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 Hank Roberts
    June 10, 2012

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

    C> Tim Curtin’s conclusion about the Null Hypothesis
    C> is correct if Trenberth is any guide

    !

  2. #2 ianam
    June 11, 2012

    You’re a crackup, Anthony. Or maybe “up” isn’t quite the right word.

  3. #3 Bernard J.
    June 11, 2012

    Seriously Cox, you might as well hitch your star to a tombstone as to Curtin’s wagon.

    That you and he have insufficient combined scientific understanding to comprehend why, only adds to the sad humour of it all.

  4. #4 Lionel A
    June 11, 2012

    As introduced by DarylD in his June 9, 10:48 pm, Tim Curtin is continuing to cover himself with glory over at The Conversation where he continues to insult Trenberth and just about everybody else as demonstrated by this reply by Curtin to Mark Harrigan:

    Thanks Mark, I am glad you agree that the IPCC’s AR4 WG1 is total gibberish, because at p. 96 when displaying Trenberth’s Mickey Mouse cartoon, it states “The amount of energy reaching the top of Earth’s atmosphere EACH SECOND on a surface area of one square metre facing the sun during DAYTIME is about 1,370 Watts, and the amount of energy per square metre per second averaged over the entire planet is one quarter of this (Fig.1)” – and of that amount only 168 W/sq.m reaches the surface.

    If we break the AR4 WG1 quote down into components it should be easier for Tim to see where his comprehension is lacking:

    “The amount of energy reaching the top of Earth’s atmosphere EACH SECOND on a surface area of one square metre facing the sun during DAYTIME is about 1,370 Watts…

    Note that ‘…energy…EACH SECOND…is about 1370 Watts…’ does not flout the principles of physics. Read it carefully and slowly and parse it according to rules of grammar with your thinking head on Tim. Will that big bulb atop your head light up?

    As for your continued misunderstanding of what goes on in the atmosphere WRT surface radiation and back radiation do you not realise that given the number of explanations that you have been given it is you that is in the wrong and guilty of the invincible ignorance that you accuse another (Richard Ekard in his ‘Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture ‐ reduction options‘.) of.

  5. #5 Lionel A
    June 11, 2012

    Oops. What is it with this new format that causes links to fail? Maybe it is including the full link with mark up in text imported from a WP. Stranfe. Didn’t happen before the change.

    As introduced by DarylD in his June 9, 10:48 pm, Tim Curtin is continuing to cover himself with glory over at The Conversation where he continues to insult Trenberth and just about everybody else as demonstrated by this reply by Curtin to Mark Harrigan:

  6. #6 P. Lewis
    June 11, 2012

    For whatever reason, Tim(ewaster) Curtin seems unlikely to change his mind about anything in regard to AGW. He hasn’t in the last (what?) 5 or 6 years I’ve been visiting this blog, and I see little to suggest in this latest episode that his mind is about to change either.

    The same old ground has been covered over and over again. And I see the same points are put to him over at The Conversation linked above. So, there seems little point pursuing the various points with him here (not when we get to page 4 and beyond anyway).

    Poe or vested interest seems unlikely. So it must be D-K syndrome; and given the undoubted hard work he’s put in with his various papers, it’s nice to know he excels at something.

    I don’t know about the first adjective in the name here, but the second seems appropriate. [YouTube clip, with initial ad]

    … please!

  7. #7 P. Lewis
    June 11, 2012

    Oops! Preview!

    That should have read

    <killfile> … please!

  8. #8 Bernard J.
    June 12, 2012

    Yeah, we definitely need preview, and internal links.

    One hint – I (sometimes) use a Skeptical Science tab to preview… although not often enough!

  9. #9 P. Lewis
    June 12, 2012

    Thanks for the tip BJ.

    I actually went searching for a basic, no frills HTML viewer after yesterday’s HTML tag faux pas and came across this real-time HTML editor/viewer.
    Hard returns don’t equate to paras, so I have to enter <p> tags. Small price.
    I’ve bookmarked it. All I have to do now is remember to use it!

  10. #10 P. Lewis
    June 12, 2012

    Interesting! The <p> tags didn’t work like I expected.

    I shall have to experiment over the next few posts I make, round and about.

  11. #11 Hank Roberts
    June 14, 2012

    From my spam folder, for those looking for such an opportunity:

    From: Editorial Assistant Malaysia
    To: undisclosed-recipients:;
    Reply-To: sciencejournals@uniserve.com
    Subject: CALL FOR RESEARCH MANUSCRIPTS, REVIEWS & SHORT COMMUNICATIONS

    Dear Colleague/Author,

    CALL FOR RESEARCH MANUSCRIPTS, REVIEWS & SHORT COMMUNICATIONS

    SJP is a reputable broad base Open Access Journal publisher. We cover all
    areas of scientific researches. We welcome the submission of manuscripts
    that meet the general criteria of significance and scientific excellence,
    and we will publish:

    * Original articles in basic and applied research
    * Case studies
    * Critical reviews, surveys, opinions, commentaries and essays

    Our objective is to inform authors of the decision on their manuscript(s)
    within 2 weeks of submission following acceptance.

    TYPES OF PAPER

    The following types of papers are published in the SJP:

    Regular Articles: These should describe new and carefully confirmed
    findings, and experimental procedures should be given in sufficient detail
    for others to verify the work. The length of a full paper should be the
    minimum required to describe and interpret the work clearly.

    Short Communications: A Short Communication is suitable for recording the
    results of complete small investigations or giving details of new models
    or hypotheses, innovative methods, techniques or apparatus. The style of
    main sections need not conform to that of full-length papers. Short
    communications are 2 to 4 printed pages (about 6 to 12 manuscript pages)
    in length.

    Reviews: Submissions of reviews and perspectives covering topics of
    current interest are welcome and encouraged. Reviews should be concise and
    no longer than 4-6 printed pages (about 12 to 18 manuscript pages).
    Reviews are also peer-reviewed.

    PROOFS AND REPRINTS

    Electronic proofs will be sent (e-mail attachment) to the corresponding
    author as a PDF file. Page proofs are considered to be the final version
    of the manuscript. With the exception of typographical or minor clerical
    errors, no changes will be made in the manuscript at the proof stage.

    SUBMISSION OF ARTICLE(S)

    Please send your manuscript(s) via email to us for a NORMAL PROCESS REVIEW
    or send a request for General Guidelines in Article/Manuscript
    Preparation.

    *Correspondence should be sent to sciencejournals@uniserve.com

    Best Regards,
    Editorial Assistant | SJP

    Copyright: Submission of a manuscript implies: that the work described has
    not been published before (except in the form of an abstract or as part of
    a published lecture, or thesis) that it is not under consideration for
    publication elsewhere; that if and when the manuscript is accepted for
    publication, the authors agree to automatic transfer of the copyright to
    the publisher.

    Note: To unsubscribe from our email list, simply send a blank message with
    unsubscribe as subject.

    —————————————————————-
    This e-mail has been sent via JARING webmail at http://www.jaring.my

  12. #12 Tim Curtin
    www.timcurtin.com
    June 15, 2012

    Gavin Schmidt said at his RC thread on the Gergis-Karoly paper (now withdrawn) “despite personally feeling bad after making a mistake, fixing errors is a big part of making progress”; well said indeed. But Lotharsson linked at that thread (#149) to the recent attacks on me by Tim Lambert at Deltoid, which picked up on Tamino’s pointing out an error in my recent paper in TSWJ but did not mention that I (1) admitted the error and then (2) explained why I was in error, because I overlooked that the independent variable in my Table 1 (radiative forcing by the aggregate of all GHGs) was unlikely to be autocorrelated, as for example CH4 and CO2 are not correlated, see Table 2.1 in AR4 WG1). Neither Tim Lambert nor Tamino found I repeated my error in the many other regressions I reported in my paper and its SI.

    More generally, why is it that expert econometricians at RC and at Lambert’s and Tamino’s never themselves undertake and report regressions rejecting the nul that increases in GHGs since 1958 do NOT explain temperature anomalies?

    Also, AFAIK, nobody at RC commented on what seems to me the basic problem with the Gergis et al paper, given its sweeping title,

    “Evidence of unusual late 20th century warming from an Australasian temperature reconstruction spanning the last millennium”.

    That is its total absence of any proxy records for mainland Australia, as shown in its Fig.1. A more modest title would have been appropriate and would have attracted less attention.

  13. #13 Marco
    June 15, 2012

    Tim, have you already retracted your paper? Remember, you *admitted* it contains an error!

    Another little question to Tim: why does the nul have to be that GHGs do NOT explain the temperature anomalies? Even worse, why *only* GHGs, and not *all* radiative forcings?

  14. #14 Jeff Harvey
    June 15, 2012

    I have avoided tis entire discussion so far for the simple reason that IMHO TCs paper ain’t gonna make the tiniest ripple in the ocean. Like Hank et al, I get dozens of emails weekly asking me to submit papers to Open Access journals that are popping up everywhere like a rash. IMO TC appears to think that he was singled out for his expertise to write his little ditty. Given TCs h-factor is (1?) or 0 (correct me TC if I am wrong), then we hate to burst your bubble but this is not the case at all.

    Yesterday I had an article provisionally accepted in a journal with an IF of 3.6, and this year I have 10 other articles in peer-reviewed journals including 5 with IFs over 2, so its no great feat to get a paper published in a journal with an IF of about 1.5. MY h-factor is 30, in case you were wondering, and all of these Open Access requests get immediately deleted.

  15. #15 Jeff Harvey
    June 15, 2012

    Following on from my last post, I checked Tim’s two E & E papers (2009): in one of them he made a fuss about atmospheric C02 and food production.

    Times cited on the WoS in other journals by other scientists since then for both?

    0.

    I rest my case. Storm in a teacup.

  16. #16 bill
    June 15, 2012

    ‘other scientists’?

  17. #17 Jeff Harvey
    June 15, 2012

    Bill: By other scientists I mean articles written by other scientists that have since 2009 been published in a scientific journal that appears on the WoS. This determines the impact factor of a journal. Jounrals with higher IFs generally publish articles that get cited more than in journalsd with low IFs. Both of Tim’s papers ahve not been cited once. Citations are generally a mesure of how scientists view the work of others in their fields. When a paper is rarely (or never) cited, it means that other scientists do not think that it contributes to the empirical or theoretical knowledge base. When I was an editor at Nature, a paper I oversaw on Biodiversity Hotspots (Myers et al., 2000) was published, and it now has several thousand citations, amongst the highest in ecology since then. I have just over 2,500 citations of my research since 1993 (197 so far this year).

  18. #18 Marco
    June 15, 2012

    Jeff, I think Bill was having a bit of fun with the word “other” in connection with the word “scientist”. The present combination may suggest you consider Tim a scientist…

  19. #19 Jeff Harvey
    June 15, 2012

    AAAAHHHHHH…. my bad!

  20. #20 Lionel A
    June 15, 2012

    TC

    “Evidence of unusual late 20th century warming from an Australasian temperature reconstruction spanning the last millennium”.

    That is its total absence of any proxy records for mainland Australia, as shown in its Fig.1. A more modest title would have been appropriate and would have attracted less attention.

    Have you consider that sources of data suitable for the aims of the study do not occur on continental Australia given that most, if not all of that territory pre-dates the earliest part of the delineated period?

    Indeed much of continental Australia is very old indeed with some formations dating back to around the Hadean-Archean boundary.

    The clue is in this opening title:

    Evidence of unusual late 20th century warming from an Australasian temperature reconstruction spanning the last millennium

    Also the nature of the any particular data source restricts the choice of site, would it be sensible to look for coral samples at Ayres Rock or the Hamersley Formation. As for dendrochronology – this is based on samples from very ecologically restricted sites as you should know if you have followed the Hockey Stick debate with other than cardinal puff.

    As for finding ice core sample on continental Australia – good luck with that.

  21. #21 bill
    June 15, 2012

    Well, a ‘dismal scientist’, perhaps…

  22. #22 Lotharsson
    June 15, 2012

    But Lotharsson linked at that thread (#149) to the recent attacks on me by Tim Lambert at Deltoid, which picked up on Tamino’s pointing out an error in my recent paper…

    Ah, ever reliable, TC misses the point. I did not link to this thread to claim TC doesn’t admit his errors, as anyone reading my comment, which TC conveniently failed to link to, would see.

    I linked here to demonstrate the follies that are likely to occur when one ignores the underlying physics in one’s mathematical and statistical adventuring. 6th order polynomials anyone?

    (But if I had linked to it to illustrate that TC doesn’t admit his errors, there are plenty of unadmitted errors of far more consequence than the admitted one to point at!)

    … rejecting the nul that increases in GHGs since 1958 do NOT explain temperature anomalies…

    Sheesh, what was I just saying about the folly of ignoring the underlying physics?

  23. #23 Hank Roberts
    June 15, 2012

    “… there are two independent stochastic trends in the data…. Radiative forcing due to greenhouse gases and solar irradiance can largely explain the common trend.The second trend, which represents the non-scalar non-stationary differences between the hemispheres, reflects radiative forcing due to tropospheric sulfate aerosols….”
    http://www.springerlink.com/content/q4050354235k32l6/

  24. #24 Tim Curtin
    www.timcurtin.com
    June 16, 2012

    Lotharsson: My paper currently under review goes into the physics in detail, but uses Tyndal’s real physical expermients which whowed that it nitrogen and oxygen at around 99% of the atmosphere that are transparent to incoming solar insolation but opaque to longwave outgoing, so they neither absorb nor radiate in the infrared, whereas what he called carbonic acid and aqueous vapour are not only transparent to incoming but also do absorb and radiate outgoing LW in the infrared. Thus in my opinion the real greenhouse gases are the O and N, becuase they do block in the infrared, while [CO2] and [H2O] do not block release of the infrared LW radiation, which thereby makes it to space. See Turner et al just out in GRL (h/t WUWT on 15 June 2012).

  25. #25 Lotharsson
    June 16, 2012

    Tim Curtin, your latest comment merely reiterates my point. You ignore the physics by creating your own deeply loony interpretation that is thoroughly refuted by century of well-established counter-evidence – and the original experiment you cite! And then you layer on top your statistics which are now unconstrained by the actual physical understanding.

    (And you still haven’t acknowledged that you have made mutually inconsistent claims about greenhouse gas physics on this very thread, at least one of which must be an error of far greater consequence than the statistical error you acknowledged.)

  26. #26 Marco
    June 16, 2012

    N2 and O2 opaque to longwave radiation? Since when?

    If that were the case, no one could ever do IR spectroscopy!

  27. #27 adelady
    city of wine and roses
    June 16, 2012

    “N2 and O2 opaque to longwave radiation? Since when?”

    Hang on a minute. How does a heat seeking missile work in such an environment?

    (Here I should acknowledge that my physics is pretty limited, so be kind if I need correction.)

  28. #28 Bernard J.
    June 16, 2012

    For Tim Curtin’s next trick, he will show that because oil is liquid and ‘wet’, just as is water, it isipso facto water-soluble, and that because ice floats on water in the Artic, it is not water-soluble. Further, because ice floats on water as does oil, ice must be as oil is, and therefore ice is oil…

    Tim Curtin.

    Tearing myself (reluctantly) away from your paradigm-shifting understanding of radiation physics, I note that you don’t appear to have addressed my question to you about the alchemy of seawater transmutation, repeated often and most recently on Open Mind. I’m sure that many here would appreciate the illumination that your extraordinary mind might cast on this arcane magickery – please detail how your chemistry trumps that of a whole discipline and of several centuries of scientific scrutiny.

  29. #29 Lotharsson
    June 16, 2012

    …please detail how your chemistry trumps that of a whole discipline and of several centuries of scientific scrutiny.

    Do I detect a pattern here? He’s failed to detail how his physics trumps that of a whole discipline and oodles of scientific scrutiny either. And then there’s biology…

    But I’m sure that when he does, his revolutionary advances in understanding where zillions of other ordinary scientists went wrong for so long will lead to him being immediately recognised in all three fields as the next Nobel Prize winner. Can’t be long now! Just need the solid details, maybe a couple of published papers in each field that don’t provoke raucous laughter from practitioners and cause desks in research labs all over the world to be cracked by the impact of formerly-leading scientists heads.

  30. #30 P. Lewis
    June 16, 2012

    First there was this!

    “Is that going to be it?” many of us asked. It was soon apparent that no, that wasn’t the end of it. Then there was this!

    But even that didn’t take the biscuit. No! We then got to this stage!

    Was it going to stop there? I always doubted it. And I think others did, too.

    I think we may now have reached this stage with Tim(ewaster) Curtin… and I fear we’re not too far from heading into this territory!!

  31. #31 Lionel A
    June 16, 2012

    adelady

    Your point WRT heat-seeking missiles constitutes a brick wall for Curtin’s nonsense.

    I was once involved with combat aircraft (UK’s FAA) which carried such. We used to test missile target acquisition using hand held battery powered torches of the common NATO pattern.

    Of course we had to don spacesuits so as to work in a hangar where all the oxygen and nitrogen had been sucked out! ;-)

  32. #32 P. Lewis
    June 16, 2012

    Ballcocks!

    Just realised that last link went awry somewhat.

    The last bit should have been “and I fear we’re not too far from heading into this territory!!”

  33. #33 Lotharsson
    June 16, 2012

    Of course we had to don spacesuits so as to work in a hangar where all the oxygen and nitrogen had been sucked out!

    FTW!

    (Although I fear the irony may escape TC.)

  34. #35 Bernard J.
    June 16, 2012

    Thus in my opinion the real greenhouse gases are the O and N, becuase they do block in the infrared, while [CO2] and [H2O] do not block release of the infrared LW radiation, which thereby makes it to space.

    Odin on a stick, Curtin, you’re one slow nimrod. The physics itself aside for the moment, even a Turing test would incorporate what you’ve been told repeatedly – the square brackets refer simply to the concentration of something; they do not refer to things in an atmospheric state.

    If you’re going to pretend to be scientific, you should at least learn the language and the basic concepts of science. To do otherwise would be akin to doing economics without using numbers…

  35. #36 Tim Curtin
    www.timcurtin.com
    June 16, 2012

    Bernard J: you just don’t get it do you! I choose to use square brackets as a form of shorthand, and am not the first to use that convention.

    What is much more to the point, as spelt out in your quote from you me which you choose not to address because you are unwilling to acknowledge its truth, as that the really grotesque misuse of language is by the IPCC and the 97% of climate scientists who wilfully refuse to admit their GHGs are not GHGs at all, as they do not trap or otherwise block outgoing LWR through the infrared, whereas the oxygen and nitrogen do.

    The paper by Turner at al in GRL (May) (actual paper is linked at WUWT 15th June 2012) provides major support to my papers’ contention that it is atmospheric water vapour which is what matters.

    But to get published thye perforce have to use the false term of GHGs when referring to carbon dioxide etc.

    Be that as it may, here is what they say at [4]: “…evaluation of water vapor ABSORPTION [my caps] … is very difficult to make in strongly absorbing water vapor bands due to the OPACITY of the atmosphere”.

    Even so Tyndall managed that!

    The Turner et al Figures show inter alia the temperature and water vapour mixing ratio profiles (Fig.1) and the “water vapor pure rotation band in far-infrared” (Fig.3), etc. and confirm the role of the latter which I demonstrated in my ACE2011 and TSWJ papers with their in situ regressions at places as different as Barrow and Mauna Loa.

  36. #37 bill
    June 17, 2012

    Well, Tim C is clearly getting the attention he craves.

    Anybody else think they’re achieving anything like satisfaction? Or are likely to?

    As has been pointed out, in putting and then defending an actual argument this is close to the best that Denial can offer.

    Doesn’t amount to much, does it?

  37. #38 Lotharsson
    June 17, 2012

    Or are likely to?

    TC wouldn’t change his opinion that the midday sky was purple if he bought a colorimeter and pointed it at the sky himself. So in that sense, no.

    And there’s also the surprisingly compelling phenomenon of watching the guy deliberately orchestrate an intellectual train wreck and in response to rescuers decide to dig himself even deeper (and wondering how deep he will dig this time compared to the others). But I wouldn’t exactly call that satisfaction.

    But as you say, if TC is the best denialism has to offer…

    …as they do not trap or otherwise block outgoing LWR through the infrared, whereas the oxygen and nitrogen do.

    It’s really a shame Curtin isn’t deliberately clown-trolling, otherwise he could execute some truly world-class moves starting from this particular position. I’m particularly looking forward to his explanation as to how allegedly heat-seeking missiles really work.

  38. #39 adelady
    city of wine and roses
    June 17, 2012

    “I’m particularly looking forward to his explanation as to how allegedly heat-seeking missiles really work.”

    My heart sinks.

  39. #40 bill
    June 17, 2012

    …the really grotesque misuse of language is by the Military and the 97% of their Electronic Engineers who wilfully refuse to admit their heat-seeking missiles are not heat-seeking missiles at all.

  40. #41 Bernard J.
    June 17, 2012

    Bernard J: you just don’t get it do you! I choose to use square brackets as a form of shorthand, and am not the first to use that convention.

    Curtin, in science one does not get to arbitrarily reassign ‘shorthand’ conventions, especially when the particular convention has a very long and widespread use in another chemical context. It would be like deciding that ‘-’ means ‘divided by’ and using it thusly, just because you think that it looks like a vinculum. Seriously, if you were going to specifically mention chemical concentration as well in any discussion where you already use square brackets for your own definition, you’d be forced to deviate from accepted scientific notation.

    All you are doing by using your own “shorthand” is demonstrating to everyone who actually have science under their belts, that you are not operationally familiar with how science works. If you were going to apply a “shorthand” in the context relevant to your usage, you would more appropriately do so with a (likely italicised) subscript, as in ‘H2O2‘ or, because you’re referring to chemicals that are already prone to subscription indicating proportionality, you might use superscripts or prefixes such as aH2O.

    You certainly don’t get to “choose” to mess around with a notation that is already agreed by professional practitioners to mean something completely different. Not if you’re expecting to be taken seriously: all that you’re showing the scientific world is that you didn’t understand the sybolism the first time you saw it, and that you’ve propagated your misunderstanding throughout your subsequent writings.

    Your subsequent dancing around like a cat on a hot tin roof simply makes you look silly.

    Now, since you seem too scared to address the mess you made of the apparent chemical transmutation of seawater when it’s acidified with CO2, perhaps you would care to explain how LionelA’s and Adelady’s heat-seeking missiles are able to function.

    Oo, and if you have a theory about diameter of the incoming-ER horizon around our sun, as I posited on this thread on June 9 at 4:40 pm, I’d love to hear about it.

  41. #42 Bernard J.
    June 17, 2012

    Damn.

    This new blog format screwed up my attempt to put a subscripted and italicised ‘a’ after H2O.

    You’ll just have to imagine that this useless blog format actually knows how to translate tags.

  42. #43 Bernard J.
    June 17, 2012

    Screw it. Impatience is not a virtue.

    an italicised

  43. #44 Marco
    June 17, 2012

    Turner et al claim the atmosphere is opaque to water vapor (in certain absorption bands), Tim earlier claimed it is opaque to N2 and O2. And then Tim claims Turner et al agrees with him?

    This isn’t even Dunning-Kruger anymore!

  44. #45 adelady
    city of wine and roses
    June 17, 2012

    It could be a Dunning-Kruger Mobius effect.

    http://ink-blot-mazes.deviantart.com/art/Mobius-Maze-204759330

    Far more D-K dead ends than the single, science based way out.

  45. #46 Tim Curtin
    June 17, 2012

    Bernard J: you still don’t get it do you! If I am wrong to use my square brackets in the carefully defined context that I do, why is it not wrong to call atmospheric water vapour and CO2 GHGs when plainly they are not, because they in fact absorb and radiate heat, unlike greenhouses.

    As for heatseeking, Tyndall showed heat in his cylinder when filled with carbonic acid and aqueous vapour, but not when they contained only nitrogen and oxygen.

    Marco: read the end of #19 in Turner et al.

  46. #47 Bernard J.
    June 17, 2012

    If I am wrong to use my square brackets in the carefully defined context that I do, why is it not wrong to call atmospheric water vapour and CO2 GHGs when plainly they are not, because they in fact absorb and radiate heat, unlike greenhouses.

    1) You being wrong in one thing does not mean that someone else’s science is also incorrect. You’re cooking a veritable fruitcake of logical fallacies in confabulating independent events.

    2) The point here is not about how ‘greenhouse’ gases operate compared with a greenhouse proper, but whether ‘greenhouse’ gases have ‘greenhouse’ gas properties, as understood by physicists the world over and for the last several hundred years. Your introduction of the ambiguity of the semantics of the term ‘greenhouse’ is yet another logical fallacy (I counted about four at first blush).

    Understand this:

    Point 1: Your use of square brackets is in a context not used, accepted, or recognised by scientists. Your use clearly stems from an original misapprehension of the conventional use.

    Point 2: ‘Greenhouse’ gases absorb and re-radiate electromagnetic radiation. Nitrogen and oxygen do not. Carbon dioxide and methane are ‘greenhouse’ gases; nitrogen and oxygen are not. As you are having difficulty in understanding this, and how it relates to reality, you might ponder the demonstrations by Iain Stewart and Peiter Trans.

  47. #48 Lotharsson
    June 17, 2012

    As for heatseeking, Tyndall showed heat in his cylinder when filled with carbonic acid and aqueous vapour, but not when they contained only nitrogen and oxygen.

    Come on, TC. Even you must not believe that’s a remotely plausible answer to the problems of heat-seeking missiles in an infrared-opaque atmosphere. And you have to be particularly obtuse to have not yet figured out where you assertion based on Tyndall is wrong, given that you have been practically handed the answers on a plate. But let’s ignore that aspect and concentrate on opacity.

    1) Since you’re prone to private definitions of terms, please define “opaque”.

    3) Then please specify what you believe happens when infrared radiation is incident upon an infrared-opaque substance, all other factors being equal. Please deal specifically with changes in various forms of energy, and observability of the infrared radiation sources on the opposite side of the substance.

    3) For good measure, please specify at a very high level how heat-seeking missiles … well, seek remote heat sources given that convection and conduction appear eminently unsuited for the task. For bonus points, please specify how this process works in an atmosphere that is opaque to infrared.

  48. #49 Jeff Harvey
    June 17, 2012

    I think the bottom line here is that TC is not only completely out on an invisible limb with respect to arguing that C02 is not a greenhouse gas (this is so hilarious as to define a proper epithet), but that the only attention he is ever going to get will be on a few blogs like Deltoid and Tamino that try (without success, of course) and set him straight. Like Tim’s other ‘academic’ works, will the scientific community pay even a scintilla’s worth of attention to his latest silly musings? Of course not. Expect the latest article, like its predecessors in E & E and elsewhere, to embed themselves in the intellectual benthos and for the citations to add up to a massive NIL over time.

    That is why this is a storm in a teacup. Tim’s articles don’t even create a tiny ripple where it matters. This should say something about what academia thinks of them. Heck, even the deniers who us journals like E & E as there depositories don’t cite them.

  49. #50 Lotharsson
    June 17, 2012

    Let me try one other analogy to see if the TC lightbulb will go on.

    A) You have a laser light source in a windowless room, and an observing device in another windowless room connected to the first by an empty closed windowless corridor. The rooms and corridors are under vacuum conditions. You check that the observer can see the light source and measure its brightness, and you thereby establish a baseline for the source’s brightness as observed from the observer’s room.

    B) You then place a device in the corridor that consists of a shield that is completely transparent to the frequency of the light source. How bright would the light source appear to the observer?

    C) You then place a device in the corridor consisting of a shield that is opaque to the frequency of the light source. How bright would the light source appear to the observer?

    D) You replace the device with a coupled detector-emitter that detects incoming photons at the frequency of the light on one side, and emits precisely the same amount of outgoing photons at the same frequency on the other side. How bright would the light source appear to the observer?

    1) In which of these scenarios has the device in the corridor increased the brightness of the source as seen by the observer? In which of these scenarios has it decreased?

    2) Does the hypothesis that a transparent device reduces the observed brightness of the source hold up?

    3) Does the hypothesis that complete absorption and re-emission increases the observed brightness hold up?

    4) Does the hypothesis that a device that absorbs and re-emits is responsible for the observer being able to see the light source hold up?

    E) You replace the coupled detector-emitter with a more fancy one. This version detects incoming photons at the frequency of the light on one side, and emits half the amount of outgoing photons at the same frequency on the incoming side and the same amount (and frequency) on the other side. How bright would the light source appear to the observer and why?

    5) Does the hypothesis that a device that absorbs and re-emits in different directions will increase the observed brightness hold up?

    6) Do your answers to any of these questions change if the light source is a heat source emitting infrared radiation, the observer is a heat-seeking missile sensitive to said infrared radiation, and the device is an atmosphere gas that is opaque to said infrared radiation? Why or why not?

    7) Do your answers to any of these questions change if the source room is a planetary surface, the light source is longwave infrared radiation from the surface, the observer is in space looking at the planet, and the device in the corridor is an atmospheric gas? Why or why not?

  50. #51 Marco
    June 17, 2012

    Timmie-boy, why don’t you just admit that you AGAIN contradict your own claims with the sources you cite?

    You see, with your description of Tyndall’s experiment, you contradicted your claim that N2 and O2 are “opaque” to infrared radiation.

    Before we go on to look at Turner et al’s point 19, I think we should first establish what you really think is correct, and why you cite papers in support of statements that directly contradict those sources.

  51. #52 Tim Curtin
    www.timcurtin.com
    June 17, 2012

    I look forward to seeing Lotharsson’s answers to his questions before I respond!

    Marco, I rely on Tyndall, and until you guys refute what he showed, namely that N and O do not absorb or radiate, I rest my case.

  52. #53 Lotharsson
    June 17, 2012

    I look forward to seeing Lotharsson’s answers to his questions before I respond!

    ROFL! That’s a pathetic failure of an avoidance ploy.

    You’re the one claiming to overturn established science in a way that a plethora of professionals should have spotted a hundred years ago. And yet you can’t answer some relatively simple questions.

    So man up and provide answers, and show how they are consistent with your claims. Because I assert that you can not.

    …and until you guys refute what he showed, namely that N and O do not absorb or radiate, I rest my case.

    Don’t be a feckin’ idiot!

    Your case does NOT in ANY way rest on the claim that “N and O do not absorb or radiate”, because (barring rounding errors) that’s what scientists already accept.

    Are you so intransigent that you really still do not get that?

    Or are you merely logically deficient, unable to comprehend and communicate that your case must rest on at least one point of disagreement with established science?

    Inquiring minds wish to know.

  53. #54 Richard Simons
    June 17, 2012

    TC @ June 16, 2:55 am

    nitrogen and oxygen at around 99% of the atmosphere that are transparent to incoming solar insolation but opaque to longwave outgoing, so they neither absorb nor radiate in the infrared, [my emphasis]

    Along with square brackets, TC is obviously using either ‘opaque’ or ‘absorb’ in an idiosyncratic way.

  54. #55 Bernard J.
    June 17, 2012

    …until you guys refute what he showed, namely that N and O do not absorb or radiate, I rest my case.

    Crikey, what the hell do you think everyone’s been telling you?!

    And do you even know what your “case” is?! Permit me to remind you:

    Tim Curtin
    June 16, 2:55 am

    …Thus in my opinion the real greenhouse gases are the O and N, becuase they do block in the infrared, while [CO2] and [H2O] do not block release of the infrared LW radiation, which thereby makes it to space…

    You said that nitrogen and oxygen “block in the infrared”, and the rest of us told you that they didn’t. You said that carbon dioxide and water “do not block release of the infrared”, and we told you that they do.

    At what point did you decide to turn everything arse-up and agree with the original science concerning nitrogen and oxygen, and claim that the rest of us now have it all wrong? We don’t need to “refute” Tyndall, because we don’t dispute his work. You did.

    And are you know claiming that carbon dioxide and water do “block release of the infrared LW radiation”, in converse to the actions of nitrogen and oxygen? If that’s the case, you’re at the threshold of admitting that CO2 and H2O warm the planet – something that you seem to have had a pathological fear of conceding for a long time now.

    Curtin, I suspect that you don’t even care what you’re saying, beyond that it simply must not permit (in your fevered mind) the science of global warming be be real, or that our refutations of your nonsense are correct. Sorry, but you are not Tim Ur-cnut, and the laws of the universe will not halt at your feet just because you will that they should.

  55. #56 Bernard J.
    June 17, 2012

    Notice, Curtin, how more than one of us caught you in your latest complete about-face. Do you really think that we’re not going to notice these backflips and goal-movings? Do you really think that we’re not going to remember that you haven’t responded to years of correction on innumerable mistakes on your part, beyond little more than one concession by you about one small part of Tamino’s devastating demolition of your silliness in TSWJ?

    Have you no shame? Do your children know what a fool their father is making of himself? Is it really so difficult for you to turn your gaze on to yourself and wonder why it is that you disagree with just about every scientific professional in a broad range of scientific disciplines?

  56. #57 Lionel A
    June 17, 2012

    Marco, I rely on Tyndall, and until you guys refute what he showed, namely that N and O do not absorb or radiate, I rest my case.

    Strewth Curtin! ‘N and O do not absorb or radiate‘, now you are saying what we have been trying to get you to see for the last week or so. You have just contradicted yourself again. So which is it to be?

    Amazed!

    I am only late with this comment because my broadband went out for a few hours (thankfully I had logs of my route through the system so could not be fobbed off with ‘a problem with your computer sir’ stories). Probably all that nasty O and N about blocking my internet.

  57. #58 Marco
    June 17, 2012

    Are there perhaps two Tim Curtins? One how claims N2 and O2 block IR (and are thus opaque to IR), and one who claims N2 and O2 are completely transparent to IR (and thus are not opaque to IR)?

    If so, only the latter is right. If the two are one and the same person, he is kindly asked to explain why he holds two contradictory views on one and the same subject.

  58. #59 P. Lewis
    June 17, 2012

    Are there perhaps two Tim Curtins?

    Yes, and they both reside in the same cranium!

    This is too silly for words.

    [And come on scienceblogs, sort out our sups/subs, turn off italic in block quotes, and bring back preview and hide/kill]

  59. #60 bill
    June 18, 2012

    ‘I rest my case’. Well, that should not be difficult, since there’s no inertia to contend with, anyway, what with the whole thing being weightless and all…

    Is anyone surprised his previous ‘papers’ have no citations?

  60. #61 Tim Curtin
    www.timcurtin.com
    June 18, 2012

    Marco

    You disappoint me, I used to think you were reasonably bright and honest: “Are there perhaps two Tim Curtins?” Like Tyndall I have always said N2 and O2 are transparent like the atmospheric CO2 and H2O to incoming solar radiation and, unlike the CO2 and H2O, opaque to outgoing infrared absorption and radiation. Do you know the difference?

    Evidently not. Read Tyndall.

  61. #62 adelady
    city of wine and roses
    June 18, 2012

    Mummmeeeeee! I wanna get oooffff.

    This roller-coaster’s making me dizzy.

  62. #63 Marco
    June 18, 2012

    Yes, Tim, I know the difference. You clearly do not. Anyone who has ever done any IR experiments knows that IR radiation is not absorbed by N2 and O2. That is, they are *transparent* to IR radiation. This is also exactly what Tyndall showed in his experiments.

    You, sir, are an idiot.

  63. #64 P. Lewis
    The Welsh Marches
    June 18, 2012

    TC, please explain how a capnograph works.

  64. #65 Tim Curtin
    www.timcurtin.com
    June 18, 2012

    Marco, first, did you notice Tyndall’s title? – ABSORPTION AND RADIATION OF HEAT BY GASES AND VAPOURS

    Next, Marco claims N2 and O2 “are *transparent* to IR radiation. This is also exactly what Tyndall showed in his experiments.”

    Not true in the least.

    Here is what Tyndall actually shows and reports:
    “The results of the experiments are given in the following Table, [p.31] the figure appended to the name of each gas marking the number of degrees through which the radiation from the latter urged the needle of the galvanometer :-

    Oxygen … 0
    Nitrogen. …. 0
    Hydrogen ….. 0
    Carbonic oxide . . . 12
    Carbonic acid .. 18
    Nitrous oxide . . . . 29
    Olefiant gas … 53

    …Their radiative powers follow precisely the same order as their powers of absorption”

    So contrary to Marco, absent absorption, absent also radiation, and as Tyndall said: “The absorptive power of the vapour referred to is very great, and its radiative power is equally so … From the existence of absorption, we may on theoretic grounds infallibly infer a capacity for radiation; from the existence of radiation, we may with equal certainty infer a capacity for absorption; and each of them must be regarded as the measure of the other. Great differences have been shown to exist among gases as to their powers of absorption, and precisely similar differences as regards their powers of radiation.”

    But for Marco radiation is independent of absorption. Oh brave new science!

    Tyndall was the first to grasp the reason for the difference between the absorption and radiation properties of the many gases he analysed, namely that “the elementary gases hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and the mixture atmospheric air, possess absorptive and radiative powers beyond comparison less than those of the compound gases”.

    Thus “… So also with oxygen and nitrogen, which, when mixed, as in our atmosphere, both absorb and radiate feebly, when united to form oscillating systems, as in nitrous oxide, have their powers vastly augmented. Pure atmospheric air, of 5 inches tension, does not effect an absorption equivalent to more than the one-fifth of a degree, while nitrous oxide of the same tension effects an absorption equivalent to fifty-one such degrees.”

    Unlike Marco, Tyndall also understood that “All the gases and vapours, whose deportment we have examined, are transparent to light; that is to say, the waves of the visible spectrum pass among them without sensible absorption. Hence it is plain that their absorptive power depends on the periodicity of the undulations [i.e. wavelengths of the infrared] which strike them”.

  65. #66 Bernard J.
    June 18, 2012

    Tim Curtin said on 18 June, 2:47 am:

    Like Tyndall I have always said N2 and O2 are transparent like the atmospheric CO2 and H2O to incoming solar radiation and, unlike the CO2 and H2O, opaque to outgoing infrared absorption and radiation.

    Just so that we’re clear, here is the nub of the matter:

    Like Tyndall I have always said N2 and O2 are transparent… to incoming solar radiation and… opaque to outgoing infrared absorption and radiation.

    Shit, if this was the case, we’d have a climate akin to the Venusian one!

    Fortunately, as Tyndall himself knew, nitrogen and oxygen are not opaque to outgoing infrared absorption and radiation.

    Crackers Curtin, you never cease to amaze me…

  66. #67 Lionel A
    June 18, 2012

    TC quoting Tyndall:

    Their radiative powers follow precisely the same order as their powers of absorption”

    Precisely, so what should that be telling you? Look at that list again and think about it, it is really not that difficult to arrive at the correct conclusion? Unless of course your brain is scrambled such as to prevent comprehension and we have seen plenty of evidence here that this could well be the case.

    TC again:

    Like Tyndall I have always said N2 and O2 are transparent like the atmospheric CO2 and H2O to incoming solar radiation and, unlike the CO2 and H2O, opaque to outgoing infrared absorption and radiation.

    That is a rather messy way of describing things and indicates why the logic of arguments escapes you.

    Whatever, if the above is the case WRT N2 and O2 please explain how heat seeking missiles manage to function in air satisfactorily enough for their target acquisition to be tested using a small hand held battery powered torch? Not to mention their ability to pick up the heat generated by the leading edges of the structures of sonic aircraft.

    This thread has amply demonstrated how dangerous it can be for economists to be involved in climate science any science.

    Still shaking head in disbelief!

  67. #68 Marco
    June 18, 2012

    Let’s see, Tyndall shows N2 and O2 are not affected by IR radiation (as per the table Tim the Idiot provides). That is, they do not absorb IR radiation, or otherwise they would emit IR radiation, which would fall on the detector Tyndall devised. Which means, to anyone with even a basic grasp of English, that N2 and O2 are TRANSPARENT, and not opaque, towards IR radiation.

    You, Tim, are an idiot times two.

  68. #69 Lotharsson
    June 18, 2012

    Good grief, just in case anyone was in danger of being mistaken, Curtin hammers home the point that he has a completely miscomprehension of basic science with his trademark subtlety. He clearly doesn’t even understand what Tyndall was measuring, let alone what the measurements imply.

    And I’m betting he never seriously answers the questions in my little thought experiment or the heat-seeking missile questions. (I’m tempted to ask about temperature differences between cloudy vs cloudless nights, but that would only further confuse the poor guy.)

  69. #70 Lotharsson
    June 18, 2012

    TC, I strongly urge you to seriously attempt to answer my thought experiment questions. If you can get those right, I dare say you’ll finally understand where your major blunders in interpreting both Tyndall and atmospheric physics lie.

    Or at a minimum, begin by pondering this:

    If I shine infrared through a tube filled with IR-transparent material, does the IR affect the temperature of the tube? Why or why not? Explain the mechanism(s) behind your answer. You might wish to compare the intensity of the IR entering and exiting the tube.

  70. #71 Lotharsson
    June 18, 2012

    By the way, TC, what galvanometer reading did Tyndall get when he performed a calibration procedure by placing a highly polished reflecting disc in the tube so that no radiant heat could pass through?

    Or to put it another way, what does a reading of “0″ signify and why?

    If you need assistance, perhaps this description will help.

  71. #72 Tim Curtin
    www.timcurtin.com
    June 18, 2012

    Your are all clowns.

    Just send your comments here to the Journal of Philosophical Transactions that published Tyndall. Good luck, and get back to me when you get to be published.

    As for the ineffable Bernard J, what are the differences of the Earth and Venus with respect to the sun, given their respective atmospheres and distances from the sun?

    Lotharsson: “Or at a minimum, begin by pondering this:

    If I shine infrared through a tube filled with IR-transparent material, does the IR affect the temperature of the tube?”

    Tyndall just sent heat through cylinders with or without carbonic acid and aqueous vapour.

    You have to show by your own physical experiments that he was wrong to find that the N2 and O2 are the real GHGs.

  72. #73 adelady
    city of wine and roses
    June 18, 2012

    Noooooooooh. No, no, no, NO!

    I didn’t mean I wanted to go on the loop-the-loop.

  73. #74 Lotharsson
    June 18, 2012

    Just send your comments here to the Journal of Philosophical Transactions that published Tyndall.

    You Dunning-Kruger Effect archetype, not a single one of us are disputing anything that Tyndall discovered.

    But you are – apparently not realising that’s what you’re doing! Let us know how your submission to that journal goes, eh?

    Tyndall just sent heat through cylinders with or without carbonic acid and aqueous vapour.

    Since your miscomprehension is at legendary levels, why don’t you skip that unanswered question as too difficult, and try the questions in my following comment about what a “0″
    reading meant, and what kind of reading was seen when the tube was completely blocked to infrared. They’re even easier.

    So feel free to man up and answer simple scientific questions. You apparently are incapable of or unwilling to doing so – which does not surprise me in the slightest.

    You have to show by your own physical experiments that he was wrong to find that the N2 and O2 are the real GHGs.

    It takes real hubris and a deep lack of commitment to accuracy to persist in putting false words in another person’s mouth. But you are almost reliably up for it.

  74. #75 Bernard J.
    June 18, 2012

    Let’s see…

    What passes for a brain is buried in its body.

    Can hold two views of the world simultaneously.

    Runs away when challenged, or falls into a coma state.

    Highly conservative, and wants to control the universe to ensure its own safety.

    Continuing my earlier reference to Ringworld, if it wasn’t for the glaring absence of honesty and high intelligence I’d swear that Curtin was a Pierson’s Puppeteer.

    http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2606/3903805117_8d85a8bcfd.jpg

  75. #76 Lionel A
    June 18, 2012

    TC

    You have to show by your own physical experiments that he was wrong to find that the N2 and O2 are the real GHGs.

    I kept screwing up the tags there before realising I was using blockhead instead of blockquote. ;-)

    But Tyndall did not find that N2 and O2 are the real GHGs, that is the nub of the matter.

    As for experiments, I once carried them out using a torch and a guided missile with N2 and O2 not having the slightest effect.

    As for that olefiant gas you seem to have blanketed the whole thread with some. You having expelled all that gas could be reason that you seem about as bright as a TOC-H lamp.

  76. #77 Richard Simons
    June 18, 2012

    TC – you’re having us on, right? How could anyone be so dense as to quote data clearly showing that N2 and O2 do not emit (and therefore do not absorb) IR radiation while insisting that the opposite is true? The only reasonable explanation is that you’re seeing how far you can go before we call you on it. Did you decide to up the ante after people took at face value your claim that acidifying seawater makes it potable?

  77. #78 Marco
    June 18, 2012

    Teh stupid is really strong in teh Curtin. Even Steve Goddard starts to sound like a genius!

    Perhaps Tim Curtin can explain why everyone else who writes about Tyndall’s experiments manages to deduce that his experiments showed N2 and O2 are TRANSPARENT to IR radiation. People like Ray Pierrehumbert, for example (“Principles of Planetary Climate” – it’s on page 6).

    But best of all, Tyndall himself. If Tim the Idiot wants to lose that label “idiot”, he should read Tyndall’s 1872 book, which can be found here:
    http://archive.org/stream/contributionsto01tyndgoog#page/n8/mode/2up
    I recommend in particular pages 421-424, in which Tyndall explains the greenhouse effect, mainly with focus on water vapour. The description that must be enormously surprising for Tim Curtin will be that Tyndall describes how water vapour is able to block (oh! gasp!), despite its tiny quantity, much more IR radiation going outwards than N2 and O2. And especially the last sentence, on page 424, makes it all clear: N2 and O2 provide an “open door” for heat loss of the earth. It is only because of water vapour (and as later shown by Arrhenius, CO2) that there is no such open door.

    To Tim Curtin, open doors are “opaque” to anyone wanting to leave…

  78. #79 Wow
    June 18, 2012

    “Let’s see…

    What passes for a brain is buried in its body.”

    I assumed you were going to say that TC is actually a stegosaur in human form.

    Most of what he writes does seem to come from the brain in his arse.

  79. #80 Bernard J.
    June 18, 2012

    Most of what he writes does seem to come from the brain in his arse.

    If one of my chickens staggered around the yard the way that Curtin staggers through science and statistics, it’d be straight to the chopping block.

    And then deeply buried – anything that crazy must surely be afflicted with some horrendous nasty…

  80. #81 bill
    June 18, 2012

    Seriously, this isn’t Dunning-Kruger, this is an intellectual instance of Anton-Babinski:

    Those who suffer from it are “[conceptually] 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.

    If this isn’t just, as seems most likely, clowning for the attention it’s actually quite disturbing…

  81. #82 Rattus Norvegicus
    June 19, 2012

    Bernard, if one of your chickens stumbled about the yard the way that Timmy stumbles through science and statistics, he might be Mike the Headless Chicken (go on, click the link, you know you want to!).

  82. #83 Bernard J.
    June 19, 2012

    Bill at 18 June, 11:24 pm.

    It may actually be that Curtin really does have a form of anosognosia, perhaps originating from a small/mild stroke in a very particular part of the brain.

    Tim Curtin, seriously, consider seeing your GP for a proper check-up. If not a poe, you’re patently having extreme difficulty in perceiving that you’re unable to grasp that you’re mangling basic science and statistics. No, you’re not a modern Galileo: you may in fact be exhibiting the initial stages of a dangerous train heading toward a cerebral accident.

    That’s my only nice warning to you – likely, if I’m close to the mark, you won’t be able to accept it anyway.

    More likely you’re just an ideological mule, who deserves nothing more than the ridicule that he draws to himself.

  83. #84 Tim Curtin
    www.timcurtin.com
    June 19, 2012

    Richard Simons: you are not being truthful – I have never said that N2 and O2 absorb and then radiate through the IR, all I did here was quote at length Tyndall’s experimental results showing they do not, which is why they are the real GHGs.

    As for the rest of you, I think you are the ones who need to visit your psychologists to find out why you think the constant streams of personal abuse and insults that you direct at me advance what ought to be a collegial debate and discussion of the important issues I have raised.

    The extreme anger most of you exhibit is quite amazing. As Richard Betts (Hadley) said yesterady at Bishop Hill’s re that appalling article in Nature Climate Change:

    ‘This paper really makes me cringe.

    Neither “Belief” nor “Denial” have any place in a subject that relies on scientific evidence, and continual testing and review of that evidence. It should be about being either convinced or not convinced by the evidence.

    “Denier” is a highly-charged word, and even if the evidence is strong, using the word “denier” for someone who is not convinced is deeply unsettling.

    “Believer” makes being convinced by the evidence for AGW sound like a religion, which it isn’t.’

    And as none of you are by your own assertions Dunning-Krugers, I still await your regressions refuting mine.

  84. #85 Lotharsson
    June 19, 2012

    The extreme anger most of you exhibit is quite amazing.

    If you actually believe that, then I’m pretty confident that you are also having difficulty perceiving emotions of others.

    Seriously, as Bernard says, go talk to your GP.

  85. #86 Richard Simons
    June 19, 2012

    I have never said that N2 and O2 absorb and then radiate through the IR, all I did here was quote at length Tyndall’s experimental results showing they do not, which is why they are the real GHGs.

    But if they do not absorb and then radiate in the IR, they cannot be greenhouse gases. If they are transparent to IR, how do they reduce the amount of IR radiation leaving Earth? After all, a transparent pane of glass in front of a lamp does not reduce the amount of light leaving it. Describe the situation as you see it in as small steps as possible, as though to a 10-year-old.

  86. #87 Lotharsson
    June 19, 2012

    I have never said that N2 and O2 absorb and then radiate through the IR…

    Except that you insist that they are GHGs, which by definition means that they absorb and then radiate through the IR.

    You compound that foolishness, which one might argue is merely the folly of insisting on a private definition of scientifically accepted terminology that is entirely incompatible with that accepted definition, by insisting that substances that are transparent to IR keep the earth warmer than it otherwise would be by … well, to be honest, I really don’t know how you think that works. Why do you think I asked you questions about a simple thought experiment (and why do you think you’ve been entirely unable to answer them?)

  87. #88 MikeH
    June 19, 2012

    Over at The Conversation Tim was arguing that the fact that solar panels do not generate electricity at night is evidence for no downwelling IR radiation.

    Yes it was explained to him but Tim was having none of it.

    TC is one of those people where the word “idiot” just seems somehow inadequate.

  88. #89 bill
    June 19, 2012

    Tim, I’m not angry at you – though, like many of your tribe, your blind persistence can be annoying – if anything I’m sorry for you. You are making an absolute fool of yourself in a public forum. Seriously.

    Even making silly claims – such as you’re the victim of ‘extreme anger’ – is part of the Denier process. Face it, what’s really happening is… you’re wrong.

  89. #90 Marco
    June 19, 2012

    Tim, if I would be angry, I would not even react to you.

    I am confused how someone can claim A, and moments later claims B which contradicts claim A, but completely unaware that it refutes A.

    You just did that. First you claimed N2 and O2 are *opaque* to upwelling IR radiation, defended it to death by referring to Tyndall in support, and now after many back and forths, you refute that claim: “I have never said that N2 and O2 absorb and then radiate through the IR, all I did here was quote at length Tyndall’s experimental results showing they do not”. Which, to anyone with a basic grasp of English, is an admission that N2 and O2 are NOT opaque to IR radiation!

  90. #91 Tim Curtin
    wwww.timcurtin.com
    June 19, 2012

    Yes, you are all 10 year olds!

    Richard Simons: Real greenhouses work by retaining heat. N2 and O2 do that, as they neither absorb nor radiate, unlike CO2 and H20 in their gaseous forms. They are not transparent to IR, that is why they are not visible in the IR or in the emanations from the IR. After all, a transparent pane of glass in front of a lamp does reduce the amount of heat leaving it into a real greenhouse.

    Lotharsson: “Except that you insist that they are GHGs, which by definition means that they absorb and then radiate through the IR”. Go back to Lewis Carroll. The warmists like the Mad Hatter and the rest can define GHGs as they please and do, but a real greenhouse does trap heat, whereas gaseous CO2 and H2O do NOT, as Tyndall showed; instead they absorb and radiate out, from hot to cold as per the 2nd Law.

    Mike H: The 2nd Law rules out the back radiation from cold atmosphere to warm planetary surface so beloved of Kiehl and Trenberth in defiance of all physics. Glenn Tamblyn at The C has yet to respond to my challenge to him to prove the 2nd Law does not apply.

    Marco: Thanks to the link to Tyndall’s book, which is actually his collected papers. I will check, but in 1861 he says the air is opaque to N2 and O2.

  91. #92 Tim Curtin
    www.timcurtin.com
    June 19, 2012

    Richard: my last sentence may be unclear:

    It should read: “After all, a transparent pane of glass in front of a lamp does reduce the amount of heat a lamp puts in a real greenhouse that is able to leave the greenhouse.”

    Apologies.

  92. #93 MikeH
    June 19, 2012

    Tim – have you ever considered donating your brain to industry. I suspect it could be used in quarries for breaking rocks.

    I should not do this as poor old Science of Doom has had to explain thermo and the second Law to the only person I know who is thicker than TC, his fellow crank Doug Cotton.

    But here is a link to the real second law.
    http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/10/07/amazing-things-we-find-in-textbooks-the-real-second-law-of-thermodynamics/

  93. #94 Jeff Harvey
    June 19, 2012

    I notice that Doug Cotton has had an article on the Second Law of Thermodynamics posted up on Tall Bloke’s silly contrarian weblog. Note that after his name Cotton has to try and give the impression of being an academic scholar by posting up his silly professional qualificiatiions which includes a Diploma in Business Administration (as if that is relevant). This remainds me of something Clint Eastwood once said. Eastwood, in his autobiography, said that he also studied Business Administration in the early 1950s because he didn’t know ‘what the hell he wanted to do in life’.He said that such a course fits people of that description!

    As for poor old Curtin, he berates papers in outstanding journals like Nature Climate Change (and, recall from his own thread, Susan Solomon’s outstanding paper in PNAS) whilst publishing his own stuff in bottom-feeding journals where they will never, ever be cited. IMHO the only reason he haunts the blogosphere is because this is where he will get some attention (although usually from those trashing his work). In the scientific community his papers are completely and utterly ignored. This one will be no exception.

  94. #95 Wow
    June 19, 2012

    “Neither “Belief” nor “Denial” have any place in a subject that relies on scientific evidence”

    That’s true, Tim.

    Why, then, despite knowing this, you continue to display denial to the evidence your belief system does not want to accept?

  95. #96 Marco
    June 19, 2012

    Tim, nowhere in his 1861 paper does Tyndall say that N2 and O2 are opaque to IR radiation.

    You’re just replacing you claim B (N2 and O2 do not absorb or emit IR radiation) with your claim A again (N2 and O2 are opaque to IR radiation). You see, Tim, in the real world that we live in, “opaque” means “impenetrable to light”. How on earth can you maintain your claim A, and at the same time hold claim B as true?!

    I also want you to read Tyndall’s book again, and especially pages 421-424. In it, Tyndall explains that without greenhouse gases, the IR radiation from the surface of the earth would have a completely open window to space. In other words, without greenhouse gases, you’d have a greenhouse without any glas in it (which does what, exactly, Tim?).

    Oh, and since you mention greenhouses. Are you now telling us extra CO2 is added to greenhouses to make them cooler? After all, that is what should happen, if your claims are true…

  96. #97 bill
    June 19, 2012

    Bingo!

    1. not transparent or translucent; impenetrable to light; not allowing light to pass through.

    2. not transmitting radiation, sound, heat, etc.

    3. not shining or bright; dark; dull.

    4. hard to understand; not clear or lucid; obscure: ‘The problem remains opaque despite explanations.’

    5. dull, stupid, or unintelligent.

    Tailor made…

  97. #98 P. Lewis
    June 19, 2012

    the elementary gases hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and the mixture atmospheric air, possess absorptive and radiative powers beyond comparison less than those of the compound gases

    Translation:

    Atmospheric air (with 280 ppm CO2, unless Tyndall had removed it and any atmospheric H2O — haven’t read the paper that closely, and it’s an unimportant aspect anyway) and the individual gases O2, H2 and N2 absorb/emit IR (calorific rays) hardly at all, whereas compounds/vapours like C2H4, CS2, C5H10… absorb/emit IR in spades.

    Does this conflict with conventional, modern scientific thinking? Not one iota!

    So also with oxygen and nitrogen, which, when mixed, as in our atmosphere, both absorb and radiate feebly, when united to form oscillating systems, as in nitrous oxide, have their powers vastly augmented. Pure atmospheric air, of 5 inches tension, does not effect an absorption equivalent to more than the one-fifth of a degree, while nitrous oxide of the same tension effects an absorption equivalent to fifty-one such degrees.

    Translation:

    A physical mix of oxygen and nitrogen (i.e. not a chemical compound) interacts with IR very little (i.e. feebly). When you form the compound N2O, the situation changes markedly.

    And similarly with physical mixtures of: hydrogen and nitrogen and their compound ammonia, NH3; oxygen and hydrogen and their compound water, H2O.

    Does this conflict with conventional, modern scientific thinking? Not one iota!

    And so to Tyndall’s table of values:

    O2 … 0; N2 … 0; H2 … 0; CO … 12; CO2 … 18; N2O … 29; C2H4 … 53

    and

    The action of these gases is so much feebler than that of any of the vapours referred to [above]

    i.e. to C2H4, CS2, C5H10…

    Does this conflict with conventional, modern scientific thinking? Only perhaps in minor adjustments to magnitudes (can’t be bothered to look up actual 20th/21st-century measurements). So, not one iota!

    TC, you are so muddled!

  98. #99 Bernard J.
    June 19, 2012

    The 2nd Law rules out the back radiation from cold atmosphere to warm planetary surface so beloved of Kiehl and Trenberth in defiance of all physics.

    Just how does the planetary surface prevent atmospheric ‘greenhouse’ gas molecules from re-radiating in random directions their absorbed infrared?

    …Tyndall’s book, which is actually his collected papers. I will check, but in 1861 he says the air is opaque to N2 and O2.

    Oh God.

    Really – “Oh God“…

    Curtin, if someone doesn’t beat me to it, I’ll consider the onerous task of cataloging your litany of contradictory statements on this thread. Buckle up.

  99. #100 Lionel A
    June 19, 2012

    TC

    Marco: Thanks to the link to Tyndall’s book, which is actually his collected papers. I will check, but in 1861 he says the air is opaque to N2 and O2.

    ‘Air is opaque to N2 and O2′, what does that mean. Strewth, you cannot even make sense in a 13 element clause.

    TC to Richard Simons:

    I have never said that N2 and O2 absorb and then radiate through the IR, all I did here was quote at length Tyndall’s experimental results showing they do not, which is why they are the real GHGs.

    No. No. No. No. They, N2 and O2, are not the real greenhouse gases – you are still confused. I suggest you go watch David Archer’s lectures linked to up-thread.

    Still A href=”http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEhS9Y9HYjU”> Windmills .

    So we are all ’10 year old clowns’ eh?

    Hum, and you complain of being insulted. If to try to correct persistent wrong thinking is insulting then you must have experienced much of this of late, unless you ‘see the joke’ that is your assessment of Tyndall and revise your approach you will suffer much more. After all it is you who keeps throwing his toys out of the pram.

    It is now not only your errors with statistics that has become legendary I do believe that this thread raises such legends to an all new level.