. #31 Lotharsson
    June 4, 2012

    I deeply regret not knowing his work until very recently (but do now thanks to one of you-lot citing Slaying The Sky Dragon).

    How amusement! You’re unsurprisingly signing up for that bunch of arrant error. You should really go the whole hog – why don’t you spend some time with Girma and Nasif Nahle and the Time Cube guy (and heck, why not throw in the Xenu clan) to create the unholy grand unified theory of why anything-but-climate-science explains climate observations? Nobel Prizes await, I assure you!

    What does the back radiation? K-T do not say, it can hardly be the sun,…

    The very diagram you disparage pretty much shows you what does the back radiation, and clearly shows that it is not the sun. Heck, if you operated at a sufficient level of intellect you could look beyond the pictures and actually read the damn words (say, the text describing the diagram in the IPCC report that you claim to be demolishing, if the actual paper is beyond you).

    But at least you are providing a masterclass in clown-trolling so you haven’t entirely wasted your typing effort!

    Understanding climate thus requires understanding blackbody radiation….

    Well Doh-de-doh-de-doh-doh-frackin’-doh!

    What on earth do you think you encounter in the first chapter or two of a basic climate science textbook?

    Clearly neither you nor your quotee have ever actually comprehended one (but in your case that was self-evident already), or these clueless statements wouldn’t appear in public. (And understanding climate takes a lot more than simply understanding black body radiation or doing simple regressions, which apparently neither you nor your quotee have figured out yet.)

    But then this, which you endorse, is even more priceless:

    “..`backradiation’’ is unphysical because it is unstable and serves no role, …

    It’s not even wrong due to reliance on some particularly stupid category errors (never mind what appear to be self-contradictions, unbeknownst to the author and to you). And this is endorsed by the serial promoter of fallacies who touts actually unphysical 5th (and now 6th) order polynomials when it suits him!

    But hey, willingness to engage in that kind of post-modern scientificking is what’s needed if you’re going for a unified Curtin-Girma-Nahle-TimeCube theory.

    (You couldn’t make this stuff up – but TC can!)

  32. #32 Robert Murphy
    June 4, 2012

    Tim Curtin says:
    “I admit my errors…”

    OK, which statement of yours below is the erroneous one?

    1) “That is why the CO2 and H2O are not GHGs”

    or

    2) “The second key aspect of water vapor is that it is a potent greenhouse gas”

    And while you’re at it, when you claimed that the IPCC “expunged” the fact water vapor is a key GHG, but you were shown that they actually did consider water vapor not only a potent GHG but the GHG responsible for 60% of the GHE, where did you admit your error? Nowhere.

    When you later said 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.” and it was shown that you had dishonestly edited his statement to make it look completely opposite of what he actually said (he was arguing that adding GHG’s will warm the surface), where did you admit your error and your deliberate distortion? Nowhere.

    Admitting your errors would require a level of intellectual honesty you are constitutionally incapable of. If you were still working in academia, your actions would be grounds for dismissal.

  33. #33 P. Lewis
    June 4, 2012

    Funny, isn’t it, that independent groups’ pyrgeometer observations match closely with modelling results of downwelling longwave radiation over many, many years in many, many publications?

    Well no, it isn’t really! Only the terminally idiotic could persist in thinking all those observations and modelling results are wrong/some cog in a mega-conspiracy.

  34. #34 Eli Rabett
    http://rabett.blogspot.com
    June 4, 2012

    Ah, but you have to understand that Claes believes in intelligent photons carrying thermometers.

    It is arrant nonsense.

  35. #35 ianam
    June 4, 2012

    Apologies for my silence here over the last few days, Roland Gaross is more compelling than you lot, not least because of your belief that when Rafa serves at 200 kmh and there’s nobody who actually lays a racket on it, nevertheless the ball comes back to him at 300 kmh.

    For that is the message of the infamous Kiehl-Trenberth (K-T) cartoon (1997) that is the total intellectual underpinning of both TAR and AR4.

    Uh, no.

    What does the back radiation? K-T do not say

    I guess the words “Greenhouse Gases” just above the back radiation arrow are whited out on your copy.

    I admit my errors, but they will never admit it

    That’s like a stopped clock admitting that it was wrong a couple of times but blaming the rest of its errors on everyone else.

  36. #36 ianam
    June 4, 2012

    “..`backradiation’’ is unphysical because it is unstable and serves no role, and thus should be removed from climate science

    Like how tennis balls coming back into the server’s court because of faulting into the net are “unphysical” and should be removed from the descriptions of tennis games, alleviating the need for bad tennis players to be alarmed.

  37. #37 bill
    June 4, 2012

    ‘Hi fans’. Some people sure do love the attention, don’t they?

  38. #38 Lotharsson
    June 5, 2012

    “..`backradiation’’ is unphysical because it is unstable and serves no role I cannot accept its implications…

    Fixed it.

  39. #39 ianam
    June 5, 2012

    I cannot accept its implications…

    It “helps” that he is genuinely too stupid to understand simple concepts, like that the magnitude of energy flows within a system is not limited by the magnitude of the energy flowing into the system. It’s tragically funny that Curtin writes “What does the back radiation? It can hardly be the sun …, perhaps it’s the ballboys” … that he is so stupid and inept that he can’t even model his own simple analogy. During a tennis “game”, a tennis player may serve five balls, yet a ball can hit the player’s racket far more than five times during that game … what does that? Where oh where are all those extra balls coming from?

  40. #40 Bernard J.
    June 5, 2012

    Thanks indeed Lotharsson (June 4, 2:56 pm).

    I now understand from whence Curtin’s lunacy originates – he is a Climate Cubist.

    This explain’s his and Spencer’s preoccupation with third order polynomials…

    I’m sure that they have a cuby-house in a tree where they meet.

    From this revelation we can infer that the IPCC is in fact the Intergovernmental Panel against Climate Cubism.

    It demonstrates how three* Climate Cubists can hold to notions that are mutually orthogonal, but are still each correct.

    The possibilities for explanation-by-cubism are manifold…

    [*It also permits the coining of a collective noun – a joke of climate cubists.]

  41. #41 adelady
    city of wine and roses
    June 5, 2012

    ianam. I think you might have ‘hit’ on a useful analogy there – for some audiences. Worth keeping in the back of the mind for suitable occasions.

  42. #42 Lotharsson
    June 5, 2012

    I like it:

    During a tennis “game” a suitable time period in a climate system, a tennis player planetary surface may serve five balls absorb on average five Watts of shortwave radiation, yet a ball can hit the player’s racket far more than five times emit far more than five Watts of longwave radiation during that game period … what does that?

    And one might go on:

    Ever noticed that the better the tennis player you’re facing higher the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the more likely it is that a ball you serve a longwave photon the surface emits comes back to your side of the court the surface?

    If only TC would begin to apply basic accounting principles that one presumes were even taught to economists back in the day (including not certain ignoring inflows or outflows that are deemed inconvenient), then he might begin to eliminate some of the more laughable errors he makes.

  43. #43 ianam
    June 5, 2012

    I think you might have ‘hit’ on a useful analogy there

    The funny/ironic/tragic thing is that it’s Curtin’s analogy. The first time I glanced at his comment, “perhaps it’s the ballboys” whizzed right past me and out through the window.

  44. #44 Bernard J.
    June 5, 2012

    This* is why climate cubist Tim Curtin struggles with his tennis metaphors, and it also explains why he has no effective grasp of statistics.

    [*Given the very existence of Curtin’s illogical approach to science, it comes as no surprise is that there is in the world someone who just as bizarrely thought to patent the above idea.]

  45. #45 ianam
    June 5, 2012

    the better the tennis player you’re facing, the more likely it is that a ball you serve comes back to your side of the court

    This is even true for a robot that is able to intercept tennis balls and send them in random directions. There’s an atmospheric analogy, but it seems to be beyond TC’s grasp.

  46. #46 ianam
    June 5, 2012

    Roland Gaross is more compelling than you lot, not least because of your belief that when Rafa serves at 200 kmh and there’s nobody who actually lays a racket on it, nevertheless the ball comes back to him at 300 kmh

    It’s strange how TC gets so close … he mentions two tennis players, yet somehow one of them becomes “nobody”, just as “Greenhouse Gases” is mysteriously missing from his copy of the K-T diagram. This odd behavior suggests that there may be an invisible force acting on TC …

  47. #47 Chris O'Neill
    June 5, 2012

    This explain’s his and Spencer’s preoccupation with third order polynomials

    He’s up to fourth order now.

  48. #48 Tim Curtin
    www.timcurtin.com
    June 5, 2012

    My dear fans, your comments have become ever more bizarre.

    The Kiehl-Trenberth cartoon (1997 and TAR + AR4) shows incoming solar radiation of 341 W/sq.m of which apparently only 166 are absorbed by the surface. Yet the surface magically is able to radiate out no less than 396 W/sq.m, more than double it received. Sounds like Gillard-Swan budgeting to me.

    It gets better, of the 396 radiated out by the surface from the only 166 W/sq.m absorbed by the surface, as much as 323 W/sq.m is radiated back to the surface, perhaps by clouds (not known for anything much other than albedo) or by the ballboys and girls at the French Open.

    My son sent me today Daniel Kahneman’s Thinking, Fast and Slow; he won a Nobel in 2002. He explains the psychology of why you lot including Foster and Lambert are incapable of understanding statistics.

    Re polynomials, it is undeniable that in climate time series the best fits are always achieved by higher polynomials, and they are usually also the best stat significant.

    My experience so far is that polynomials anticipate ENSO switches from El Nino to La Nino better than any other statistical procedure. Watch this space – and prove me wrong!

    lol
    Tim

  49. #49 bill
    June 5, 2012

    Ah, Tim C dwells in a Happy Land of Magical Ponies…

  50. #50 Lotharsson
    June 5, 2012

    Since TC is so determinedly clueless, I’ve embedded a clue:

    Yet the surface magically is able to radiate out no less than 396 W/sq.m, more than double it received directly from the sun, and entirely consistent with what it received from all sources.

    (This won’t help – as shown by the rest of his comment, which determinedly misinterprets the situation despite pointed comments correcting his misconceptions.)

    Don’t let him anywhere near your wallet – Magical Pony Accounting procedures are a massive risk to your personal wealth.

    …it is undeniable that in climate time series the best fits are always achieved by higher polynomials…

    Well, doh! The same applies to practically any time series because you’re giving yourself more degrees of freedom to approximate the underlying series (noise and all). This is well understood basic mathematics – and you’re wimping out at 5th and 6th order – go much much higher and you’ll generally be able to find even better fits.

    Doesn’t imply they are physically meaningful or even provide any insight into the physical system though, no matter how much you protest.

    My experience so far is that polynomials anticipate ENSO switches from El Nino to La Nino better than any other statistical procedure.

    That may or may not be so – but it has practically nothing to do with AGW or warming trends.

  51. #51 Bernard J.
    June 5, 2012

    Re polynomials, it is undeniable that in climate time series the best fits are always achieved by higher polynomials, and they are usually also the best stat significant.

    Oh, for Pete’s sake Curtin, are you really this stupid?!

    The reason that higher order polynomials fit better is that anything can be fitted when using additional parametres.

    And you need to understand the difference between statistical significance and physical significance – and when to use or not use statistical significance.

    <

    My experience so far is that polynomials anticipate ENSO switches from El Nino to La Nino better than any other statistical procedure.

    Fine.

    Pick your polynomial of most-preferred order, and predict the temporal limits of the next five El Niño and La Niña.

    Come on, your experience – self-vaunted as it is – should be able to slap a prediction down on the table without skipping a heart-beat.

    Climate cubism, indeed…

  52. #52 Bernard J.
    June 5, 2012

    Sorry for doubling up on your comments Lotharsson. For some strange reason I was repeatedly told to stop posting so soon after previously posting, even though I hadn’t posted for hours. It took about two hours just to get past that post-guard…

  53. #53 Lotharsson
    June 5, 2012

    Sorry for doubling up on your comments Lotharsson.

    No worries. Pile on as you see fit…

  54. #54 Lionel A
    June 5, 2012

    TC 04062012 1:22 pm ATTLGT writes.

    What CJ does is to show that K-T’s “back radiation” at 324 W/sq.m despite only 168 of incoming solar radiation of 342 W/sq.mt. reaching the surface is what causes AGW.

    Seriously Curtin, so you cannot understand a ‘cartoon’. Little wonder so many concepts escape your stunning intelligence.

    What is wrong with your attribution WRT that 168? Go on look carefully, maybe you will need to ‘phone a friend. Or you could just wake up Bart and ask him.

    Clearly you do have problems with comprehension.

    For those wondering why Curtin is so coy about where to find ‘the cartoon’ in AR4 – IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007. : Contribution of Working Group I [Physical Science Base] to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007 and in Chapter 1 on page 96.

    See here for the 11 Chapters and other sections of that part of the AR4

  55. #55 DarylD
    William Lamb's Town Down Under
    June 5, 2012

    “Everyone lies: it’s just a question of how, when and why. From the relationship saving “yes, you do look thin in those pants” to the improbable “your table will be ready in 5 minutes”, manipulating the truth is part of the human condition. Accept it now.”

    Take Tim, every time he puts pen to paper, he is telling a gish gallop of lies, in order to hide his complete lack of understanding of the real world of science and mathematics, from first principles.

    He corrupted one artificial branch of mathematics, from it’s true purpose in life and then completely ignored the reality of the properties matter, to create his artificial world of pure nonsense that defies reality.

    Sadly, Tim C., in his deluded state of mind, writes complete “BS” about absolutely nothing. He thinks himself as a major player in the world of denialati ersatz skeptics. Back in the real world, he is and will always remain, one very minor mediocre player. For he is one, that is lacking a complete understanding from first principles, of that which he talks about.

    If Tim, wishes to overcome his fear of the inconvenient truth and complete ignorance, on the complex study of mathematics, logic, the properties of matter, all the laws of physics and global warming. He should drop back his gish gallop, into low, low first gear and go back to basic first principles, in both science and mathematics, as is taught in Year 7, in all High Schools or Secondary Colleges across Australia.

  56. #56 ianam
    June 5, 2012

    your comments have become ever more bizarre

    They might seem less bizarre if you were to actually read them for comprehension.

    The Kiehl-Trenberth cartoon (1997 and TAR + AR4) shows incoming solar radiation of 341 W/sq.m of which apparently only 166 are absorbed by the surface. Yet the surface magically is able to radiate out no less than 396 W/sq.m

    Magic like Rafa’s racket hitting more balls than handed to him by the ballboys. Where do all those other balls come from?

    more than double it received

    You left off “from the sun”.

    as much as 323 W/sq.m is radiated back to the surface, perhaps by clouds

    Or, you know, “Greenhouse Gases”, like it says just above that back radiation arrow.

    or by the ballboys and girls at the French Open.

    Yeah, those are the only possibilities … one tennis player and a bunch of ballboys and girls; no other source of balls coming into one’s court.

  57. #57 Lotharsson
    June 6, 2012

    Magic like Rafa’s racket hitting more balls than handed to him by the ballboys. Where do all those other balls come from?

    That’s an even better formulation.

  58. #58 bill
    June 6, 2012

    Top tip – if you get the ”you’re posting too often – slow down’, message clear your History (Shift+Ctrl+Del in FireFox), and do a forced/shift refresh of the page.

  59. #59 Lotharsson
    June 6, 2012

    I’ve also seen “You’re posting too often” on the first comment I’ve made in a day. I think they’re probably triggering on IP addresses and not handling situations where posters are behind proxies very well. Or something.

  60. #60 Lionel A
    June 6, 2012

    Some more help for poor confused Tim C

    There is a more recent paper containing an updated version of the schematic (add that one to your vocabulary TimC continued use of ‘cartoon’ will demean you)) diagram under discussion which can be accessed here EARTH’S GLOBAL
    ENERGY BUDGET
    .

    Note in particular this statement

    For an equilibrium climate, OLR necessarily balances the incoming ASR,

    and consider where blackbody temperatures fit in there.

    Now Tim C should be able to catch up.

  61. #61 MikeH
    June 7, 2012

    Tim Curtin and the Skydragon Slayers – crank magnetism at work.

    Unified theory of the crank.

    1. Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts.
    2. Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important.
    3. Cranks rarely if ever acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.
    4. Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs, often in inappropriate social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners, and often appear to be uninterested in anyone else’s experience or opinions.

  62. #62 Michael Brown
    June 7, 2012

    Tim Curtin’s article appears in “The Scientific World Journal” (tswj.com) whose website is registered to “Hindawi Publishing Corporation” which is on Beall’s watchlist of predatory open-access publishers.

    Hindawi spams thousands with invitations to write articles for their journals. I still have records of receiving such invitations on 3/2/2012, 15/12/2011, 28/9/2011, 5/9/2011, 8/7/2011, 19/4/2011, 4/42011, 10/2/2011 and 11/1/2011 (and many other invitations probably ended up in the trash).

    The entry on Hindawi from Beall’s list follows;

    Based in Cairo, Egypt, this publisher is now on its own after its collaboration with the publisher Sage ended in 2011. This publisher has way too many journals than can be properly handled by one publisher, I think, yet supporters like ITHAKA boast that the prevailing low wages in Egypt, as well as the country’s large college-educated, underemployed workforce, allow the company to hire sufficient staff to get the job done. Still, this publisher continues to release new fleet startups of journals, each group having titles with phrases in common: Advances in … (31 titles) and Case Reports in … (32 titles). It appears that Hindawi wants to strategically dominate the open-access market by having the largest open-access journal portfolio.

  63. #63 P. Lewis
    June 7, 2012

    Were Trenberth and various co-workers’ values for surface upward/downward longwave energy fluxes reasonable values in their various publications?

    Let’s look at some observations.

  64. #64 P. Lewis
    June 7, 2012

    Oops! No bl**dy preview!

    Let’s try again:

    Let’s look at some observations.

  65. #65 Tim Curtin
    www.timcurtin.com
    June 7, 2012

    Lionel: Thanks for the link to the still absurd 2009 update to the KT1997 cartoon by Trenberth, Fasullo, and Kiehl (TFK).

    It remains a cartoon because while the LHS does balance incoming solar of 341 W/sq.m with surface absorption of 161 + 23 reflected by the surface, 79 reflected by clouds and atmosphere, plus 78 absorbed by the Atmosphere, the RHS produces 396 W/sq.m. surface radiation of which 356 goes nowhere, and 353 is “back (sic) radiation” “absorbed by surface”. What a load of bs!

    How can 2.63 W/sq.m. from GHG (AR4, WG1, page 141) produce more “radiative forcing” than the TFK 341 from their solar 161 W/sq.m. actually reaching the surface?

    TFK remind me of the lawyer I occasionally played golf with in PNG who manifestly had wandered all over the course while playing the 5th hole and proudly claimed he had parred it!

    Claes Johnson has exposed the back radiation in the RHS as garbage, without refutation so far, and it is such patent rubbish that Ray Pierrehumbert could not bring himself even to mention the TFK “back radiation” in his “Infrared radiation and planetary temperature” (Physics Today 2011).

    When the climate science is settled, how come Pierrehumbert (associate of Hansen & Schmidt) ignores Trenberth et al. ?

    Could it be because he knows KT et al believe in pixies?

    But he is no better himself, with his new belief that RF from CO2 (et al. at max 2.63 W/sq.m. as of 2005) raises T enough to produce more atmospheric water vapour than evaporation induced by the amount of energy per second averaged over the entire planet per sq. metre per second which is 342 W/sq.metre (AR4, WG1, p.96)?

    P. Lewis:

    Another believer in pixies! Whence those “downward fluxes”?

  66. #66 P. Lewis
    June 7, 2012

    P. Lewis:

    Another believer in pixies! Whence those “downward fluxes”?

    Pyrgeometers, you absolute fcuking retard!

  67. #67 P. Lewis
    June 7, 2012

    Sorry folks. That was what I thought, not what I should have written.

    What I meant to write was:

    Pyrgeometers, Tim(ewaster) Curtin. Pyrgeometers!

    C’mon ScienceBlogs, sort out the “kill” option.

  68. #68 Lotharsson
    June 7, 2012

    Curtin, you really are determined to prove that your intellectual abilities are sorely lacking with regard to basic climate science, aren’t you? All of your bluster merely reconfirms your own miscomprehension.

    Claes Johnson has exposed the back radiation in the RHS as garbage, without refutation so far,…

    ROFLMAO!

    Claes Johnson’s claims were pre-refuted by evidence he (and you) pretend doesn’t exist by dubbing it “unphysical” on ludicrous grounds – when we actually measure the frackin’ back radiation with frackin’ scientific instruments, as has been pointed out to you already. You’re the one who asserts pixies here by dismissing the counter-evidence out of hand!

    Ray Pierrehumbert could not bring himself even to mention the TFK “back radiation” in his “Infrared radiation and planetary temperature” (Physics Today 2011).

    Er, dude, what is this I see before me when I load the PDF? What are all those downward directed squiggly arrows in Figure 1, especially the squiggly arrow from layer 1 towards the ground? Would this be … radiation, emitted from greenhouse gas molecules, and directed towards the ground? And if so, would it not be accurate to call it “back radiation” as the term is commonly defined, even if Pierrehumbert doesn’t feel the need to explicitly use the term?
    I mean, did you not read the reference you cited and hope (against all previous evidence) that no-one else here would bother? Or did you simply fail to understand the paper? Or are you trying to increase the amount of clownery in your clown-trolling?

    If you were operating with any basic intellectual competence in the field, you would presumably stop and ask yourself why the satellite observations cited in that paper and elsewhere are entirely consistent with KTR, if Curtin & Johnson are correct that KTR is massively erroneous – especially since the radiative transfer equations used for the theoretical predictions from fairly fundamental principles generate the phenomenon of “back radiation”, as illustrated by Figure 1. How the heck do you think massively wrong equations came up with the right answers? Even worse – how the heck do you think GHG molecules direct ALL of their emitted radiation away from the planetary surface? Do they have some sort of gravitational field sensitive orientation mechanism coupled to a cute little system of lenses, or are they “intelligently emitting”, or what? There are so many gaping holes in your claims that it is staggering that you can’t come up with even one before you hit “Submit” – especially after all the free coaching you get! At what point will you begin to consider that you may not actually be competent in this particular field, and refrain from accusations until you actually achieve competence?

    (Oh, and you might want to revisit your paragraph at the end mentioning water vapour. The claim appears to be so incoherent it “isn’t even wrong”. Start by noting that TOA radiative power doesn’t “induce evaporation”…)

  69. #69 Lotharsson
    June 7, 2012

    Er, lack of preview bites again – replace KTR with TFK in my last comment!

  70. #70 P. Lewis
    June 7, 2012

    What a wonderful picture: heliotropic (aided by negative geotropism) GHG molecules.

  71. #71 Lionel A
    June 7, 2012

    So Curtin, you still cannot understand what you derogatorily term a ‘cartoon':

    ‘…the RHS produces 396 W/sq.m. surface radiation of which 356 goes nowhere…’

    ‘356’ goes nowhere’! Have another closer look and THINK how the OSR reacts with that stuff indicated and that other stuff nearby and how that may be a factor in the origin of that Back Radiation.

    You do need leading by the hand don’t you.

    If I can get what is going on here, when I am neither a statistician (although have had some exposure to that discipline) or a climate scientist (very nearly but chose another path after many years as a aviation engineer where concepts such as the gas laws and much else were par for the job) then you seem to be the Barney Rubble here.

    BTW there is one small balancing error when one does the sums but only a minor one of the magnitude that the likes of Steve McIntyre would trumpet around the world. The error is probably due to backlash in the system through getting bored by being slagged off as a ‘cartoon’.

    This is getting real tedious too.

  72. #72 MikeH
    June 8, 2012

    Claes Johnson, the physics crank in a discussion with blogger Science of Doom.

  73. #73 Bernard J.
    June 8, 2012

    Those who can, account. Those who can’t, economise.

  74. #74 Hank Roberts
    June 8, 2012

    > heliotropic (aided by negative geotropism) GHG molecules.

    IR goes out randomly no matter what the molecule’s orientation — but, if we could make each self-aligning molecule incorporate a small laser, the kind that occur naturally in planetary atmospheres anyhow, and still something that would remain near the top of the atmosphere, that’d be an effective Maxwell’s Demon for cooling the planet:

    http://laserstars.org/history/mars.html
    But tack it onto a self-orienting molecule so it only fires when pointed at the coldest part of the sky.

    Yeah, that’d work.

  75. #75 Chris O'Neill
    June 8, 2012

    There’s a good supply of cranks who are pathologically incapable of understanding Trenberth’s diagram. Doug Cotton and John Nicol come to mind. The latter is particularly stunning considering he supposedly has a PhD in, and lectured, Physics.

  76. #76 Lotharsson
    June 8, 2012

    Claes Johnson, the physics crank in a discussion with blogger Science of Doom.

    Confused he is, and evidence, he outright ignores. No wonder TC latched on to his claims.

  77. #77 Tim Curtin
    www.timcurtin.com
    June 8, 2012

    Chris et al: when will you ever grasp the 2nd Law of thermodynamics, with your pixieland acceptance of the Trenberth-Pierrehumbert denial of it? For your information, Claes Johnson is one of the world’s top applied mathematicians by any measure, and he applies his maths to the physics of climate change. Anyone who denies the 2nd Law is an ass, and that includes Grant Closed Mind, with his inane response to Marvell here:

    Marvell said (like me): “If one regresses one non-stationary variable on another, one gets a spurious regression (the standard errors are much too small). In that case, one must difference the variables [as I did], unless the two variables are cointegrated. The latter means that the residual in the regression is stationary – i.e., that the two variables tend not to move too far apart over the long term. In the example in the post, the two variables would probably be cointegrated, although one would have to do a cointegration test to determine whether that is the case. Neither correlations nor cointegraton establish the causal direction, and one cannot assume that temperature changes do not cause changes in greenhouse gas levels. On all these points, see Kaufmann, Kauppi, and Stock, Emissions, Concentrations & Temperature: a Time Series Analysis. Climate Change (2006) 77: 249-278.”

    Here is Closed Mind’s fatuous response “Neither temperature nor CO2 is a stochastic process, and the evidence I see is pretty strong that the stochastic component is stationary.”

    But temperature is basically stochastic.

    CM goes on: “But you (and your reference) are among those who think they can get to the heart of the matter by completely ignoring the most relevant scientific discipline. It’s called ‘physics'”, a subject of which CM knows nothing because he too denies the Second Law.

    He claims to be a statistician, but where are the stats showing that heat can indeed transfer from a hot body to a hotter, pace Flanders and Swan?

  78. #78 Lotharsson
    June 8, 2012

    For your information, Claes Johnson is one of the world’s top applied mathematicians by any measure, and he applies his maths to the physics of climate change.

    Unfortunately, like you, evidence strongly suggests that he’s one of the world’s bottom climate scientists. It’s no good applying maths or statistics to a massive lack of the prerequisite scientific understanding and/or outright denial of evidence that refutes your thesis.

  79. #79 adelady
    city of wine and roses
    June 8, 2012

    “where are the stats showing that heat can indeed transfer from a hot body to a hotter”

    Oh, my giddy aunt.

    Try Roger Pielke Snr http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07/yes-virginia-cooler-objects-can-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still/ .

    For those free of preemptive baggage which might deny them use of ordinary reading skills, there are also good scientific explanations at Skeptical Science, Science of Doom, RealClimate and a dozen others. I know I’m wasting electrons on TC here, but casual visitors might like some guidance.

  80. #80 Richard Simons
    June 8, 2012

    When I wear a parka in -30C weather, it keeps me warmer even though the parka is cooler than I am. TC – if you can explain why this does not violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, then you should have an inkling of why global warming does not violate the 2nd Law.

  81. #81 Lionel A
    June 8, 2012

    And so to Windmills again.

    TC, Have you tried homoeopathy.

    Print out a page from this Deltoid thread. Dissolve in 10 litres of water stir and shake well. Take one tenth of the resultant pap and shake well in 10 litres of water. Now dilute again in another 10 litres of water and shake. Repeat another 10^28 times.

    Put a drop of the resultant on your tongue and run around the room clockwise, no anti-clockwise seeing as you are south of the equinox, ten times trying not to swallow. Now spit out that drop into the nearest eye. You should feel a bit better after a short rest.

  82. #82 Robert Murphy
    June 8, 2012

    Mr. Curtin, atmospheric physicists don’t deny the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics when they accept the fact that greenhouse gases warm the surface of a planetary body. Unlike you, they actually understand it, however. . Hell, even this asshat (who posted on this very thread) at one time accepted the validity of the greenhouse effect:

    “The second key aspect of water vapor is that it is a potent greenhouse gas” (Tim Curtin)

    Of course you ruined it right afterward by saying this:

    “…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. “(Tim Curtin)

    When are you going to explain your two contradictory statements? They can’t both be true.

  83. #83 Lotharsson
    June 8, 2012

    When are you going to explain your two contradictory statements?

    Come now, let us be reasonable!

    TC is engaged in quantum relativistic logic (QRL), which is far more advanced than your regular logics! Under QRL it is perfectly acceptable, nay, it is entirely routine for both proposition A and proposition not-A to be true. In fact, under QRL one’s inferences are fixed and one’s axioms are variables that collapse into existence from the superposition of all possible axioms at the very moment at which they are needed to rebut a challenge to an inference. Furthermore, axiom collapse produces virtual axioms that wink into and out of existence in a mysterious and non-deterministic fashion unbound by the constrictions of linear time-like dimensions or a requirement to conserve consistency- or coherency-like metrics; their definition and applicability are related by a Heisenberg-like principle, and their observed profile depends significantly on the speed at which the related scientific concepts zoom above the claimaint’s head – all of which goes some way to explaining why A and not-A are not in fact contradictory when viewed from the correct reference frame, even though you might claim to observe that they are from yours.

    Heck, quantum logic is so advanced there might only be three people in the world who understand it – and I’m trying to think who the other two might be.

  84. #84 Hank Roberts
    June 9, 2012

    > … Pielke Snr http://www.drroyspencer

    Oops.

    But we know who you meant.

    I suggested TW read Spencer
    a while back in the thread.
    He tried, but didn’t succeed.

  85. #85 Hank Roberts
    June 9, 2012

    > TW
    TC

  86. #86 MikeH
    June 9, 2012

    Since TC is in awe of Claes Johnson perhaps he could explain the following from his guru.

    The Sun emitting light generates electromagnetic waves covering space of which the Earth occupies a part
    and thus is in electromagnetic contact with the Sun. In this contact the Earth is a receiver and not emitter, and in particular does not emit any photon particles reaching the Sun.

    Radiation requires both an emitter/source and absorber/receiver

    This is just woo – an infantile misunderstanding of the second law combined with a crank attempt to justify the misunderstanding with a mythical electromagnetic contact between receiver and emitter. How does that work with the background radiation from the big bang? Talk about “intelligent” photons – these can see into the future as well.

    The debate over the Slayer’s crankdom is well and truly over with even the hardcore deniers running a mile from it. Trust TC to be late to the party.

  87. #87 adelady
    city of hanging head in shame
    June 9, 2012

    Thx Hank.

    I noticed that – eventually – and figured referring back/apologising /explaining wouldn’t save me from well-deserved ridicule. I doubt preview could have saved me so I can’t even blame the technology, just my own failure to delete the correct portions of a stream of names.

  88. #88 Lotharsson
    June 9, 2012

    Not only that, but:

    …and in particular [earth] does not emit any photon particles reaching the Sun…

    is patently and stupidly incorrect. Apparently he thinks the photons emitted by earth in the general direction of the sun are … what? Overawed by the mighty counter flux, so they stop, have a little think about their future prospects and decide to turn around and go the other way?!

    The guy is making up fairy tales that wouldn’t pass muster with a middle of the pack high school physics student, whilst TC applauds from the sidelines.

  89. #89 Tim Curtin
    www.timcurtin.com
    June 9, 2012

    Dear fans, here is what Eddington said in 1915: “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” (h/t Claes Johnson).

    None of you let alone Trenberth and Pierrehumbert has ever understood that Law. And it is that Law which explains why my LSR analysis of changes in temperature vis a vis changes in [CO2] yields no statistically significant relationship between those variables.

    Unlike Joelle Gergis’ Kahnt do stats., all my data are in the public domain. Get off your b*** and prove me wrong.

    Kind regards

    Tim

  90. #90 Robert Murphy
    June 9, 2012

    But Tim, the GHE does not go against the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, so your point is moot. Even an idiot like this guy agrees:

    “The second key aspect of water vapor is that it is a potent greenhouse gas” (Tim Curtin)

  91. #91 Lionel A
    June 9, 2012

    On entropy and the second law of thermodynamics, is it not interesting that the quote TC has just produced above is so beloved of those who are conceptually challenged as in this example from a Creationist and probable acquaintance of TC.

    What is there about the model of global energy flows, as described by Trenberth and many others that urges you to invoke the Eddington quote?

    Nobody is eschewing the second law. Consider:

    The entropy of an ISOLATED system increases in the course of a spontaneous change

    D(elta)Stot>0 where Stot is the total entropy of all parts of the isolated system.

    Oreeversible processes (like cooling to the temperature of the surroundings and the free expansion of gases) are spontaneous processes and hence are accompanied by an increase in entropy. We can express this by saying that irreversible processes generate entropy. On the other hand, reversible processes are finely balanced changes, with the system in equilibrium with its surroundings at every stage. Each infinitesimal step along the path is reversible, and occurs without dispersing energy chaotically and hence without increasing entropy: reversible processes do not generate entropy. At most, reversible processes transfer entropy from one part of an isolated system to another.

    Atkins, Physical Chemistry, Fourth Edition, p.84.

    As for

    ‘…back radiation in the RHS as garbage, without refutation so far, and it is such patent rubbish that Ray Pierrehumbert could not bring himself even to mention the TFK “back radiation” in his “Infrared radiation and planetary temperature” (Physics Today 2011).’

    when Pierrehumbert certainly mentions back radiation in his ‘Principles of Planetary Climate’.Of course what probably confused you was that you were looking under ‘B’ in the index when you should have been looking under ‘I’ for Infra-red (Back Radiation).

    It does seem also, with your references to CO2 band saturation and comments WRT water vapour, that you have fallen for Knut Angström’s much debunked and no longer cited for validity 1900 paper. You should look out pages 53-55 of ‘The Warming Papers’ edited and commented by David Archer and Ray Pierrehumbert as well as <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument-part-ii/&quot;

  92. #92 Lionel A
    June 9, 2012

    …as well as this article.

    Not sure what happened to that URL, text got truncated causing failure somehow. Odd. Has happened before.

  93. #93 Bernard J.
    June 9, 2012

    And it is that Law which explains why my LSR analysis of changes in temperature vis a vis changes in [CO2] yields no statistically significant relationship between those variables.

    Hn.

    Parsimony – and the small matter of several hundred years of scientific endeavour by tens of thousands of professionals – indicate that the simplest (d.f. = 0) alternative, that “no statistically significant relationship” was found because you misapply statistical analysis, is actually the case.

    And when are you going to learn that regressions are not the sole extent of statistical treatment? Sheesh, you could have saved my first year undergrads a lot of grind by advising Dytham to ditch his pages and pages of dichotomous key with the simple sentence “do a regression”. That would shorten chapter three to a single line that could then be moved to the contents, and allow the expunging of a dozen or so superfluous chapters so that the entire book becomes a nice, thin, single chapter.

    What particuarly flummoxes me though is that you haven’t even batted an eyelid at Claes Johnson’s:

    …the Earth is a receiver and not emitter, and in particular does not emit any photon particles reaching the Sun.

    besides the fact that the phrase “photon particle” is an oxymoron, Johnson is essentially stating that the entire (non-stellar?) universe is black with respect to the perspective of the sun. This has some major implications for the nature of whatever windy solar mechanism mediates this remarkable blacking-out, and it also suggests that there is a spherical, incoming-ER horizon surrounding stars.

    Imagine it… the closer an object moves to the sun, the dimmer the night side of the object becomes, until the incoming-photonic horizon is crossed, and the only night illumination remaining is that resulting from refraction and/or reflection of out-going solar radiation.

    I think that someone might have been overlooked for a Nobel prize…

  94. #94 Lionel A
    June 9, 2012

    …the Earth is a receiver and not emitter, and in particular does not emit any photon particles reaching the Sun.

    Yes, I was going to have some fun with that. I wonder how all those astronauts managed to see and photograph the Earth from space? That is but one question of many forming.

  95. #95 DarylD
    William Lamb's Town Down Under
    June 9, 2012

    Alas, the clueless “Slaying the Sky Dragon” supporter Tim Curtin, is now busy spreading his gish gallop of nonsense over at “The Conversation” .

    Link : http://theconversation.edu.au/can-australian-farmers-take-on-the-challenge-of-climate-change-6957

    It seems, he is not faring very well in the popularity stakes over there either. :)

    I do believe this Monty Python sketch “Hy-Brazil is Sinking” sums up Tim’s total denial of reality in the face of over whelming evidence nicely : – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8IBnfkcrsM

  96. #96 Lotharsson
    June 9, 2012

    None of you let alone Trenberth and Pierrehumbert has ever understood that Law.

    When you can’t answer reasoned critiques of your claims, you simply assert that those making the critiques “don’t understand” what they’re talking about.

    Funny how you can never seem to accurately explain how they got it wrong…whereas your critics patiently (and impatiently) explain in quite some detail…

  97. #97 bill
    June 10, 2012

    While much gets made of the initials DK in this context, have you considered something more along the lines of AB?

    Those who suffer from it are “…blind”, but affirm, often quite adamantly and in the face of clear evidence of their blindness, that they are capable of seeing. Failing to accept being blind gets dismissed by the sufferer through confabulation.

  98. #98 Bernard J.
    June 10, 2012

    More on:

    …the Earth is a receiver and not emitter, and in particular does not emit any photon particles reaching the Sun.

    another implication is that it the sun were surrounded by Earths at the current stronomical radius a la Ringworld, but in three dimensions rather than two and minus the scrith, then to all intents and purposes it would be completely enclosed, but it would never heat beyond its current temperature.

    Now there is some nifty thermodynamics…

  99. #99 Eli Rabett
    http://rabett.blogspot.com
    June 10, 2012

    Tim and Claes believe in some serious action at a distance.

    About all you can really say is they are ignorant

  100. #100 cohenite
    June 10, 2012

    Actually Tim Curtin’s conclusion about the Null Hypothesis is correct if Trenberth is any guide:

    “Given that global warming is “unequivocal”, to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence [on the climate].”

Current ye@r *