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 ianam
    June 23, 2012

    So you must believe this planet really is the centre of the universe with its ability to radiate more heat (390 W/sq.m.) than it gets from the sun (168)

    What I believe, and is true, is that you are stupid beyond all redemption or repair.

  2. #2 adelady
    city of wine and roses
    June 23, 2012

    “…question the 2nd Law, but that does indeed decree that a cold object cannot radiate energy to a hot object.”

    We’re off the merry go rounds and home again at the backyard mulberry bush.

    I know I used this reference before, but please, Tim, please read it – and – read Roy’s responses to the comments.

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

  3. #3 Wow
    June 23, 2012

    put is the sum of Back radiation doesn’t fall foul of the second law.
    N2 and O2 aren’t GHGs.
    The earth gets more than 168 W/m2.
    Blakets aren’t only made of wool
    If you have more than one energy input to a system, the total energy

  4. #4 Bernard J.
    June 23, 2012

    As Tyndall proved, N2 and O2 do have a real blanket effect by neither absorbing nor radiating, while the CO2 and H2O not only absorb, but radiate from the warmer surface through the cool atmosphere up as far as 15 km, so they are NOT a partial blanket.

    And for his next trick Curtin will show that up is down, and that black is white… although, given his take on ‘greenhouse’ gases, he already seems to be indirectly trying to show that black is white…

    I simply cannot believe in your back radiation as it infringes basic physics’ 2nd Law.

    No, it doesn’t. That you are welded to this incorrect notion simply shows the extraordinary degree of the intransigence of your ignorance.

    But as Tyndall showed, when N2 and O2 are there, they do block LW infrared absorption and radiation.

    Eh?!

    Well, I could programme [no you couldn’t] a GCM to show that they could, but Tyndall’s lab apparatus simply showed that in the case of N2 and O2, thermal radiation did not traverse his cylinder…

    Eh?!

    Curtin, not for the first time have you been directed to Iain Stewart and Peiter Trans. What do you think is happening in each case?! I’ll give you a hint – neither chamber is envacuumed before the CO2 is introduced…

    Why not read Tyndall? In both his 1861 paper and in the short note in his 1872 book he showed the enormous capacity of the H2O and CO2, in that order, to absorb and radiate heat to space.

    and to radiate it back to the earth – backradiation.

    Approximiately half goes up, and half goes down. What do you think is the consequence of this randomly-directed radiation?!

    re Bernard June 21, 2:29 pm

    I had said “Atmospheric CO2 does not trap heat as insulation does. The so-called GHGs are NOT insulators or blankets.” Bernard’s response was “If you were up on the climatological literature, you’d know that no-one is claiming that they are.”

    But earlier to day I placed here this direct quote from AR4 WG FAQ 1.1: “The reason the Earth’s surface is this warm is the presence of greenhouse gases, which act as a partial blanket for the longwave radiation coming from the surface. This blanketing is known as the natural greenhouse effect. The most important greenhouse gases are water vapour and carbon dioxide. The two most abundant constituents of the atmosphere – nitrogen and oxygen – have no such effect [garbage]“.

    The operative words are “act as”. The IPCC is using a metaphor for folk (such as yourself) who might not understand the technical phenomena involved. No scientist actually thinks that the mechanism is that of a blanket (which inhibits convection away from a heat source), or even a space blanket (which partially reflects heat back toward its source). However, the overall effect of warming is the same – the passage of heat from the reference object is restricted, and the object consequently warms.

    One could just as (partially invalidly) call it the “blanket effect”, but greenhouses elicit an immediate understanding in the lay public’s collective mind. If it had been called the “infrared-absorption-from-one-direction-and-radiation-in-random-directions effect”, I doubt that more than one in a thousand lay people would even think about paying attention.

    You’re being an extraordinarily obtuse fool about this.

    Then you question the 2nd Law, but that does indeed decree that a cold object cannot radiate energy to a hot object. Now Wiki is not infallible, but here’s your chance to edit its entry on the 2nd Law on the basis of your claim .

    Odin-on-a-stick, you’re slow.

    Imagine two teams of children, throwing tennis balls at each other.

    Team A throws 100 green ball/minute at team B, who throw 50 red balls/minute at team A. After one minute how many green balls will be on team B’s side of the net, and how many red balls will be on team A’s side of the net?

    Assuming that all balls were thrown in the previous example, and that I now direct some extra children to team B in order to throw some of the green balls back – at the rate of, say, 25 balls/minute – how many balls total would be on each side of the net after one minute if the exerciose was repeated from scratch?

    And why doesn’t the second law of thermodynamics prevent the extra kids on team B from throwing back the green balls?

  5. #5 Wow
    June 23, 2012

    …the total energy is the SUM (you do know how to add, right?) of the energy inputs.

    “Absorbed by surface” appears twice in the graphic. Not once, but twice.

    You are an idiot.

    These are all incontrovertible facts, Tim.

  6. #6 Wow
    June 23, 2012

    “…question the 2nd Law, but that does indeed decree that a cold object cannot radiate energy to a hot object.”

    No it doesn’t.

    This too is an incontrovertible fact.

  7. #7 Bernard J.
    June 23, 2012

    Crap. I hate this new blog format…

    Assuming that all balls were thrown in the previous example, and that I now direct some extra children to team B in order to throw some of the green balls back – at the rate of, say, 25 balls/minute – how many balls total would be on each side of the net after one minute if the exerciose was repeated from scratch?

  8. #8 Wow
    June 23, 2012

    “Then you question the 2nd Law, but that does indeed decree that a cold object cannot radiate energy to a hot object. Now Wiki is not infallible, ”

    The wiki does not decree that a cold obhect cannot radiate energy to a hot object.

    Wiki is not infallible, but you are never, not even once, right.

    Wiki: “The first law of thermodynamics provides the basic definition of thermodynamic energy, also called internal energy, associated with all thermodynamic systems, but unknown in mechanics, and states the rule of conservation of energy in nature. However, the concept of energy in the first law does not account for the observation that natural processes have a preferred direction of progress. For example, spontaneously, heat always flows to regions of lower temperature, never to regions of higher temperature without external work being performed on the system.”

    Does not say “a cold object cannot radiate energy to a hot object.”

    You can’t even read. You must have had an adult cut and paste the text from somewhere else because you are clearly too incompetent to manage it without supervision.

    How do you manage to be 100% wrong on EVERY subject?

  9. #9 Wow
    June 23, 2012

    “The law that entropy always increases holds”

    So it’s not possible to play connect-4? After all, the entropy of the set is reduced as its played.

    100% wrong. Again.

    “I had said “… the Kiehl-Trenberth cartoon clearly shows more LW back radiation to the earth’s surface at 324 W/sq.m. than incoming SW solar radiation reaching that surface (168 W/sq.m).”

    And what’s wrong with that?

    Your kettle will radiate nearly 2KW of IR radiation even though the solar radiation impinging on it is less than that.

  10. #10 ianam
    June 23, 2012

    “How does electromagnetic radiation manage to traverse outer space, Tim, without space being filled with molecules that absorb and radiate it? Or do you suppose that outer space is filled with CO2 and H2O?”

    No, but although only about 0.5% of the atmosphere (not space) on average, their absorptive and radiative capacity is thousands of times more potent than that of N2 and O2 – see my quotes above from Tyndall 1872.

    I notice that you didn’t answer my first question, Tim, a question about space … and yet your irrelevant response says “not space”. This is such a deliberate evasion that I can almost believe that you are pulling off an elaborate Poe, rather than being one of the stupidest people ever encountered.

    Here’s the answer, Tim: electromagnetic radiation does not need to be absorbed and retransmitted by molecules in order to travel, whether through space or the atmosphere or a cylinder; duh. Thermal radiation will travel through a cylinder filled with N2 and O2; it travelled through Tyndall’s cylinder. That you claim otherwise is either because you are executing an elaborate hoax or because you are dumber than a sack of rocks and cannot understand what you read.

    Oh, and the 2LOT says nothing about radiation, nor does that bit from Wikipedia, nor did Eddington. Being dumber than a sack of rocks, you don’t even understand that entropy is statistical. As long as you’re reading Wikipedia, you might tryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_%28statistical_thermodynamics%29 … not that there’s any chance that you’ll understand it.

  11. #11 Bernard J.
    June 23, 2012

    Merging with NG was a big mistake on SB’s part.

  12. #12 Wow
    June 23, 2012

    “This is such a deliberate evasion that I can almost believe that you are pulling off an elaborate Poe, rather than being one of the stupidest people ever encountered.”

    No, he REALLY IS that stupid. But, as with any personal flaw Tim C has, he believes that he’s no different from anyone else, therefore everyone else is just as stupid.

    Added to that a life lacking any purpose and oodles of free time and a burning desire to be noticed by the next HI paycheck (you DO realise that his recent posting spat has been all to garner attention from the institutes looking for gullible morons, right?). He’s looking for a paycheck and has nothing other than idle time.

    He’s really *is* as stupid as he appears.

    He just thinks that because you don’t believe him, this must be proof everyone else is more stupid.

  13. #13 ianam
    June 23, 2012

    “No,”

    I said I can *almost* believe. Sheesh.

  14. #14 Wow
    June 23, 2012

    Which is why I used the definitive negative response “No” rather than a persuasive one “I believe you’re wrong here”.

    Sheesh.

  15. #15 bill
    June 23, 2012

    The reason they demonise the CO2 and H2O whilst exonerating the N2 and O2 is that even the idiot governments of the EU, USA, and Australia might just baulk at banning oxygen and would not fund Gabi, Ben and Kev in the style they have become accustomed to if that is what they advocated. CO2, on the other hand, which Australian bureaucrats and policy makers think of as carbon, is as much the basis for all life as oxygen, but the ideal target for all you lot because of its association with the rising standards of living which I can well believe you abhor (like your patron saints Tim Flannery, Ian Lowe and Dick Smith et all too many al in the Greens and ALP).

    So; a bog-standard boring conspiracy fruitcake. Getting waaaaay more attention than he deserves by playing the Lucy-always-pulls-away-the-football-just-as-Charlie-Brown-goes-to-kick-it-but-he’s-always-persuaded-that-she-might-not game.

    I think we’ve incontrovertibly demonstrated for any lurkers who may still be present that Tim is a fool; as has been pointed out before, even the yabbering morons that clog up the other threads are staying clear of this train-wreck.

    SkyDragons are ineducable by definition. Much like Duffer, what the Tim C’s of this world really can’t stand is being ignored. That will hurt…

  16. #16 Robert Murphy
    June 23, 2012

    Curtin said:
    “As Tyndall proved, N2 and O2 do have a real blanket effect by neither absorbing nor radiating, while the CO2 and H2O not only absorb, but radiate from the warmer surface through the cool atmosphere up as far as 15 km, so they are NOT a partial blanket.”

    Again, you have everything ass-backwards. How the hell can N2 or O2 have any blanket like effect if their interaction with LW radiation is negligible? The radiation might as well be traveling through a vacuum. How the hell are CO2 and H2O not trapping heat when they scatter some of the photons that were on their way up toward space back down again to the surface? Remember, when they interact with the LW radiation (that was already emitted from the Earth and headed toward space), they scatter the photons in random directions. Some continue to go up, but an equal number get scattered downward, with some making it back to the surface. Again, if there were no GHG molecules in the atmosphere, ALL of those photons (essentially) would get lost to space. Since they scatter some downward, not as many escape as would otherwise.

    “So you must believe this planet really is the centre of the universe with its ability to radiate more heat (390 W/sq.m.) than it gets from the sun (168)”

    It doesn’t radiate 396w/m^2 at the top of the atmosphere(TOA). At the TOA, right now it radiates a hair less than what comes in from the Sun, which is why the Earth as a whole is gaining energy and this is translated into melting ice and warming temps. The surface of the planet, radiatively speaking, is the TOA, not the physical surface.

    “But as Tyndall showed, when N2 and O2 are there, they do block LW infrared absorption and radiation.”

    No, he showed they blocked nothing, which is what the zeros meant. Are you just pretending to be this stupid?

    “Moreover the back radiation does infringe the 2nd Law by implying heat transfer from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface”

    A cooler body can most definitely radiate LW radiation to a warmer body. Any matter that is above absolute zero is going to emit photons, and it makes not a bit of difference if the matter next to it is radiating at a higher wavelength – I mean, how would it know either way?. If I put a big 4 foot by 4 foot chunk of ice in my living room, which is at room temperature, the ice will be radiating photons in all directions, even though it is much colder than its surroundings. This does not go against the 2nd Law. Things like it happen all the time. While the ice is radiating photons to my living room, my living room will be radiating more to the ice than it receives from it. Net heat flow will be from the warmer to the colder body. Eventually the ice will melt and a big puddle of room-temperature water will be on my now ruined rug. When LW radiation interacts with CO2 in the atmosphere, the photon will be scattered in a random direction, with some going down to the surface, and it won’t matter that the air is cooler than the surface. How would the photon know the difference?

    You keep talking about heat, which is a property of large numbers of molecules, but you need to think about this from the perspective of individual photons and molecules. It all comes down to that.

  17. #17 Tim Curtin
    www.timcurtin.com
    June 23, 2012

    Robert Murphy: I do not think you know what you are talking about, when you say: “How the hell can N2 or O2 have any blanket like effect if their interaction with LW radiation is negligible?” But that is exactly why they do have a blanketing effect, because they block all LW absorption and radiation, unlike the CO2 and H2O.

    Likewise, your are mistaken when you say “How the hell are CO2 and H2O not trapping heat when they scatter some of the photons that were on their way up toward space back down again to the surface?” They do not because they cannot, given the 2nd Law. Remember that photons are largely a fiction as they have no mass.

    Similarly, you cannot read K-T: The earth according to them emits outgoing LW radiation of 235 W/M.sq, despite only absorbing 168 W/Sq.m. That explains why there has been NO climatic AGW since 1900. (The GCHN database for 1900 excludes 100% of the tropics).

    Then you say, incredibly trying to rebut my statement that “as Tyndall showed, when N2 and O2 are there, they do block LW infrared absorption and radiation.”

    While you say “No, he showed they blocked nothing, which is what the zeros meant. Are you just pretending to be this stupid?” Well one or other of us has reading difficulties. Tyndall interpreted his zeros as N2 and O2 blocking absorption and radiation.

    Then you say: “A cooler body can most definitely radiate LW radiation to a warmer body.” Well, read my quote from Eddington above. Dear Robert, you have lost the plot, and I fear you will never get back to it. But thanks all the same to you and the rest of you photons here, I will now write up a follow-up to my current under review paper showing that none of you has succeeded in falsifying my basic thesis which shows:

    1. Tyndall was correct in accepting that N2 and O2 neither absorb nor radiate heat, energy, or anything else, so they are the real GHGs.

    2. The so-called GHGs H2O and CO2 do absorb and radiate, but always only from the warmer global surface to the cooler atmosphere.

    3. All claimed back radiation is in contravention of the 2nd Law.

    4. Both atmospheric H2O and CO23 are absolutely essential to all life on this planet, and those who seek to eliminate them deserve at least 500 years in jail. I am working on that for Kev Trenberth when next he sets foot here.

  18. #18 Robert Murphy
    June 23, 2012

    “Robert Murphy: I do not think you know what you are talking about, when you say: “How the hell can N2 or O2 have any blanket like effect if their interaction with LW radiation is negligible?” But that is exactly why they do have a blanketing effect, because they block all LW absorption and radiation, unlike the CO2 and H2O.”

    No, no, no. They do *not* block the LW radiation, they do not interact with it. It just passes right by the N2 and O2 and goes into space.

    “Likewise, your are mistaken when you say “How the hell are CO2 and H2O not trapping heat when they scatter some of the photons that were on their way up toward space back down again to the surface?” They do not because they cannot, given the 2nd Law. Remember that photons are largely a fiction as they have no mass.”

    Photons are a fiction? BWAHAHAHA!!! What an idiot. You really ARE as stupid as I thought.

    “2. The so-called GHGs H2O and CO2 do absorb and radiate, but always only from the warmer global surface to the cooler atmosphere.”

    No, they scatter photons (that’s what is being radiated BTW, even if you don’t believe in their existence) in ALL directions, not just up. This is observation.

    Just when I thought you couldn’t say anything dumber, you surpass yourself.

  19. #19 Robert Murphy
    June 23, 2012

    “4. Both atmospheric H2O and CO23 are absolutely essential to all life on this planet, and those who seek to eliminate them deserve at least 500 years in jail”

    Since nobody is trying to do anything like that, your point is moot.

    “I am working on that for Kev Trenberth when next he sets foot here.”

    How? Should he be worried about his personal safety?

  20. #20 Wow
    June 23, 2012

    “But that is exactly why they do have a blanketing effect, because they block all LW absorption and radiation, unlike the CO2 and H2O.”

    N2 and O2 do not block LW radiation. CO2 and H2O will.

    “They do not because they cannot, given the 2nd Law.|

    The second law doesn’t say they can’t.

    “Remember that photons are largely a fiction as they have no mass.”

    This doesn’t stop them carrying energy. Which doesn’t have mass.

    “The earth according to them emits outgoing LW radiation of 235 W/M.sq, despite only absorbing 168 W/Sq.m.”

    The earth absorbs 492W/m2

    ““A cooler body can most definitely radiate LW radiation to a warmer body.” Well, read my quote from Eddington above.”

    We have. It doesn’t say anything to rebut Robert.

    “1. Tyndall was correct in accepting that N2 and O2 neither absorb nor radiate heat, energy,”

    Correct.

    “or anything else”

    False.

    “so they are the real GHGs.”

    False.

    “2. The so-called GHGs H2O and CO2 do absorb and radiate,”

    True.

    “but always only from the warmer global surface to the cooler atmosphere.”

    False.

    “No, they scatter photons”

    False.

    “in ALL directions, not just up. This is observation.”

    False.

  21. #21 Wow
    June 23, 2012

    “3. All claimed back radiation is in contravention of the 2nd Law.”

    False.

  22. #22 Wow
    June 23, 2012

    “4. Both atmospheric H2O and CO23 are absolutely essential to all life on this planet,”

    CO23???

    Tell you what, go and stick your head in a bucket of H2O and do the planet a favour.

  23. #23 Lotharsson
    June 23, 2012

    …Tyndall’s lab apparatus simply showed that in the case of N2 and O2, thermal radiation did not traverse his cylinder…

    You really are determined to be the most moronic Deltoid commenter, aren’t you!

    Tyndall showed the exact opposite, as you would find if you carefully read and understood his experiment – or the other commenters here.

    …and it would absurd to calibrate in the presence of the gases to be analysed.

    Except that no-one claimed he did. As I said he calibrated in the presence of a vacuum, even in “the first experiments”, as pointed out in your comment – “the tube being exhausted”.

    I further note that you haven’t bothered to read past his description of the first version of the experiment to the real one where he calibrated the galvanometer to zero when the tube was vacuum-filled tube by balancing the strength of two sources of IR:

    P is the thermo-electric pile placed on its stand at the end of the experimental tube, and furnished with two conical reflectors, as shown in the figure. C’ is the compensating cube, used to neutralize by its radiation(1) the effect of the rays passing through [tube] S S’. The regulation of this neutralization was an operation of some delicacy; to effect it the double screen H was connected with a winch and screw arrangement, by which it could be advanced or withdrawn through extremely minute spaces.

    Where footnote 1 explains:

    It will be seen that in this arrangement I have abandoned the use of the differential galvanometer, and made the thermo-electric pile the differential instrument.

    (And once again you have confused a differential quantity with an absolute – it is almost becoming your trademark.)

    And a little later the calibration procedure is explained in detail:

    The mode of proceeding was as follows: The tube S S’ and the chamber F being exhausted as perfectly as possible, the connxion between them was intercepted by shutting off the cocks m, m’. The rays from the interior blackened surface of the cube C passed first across vacuum F, then through the plate of rock-salt S, traversed the experimental tube, crossed the second plate S’, and being concentrated by the anterior conical reflector, impinged upon the adjacent face of the pile P. Meanwhile the rays from the hot cube C’ fell upon the opposite face of the pile, and the position of the galvanometer needle declared at once which source was predominant. A movement of the screen H back or forward with the hand sufficed to establish an approximate equality; but to make the radiations perfectly equal, and thus bring the needle exactly to 0º, the fine motion of the screw above referred to was necessary. The needle being at 0º, the gas to be examined was admitted into the tube; passing, in the first place, through the drying apparatus. Any required quantity of the gas may be admitted; and here experiments on gases and vapours enjoy an advantage over those with liquids and solids, namely, the capability of changing the density at pleasure. When the required quantity of gas had been admitted, the galvanometer was observed, and from the deflection of its needle the absorption was acurately determined.

    Note that during calibration the tube was exhausted, i.e. as close to a vacuum as possible. And that the two radiation sources, one passing through the exhausted tube and the other not doing so, were calibrated so as to “make the radiations perfectly equal, and thus bring the needle exactly to 0º”.

    Tyndall clearly says the system is calibrated with a vacuum-filled tube so that the galvanometer reads zero. Why do you think I asked you what a “0” reading meant?

    He later helpfully points out :

    The needle was deflected with prompt energy; but on pumping out(1), it refused to return to zero. To cleanse the tube, dry air was introduced into it ten times in succession; but the needle pointed persistently to the 40th degree from zero. The cause was easily surmised: the chlorine had attacked the metal and partially destroyed its reflecting power; thus the absorption by the sides of the tube itself cut off an amount of heat competent to produce the deflection mentioned above. For subsequent experiments the interior of the tube had to be repolished.

    …that a positive deflection reading implies absorption during traversal of the tube, and if the tube is polished it specifically implies absorption and re-radiation by the gas in the tube.

    So when you say:

    The “0” reading indicates zero absorption and radiation…

    …you are correct. But that implies 100% transmission as compared to a vacuum. Which means that the presence of gases with a “0” reading in a planetary atmosphere does not reduce the rate at which outgoing IR radiation emitted from the surface reaches space compared to either a vacuum – or an atmosphere without them. So you have just agreed with everyone else that N2 and O2 are not greenhouse gases as the term is commonly understood. But when you say that, you’ve just contradicted the claim you made at much the same time:

    …Tyndall’s lab apparatus simply showed that in the case of N2 and O2, thermal radiation did not traverse his cylinder…

    And Tyndall’s evidence also directly contradicts you:

    The extraordinary energy with which the needle was deflected when the olefiant gas was admitted into the tube, was such as might occur had the plates of rock-salt become suddenly covered with an opake layer.

    An opaque barrier in the tube causes a large deflection, not a “zero” reading as you claim!

    I don’t think you even understand what you are claiming, nor by what tortured chain of logic you derived said claims – especially as you utterly contradict yourself in the space of a few lines of comment.

  24. #24 Wow
    June 23, 2012

    He’s not using logic to derive claims.

    Faith.

    Unshakeable and ignorant faith.

  25. #25 Lotharsson
    June 23, 2012

    Unshakeable and ignorant faith.

    Indeed.

    Both A and not-A lead to his conclusion. So it doesn’t matter if he claims either or both of A and not-A to be true.

  26. #26 Lotharsson
    June 23, 2012

    Both A and not-A lead to his conclusion.

    (In his mind, that is…)

  27. #27 Wow
    June 23, 2012

    What there is of it…

  28. #28 Bernard J.
    June 23, 2012

    Remember that photons are largely a fiction as they have no mass

    This explains why Curtin doesn’t believe in back-radiation: he doesn’t believe in radiation in the first place. I’m a bit puzzled as to how he manages to see his keyboard, but I’m sure that he has an explanation for that too…

  29. #29 Wow
    June 23, 2012

    The Light Of God shines from his monitor, Bernard.

  30. #30 P. Lewis
    June 23, 2012

    TC, at 3:22am you wrote

    The Earth does this by emitting outgoing longwave radiation.” True, but the next is statement is NOT true: Everything [sic] on Earth emits longwave radiation continuously.” Tyndall showed conclusively, and has never been refuted, that the N2 and O2 do NOT emit long wave radiation at all let alone continuously

    Er, you are wrong, again.

    The statement “everything on Earth emits longwave radiation continuously” is (essentially) true!

    All matter that is above absolute zero emits EM radiation. Yes, even the atmosphere’s oxygen and nitrogen, though they are very poor absorbers/emitters.

    Then at 4:29am you wrote:

    But as Tyndall showed, when N2 and O2 are there, they do block LW infrared absorption and radiation.

    And you do know that that statement and the latter part of your 3:22am statement are mutually exclusive, don’t you?

  31. #31 Lotharsson
    June 24, 2012

    I’m a bit puzzled as to how he manages to see his keyboard,…

    Apparently blind faith in your own unique brilliance is all you need.

  32. #32 ianam
    June 24, 2012

    Which is why I used the definitive negative response “No”

    There was nothing to negate, git.

  33. #33 ianam
    June 24, 2012

    But that is exactly why they do have a blanketing effect, because they block all LW absorption and radiation

    What does that even mean? Block all LW absorption and radiation by what?

    Remember that photons are largely a fiction as they have no mass.

    You are largely a fiction because you have a negative IQ.

  34. #34 Tim Curtin
    June 24, 2012

    Lotharsson: as soon often you prefer to shoot the messenger and ignore or distort the message>

    Here are Tyndall’s key messages, they are not mine, and they speak for themselves. You have yet to controvert any of them.

    1. “Dry air was now admitted into the tube, while the needle of the galvanometer was observed with all possible care. Even by the aid of a magnifying lens I could not detect the slightest change of position. Oxygen, hydrogen, and nitrogen, subjected to the same test, gave the same negative result.”

    2. “According to my experiments, for small quantities the absorptive power of the former [CO2] is about 150 times that of the latter [O2]; and for atmospheric tensions, carbonic acid probably absorbs nearly 100 times as much as oxygen.”

    3. “Air sent through the system of drying tubes and through the caustic potash tube produced an absorption of about 1. Air direct from the laboratory, containing therefore its carbonic acid and aqueous vapour, produced an absorption of 15″.

    4. “But this aqueous vapour, which exercises such a destructive action on the obscure rays, is comparatively transparent to the [direct] rays of [sun] light. Hence the differential action, as regards the heat coming from the sun to the earth, and that radiated from the earth into space, is vastly augmented by the aqueous vapour of the atmosphere.”

    BTW, that result is confirmed by my regressions showing the statistically significant and much greater power of the atmosphere’s H2O than its CO2.

    5. “as the above experiments indicate, the chief influence be exercised by the aqueous vapour, every variation of this constituent must produce a change of climate. Similar remarks would apply to the carbonic acid diffused through the air; while an almost inappreciable admixture of any of the hydrocarbon vapours would produce great effects on the terrestrial rays and produce corresponding changes of climate.”

    Again, my regressions confirm this.

    6. “The measurements recorded in the foregoing pages constitute only a fraction of those actually made; but they fulfil the object of the present portion of the inquiry. They establish the existence of enormous differences among colourless gases and vapours as to their action upon radiant heat”.

    7. “the number of degrees through which the RADIATION from the [gases] urged the needle of the galvanometer :-
    Air . ……0
    Oxygen … 0
    Nitrogen. …. 0
    Hydrogen ….. 0
    Carbonic oxide . . . 12
    Carbonic acid .. 18
    Nitrous oxide . . . . 29
    Olefiant gas … 53”
    8. “If we inspect the results above recorded, we shall find 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.”

    It is for you Lotharsson and your mates here to refute not me but Tyndall’s demonstration that N2 and O2 do not either absorb or radiate significant amounts of heat from the earth, while the H2O and CO2 do.

  35. #35 Lotharsson
    June 24, 2012

    You have yet to controvert any of them.

    Correct – because I agree with them, and note that they contradict your interpretations or conclusions – and that you have yet to demonstrate otherwise!

    It is for you…to refute…Tyndall’s demonstration that N2 and O2 do not either absorb or radiate significant amounts of heat from the earth, while the H2O and CO2 do.

    Do you always miss the actual point of contention, or only when you can’t answer it?

    But at least it’s good that you’re now clearly asserting your own agreement with climate scientists the world over who conclude that:

    …N2 and O2 do not either absorb or radiate significant amounts of heat from the earth, while the H2O and CO2 do.

    If you have any intellectual integrity (and sufficient scientific understanding), then you’ll have to then agree that it follows that your other claims about N2 and O2 being “opaque to longwave IR” and being the “real greenhouse gases” are entirely bogus, as is the claim that a reading of “0” means the IR was entirely blocked by the gas in question.

    How about it?

  36. #36 adelady
    city of wine and roses
    June 24, 2012

    ” ….. the chief influence be exercised by the aqueous vapour, every variation of this constituent must produce a change of climate. Similar remarks would apply to the carbonic acid diffused through the air; …. ”

    Which is what several people have been saying all along.

    What’s the problem?

  37. #37 Wow
    June 24, 2012

    The problem is Tim has a medical condition that is making him incapable of rational thinking or even reading english.

    Inane: “There was nothing to negate, git.”

    You made a claim, and a claim can be disagreed, disagreement is a negation of the claim, you crackpot moron.

  38. #38 ianam
    June 24, 2012

    You made a claim

    My claim was about my mental state — that I could almost believe something, you pathetic dunce.

  39. #39 ianam
    June 24, 2012

    Tyndall’s demonstration that N2 and O2 do not either absorb or radiate significant amounts of heat from the earth

    Right, they do not either absorb or radiate it. They have no effect on it.

  40. #40 ianam
    June 24, 2012

    BTW, Tim, since thermal radiation has no mass, and you think that means it’s “largely a fiction”, why are you going on and on about it?

  41. #41 Wow
    June 24, 2012

    “My claim was about my mental state”

    Your claim was about Tim’s mental state, you incompetent buffoon. Or was this:

    “pulling off an elaborate Poe, rather than being one of the stupidest people ever encountered.”

    talking about yourself?

  42. #42 ianam
    June 24, 2012

    and sufficient scientific understanding

    Tim’s set of beliefs are too incoherent to qualify as any sort of “understanding”, but somewhere in his largely fictional brain is apparently the notion that thermal radiation needs to be “absorbed and radiated” in order to propagate, and since N2 and O2 do not absorb and radiate it, they prevent its propagation, and thus are “the real GHG’s”.

  43. #43 ianam
    June 24, 2012

    . “Dry air was now admitted into the tube, while the needle of the galvanometer was observed with all possible care. Even by the aid of a magnifying lens I could not detect the slightest change of position. Oxygen, hydrogen, and nitrogen, subjected to the same test, gave the same negative result.”

    In other words, adding oxygen, hydrogen, and nitrogen to the tube did not impede the IR radiation in the slightest; they did not act like a blanket or “the real GHG’s”. It’s like Tyndall coming to life, walking up to you, and shouting at you “You’re wrong“.

  44. #44 ianam
    June 24, 2012

    Your claim was about Tim’s mental state,

    You’re a lying sack of garbage.

    “pulling off an elaborate Poe

    “pulling” is not capitalized … now, what does that mean? Oh, it’s a quote mine. So eff you, you pathetic s**thead. You use the denier’s methods and are as evil as they are. You make me sick and I won’t deal with you further.

  45. #45 Wow
    June 24, 2012

    Yes, I understand that you’re angry because you’re a nincompoop.

    What I don’t understand is why.

    Is it because you WERE talking about your mental state and you ARE “one of the stupidest people ever encountered.”?

  46. #46 Wow
    June 24, 2012

    Inane, here’s an example that is simplified so it will fit in the gap in your head.

    You: “I believe the sky is green!”
    Me: “No, it’s blue”
    You? “RETARD! That’s not how you can respond!11!!!1!1″
    Me: “WTF?”

  47. #47 P. Lewis
    June 24, 2012

    LOL:

    BTW, that result is confirmed by my regressions showing the statistically significant and much greater power of the atmosphere’s H2O than its CO2.

    Wheel rediscovered! We’ve only known it since …what? Since Tyndall’s measurements!

    And for your next wheel rediscovery project can I suggest you concentrate your efforts on the sun’s pre-eminent effect.

  48. #48 ianam
    June 24, 2012

    I suggest you concentrate your efforts on the sun’s pre-eminent effect.

    That’s largely a fiction (or a large fiction?), according to Curtin.

  49. #49 Tim Curtin
    www.timcurtin.com
    June 24, 2012

    Lothgarsson sez; “But at least it’s good that you’re now clearly asserting your own agreement with climate scientists the world over who conclude that:

    …N2 and O2 do not either absorb or radiate significant amounts of heat from the earth, while the H2O and CO2 do.”

    Well said. “N2 and O2 do not either absorb or radiate significant amounts of heat from the earth, while the H2O and CO2 do.”

    That is why the N2 and O2 gases are GHGs, and the H2O and CO2 are not;

    It is because the N2 and O2 do not absorb and therefore do NOT radiate significant amounts of heat from the earth, that they are indeed the real GHGs, and the H2O and CO2 are not, as they do absorb and then radiate pro rata. Without the latter we would be fried.

  50. #50 Wow
    June 24, 2012

    Can we close this curtain on Tim’s obvious brain damage?

    By displaying the ability to claim A is not a GHG, B is, then demand refutation of his claim that B is not a GHG, A is, this clearly demonstrates a serious physiological issue and we’re now entering (or entered a while ago) “Victorians going to a Freak Show”.

  51. #51 Tim Curtin
    www.timcurtin.com
    June 24, 2012

    Lotharsson: I apolgise for mistying you name in my previous.

    Wow: you are indeed a WoSpace.

  52. #52 Wow
    June 24, 2012

    Tim, you’re ill. Seriously ill. Go. See. A. Doctor.

    Now.

  53. #53 Wow
    June 24, 2012

    “Well said. “N2 and O2 do not either absorb or radiate significant amounts of heat from the earth, while the H2O and CO2 do.””

    How the clucking bell does the Moon which has no CO2 or H2O to “radiate away the Moon’s heat” cool down????

    Seriously, you’re sick. Jack-the-ripper sick, but still sick.

  54. #54 P. Lewis
    June 24, 2012

    Black is the new white! Or is it white is the new black?

    What use is a definition acknowledged by virtually everyone anyway?

    If TC wants to live in his own little universe and be king/president, prime minister, chief government scientist, wheel reinventor and multiple Nobel Prize winner in nonsensical ramblings, then so be it.

    A facepalm just isn’t sufficient!

  55. #55 bill
    June 24, 2012

    About time I suggest, folks. Ring down the Curtin – this farce is over…

  56. #56 Lotharsson
    June 24, 2012

    Lotharsson: I apolgise for mistying you name in my previous.

    No worries.

    That is why the N2 and O2 gases are GHGs, and the H2O and CO2 are not;…

    Ah, finally you have managed to avoid the red herrings and hit on the real point of contention – over which you are doggedly and deeply mistaken.

    You have agreed that the transmission of radiation from an IR source (i.e. Tyndall’s source) through an atmosphere (i.e. Tyndall’s tube) consisting of only N2 and O2 is unimpeded by the aforementioned N2 and O2 as measured by a sensor (Tyndall’s galvanometer coupled to the differential thermopile) located outside of the aforementioned atmosphere.

    In other words, the radiated power from the source through N2 and O2 as seen by the sensor is essentially exactly equivalent to the radiated power from the same source through a vacuum as seen by the same sensor. This is further verified by Tyndall’s calibration procedure that I quoted to you above, demonstrating that a “0” reading means – by definition via the calibration procedure – the received radiation power that traverses a vacuum. (Feel free to disagree with this statement – but only if you simultaneously disagree with your own claim that “N2 and O2 do not either absorb or radiate significant amounts of heat from the earth”.)

    And despite all that you still assert that “N2 and O2 are the real GHGs”.

    By what magic do you think that an atmosphere consisting only of N2 and O2 – which you have agreed does not impede outgoing IR radiation and in fact transmits essentially the same amount of radiation as a vacuum – would cause us to “be fried”?

    And – as others have asked – given that N2 and O2 are essentially equivalent to no atmosphere at all, why hasn’t our Moon “fried”?

    Inquiring minds want to know.

  57. #57 Richard Simons
    June 24, 2012

    It is because the N2 and O2 do not absorb and therefore do NOT radiate significant amounts of heat back to the earth, that they are not the real GHGs,

    Fixed it for you. Understand this, and the worst of your problems will be solved.

    BTW: back radiation does not violate the Second Law and can be measured quite easily.

  58. #58 Lionel A
    June 24, 2012

    TC June 23, 4:29 am

    ‘I simply cannot believe in your back radiation as it infringes basic physics’ 2nd Law.’

    FFFFFS Curtin stop acting the twerp, go back and read my June 22, 10:39 am and all the comments of others on this question.

    TC June 23, 6:17 am quotes from from AR4 WG FAQ 1.1:

    “The reason the Earth’s surface is this warm is the presence of greenhouse gases, which act as a partial blanket for the longwave radiation coming from the surface. This blanketing is known as the natural greenhouse effect.

    Note the ‘act as’ and not the word ‘are’ at that juncture in that statement. So, BJ is quite correct when he writes that nobody is claiming that GHGs are a blanket.

    Bingo, proof that you read things that are not there by misinterpretation. Back to school and comprehension classes for you Curtin..

    TC June 23, 12:42 pm

    ‘Remember that photons are largely a fiction as they have no mass.’

    As I wrote above go back and read my June 22, 10:39 am and read up on nuclear physics. You once mentioned Feynman but I doubt you read him with any understanding, try his three Volume ‘Lectures on Physics’ recently republished in an updated Millennium Edition in a slip case.

    TC 12:28 pm

    ‘That is why the N2 and O2 gases are GHGs, and the H2O and CO2 are not;
    It is because the N2 and O2 do not absorb and therefore do NOT radiate significant amounts of heat from the earth, that they are indeed the real GHGs, and the H2O and CO2 are not, as they do absorb and then radiate pro rata. Without the latter we would be fried.

    Cripes, so you have learned nowt except how to repeat garbage ad infinitum.

    Crickey! I have just returned after a short time away catching up with my past (FAA) and find you still casting aspersions at competent scientist who have contributed much to our body of knowledge whereas you are taking us into the realm of the ‘Ministry of Magic’. There really is not much can be done with somebody as ideological blinkered as you. Your comments betray you as having a poisoned mind.

    You are becoming a joke and you really are displaying, in your own words from elsewhere, invincible ignorance.

    I think its time to leave your sad personage in its own holethread.

  59. #59 ianam
    June 24, 2012

    You are becoming a joke

    He has never not been. As Tim Lambert wrote:

    Tim Curtin’s incompetence with basic statistics is the stuff of legend

  60. #60 ianam
    June 24, 2012

    And, of course, there’s the in[s]anity of http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/03/18/tim-curtin-thread/ … which was closed because Curtin is a cheat.

  61. #61 MikeH
    June 25, 2012

    Please folks put down your coffee – you have been warned.

    This is Tim “Walter Mitty” Curtin blowing his own trumpet over at The Conversation.

    “Actually I know that Lang like me has been in frequent communication with Bill Nordhaus at Yale, probably one of the better economists engaged with climate change analysis. Nordhaus has rather lost the plot lately (see NYRB) but his book “A Question of Balance” is indeed the most balanced available economic assessment.”

    http://theconversation.edu.au/why-the-global-environmental-movement-is-failing-7819

    From Chapter 2 “Summary for the Concerned Citizen” of “A Question of Balance”
    http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/Balance_2nd_proofs.pdf

    “Gases such as CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, and halocarbons are called greenhouse gases (GHGs). They tend to accumulate in the atmosphere and have a very long residence time,from decades to centuries. Higher concentrations of GHGs
    lead to surface warming of the land and oceans.

    and

    “The final message of this book is a simple one: Global warming is a serious problem that will not solve itself. Countries should take cooperative steps to slow global warming.There is no case for delay

  62. #62 Tim Curtin
    www.timcurtin.com
    June 25, 2012

    Dear Fans

    I suspect this thread has gone on too,long, not least because the continuous ad homs from you lot can be quite wearing.

    But at both Judith Curry’s Climate etc and The Conversartion some reals scientists unlikke, you, have supported my claims based on Tyndall:

    For example, in response to The Skeptical Warmist (aka R. Gates): “Edim | June 25, 2012 at 3:43 am | Well, it’s just as odd as the consensus heat trapping, if not less. The bulk of the atmosphere (N2 and O2) gains energy from the surface by convection/evaporation plus from the absorbed radiative heat from ‘GHGs’. This energy of the bulk cannot be transfered to space – it can only be transfered to ‘GHGs’, which radiate it to space. So, in a way, N2 and O2 ‘trap’ the climate system heat. More CO2/H2O, less trapping.” The difference is greenhouse gas are referring to gases which absorb and radiation a spectrum of electromagnetic radiation. There are different types of energy. Heat is the motion of matter. The storage or trapping of heat is something we do all the time. Insulation for a home is to trap heat which generated in furnace, and can also keep cool air inside the house in warm weather. Insulating your with fiberglass insulation is most about prevent convection and conduction of heat- fiber insulation is porous, filled pockets of air. So it’s the trapped air in the fiberglass which prevents conduction and convection of heat. Or also use thermo bottles to store hot beverages. Or dewar flask to store something like cryogenic liquid nitrogen. Or brick walls for kiln are used to contain extreme heat. The type of material [lack of material in case a vacuum] and the temperature difference are element which can control the conduction, convection, and radiation of heat. generally the most heat can transfer with conduction and metals generally conduct heat well. Convection is related to gravity- hotter liquids or gases are less dense and are buoyant. I.e putting hand above a stove element will heat your hand, whereas same distance horizontal to heating element is not as hot. The heat when horizontal to a hot element would be mostly radiant heat. Or a electric space heater will radiating heat, and if has some sort fan it helps spread it’s heat via convection. Whereas storing any electromagnetic energy is not something commonly done. One could say laser sort does this, with mirrors it can bounce the radiation back and forth [but this delaying the energy for some fraction of a millisecond. Any electromagnet radiation is traveling at speed of light- the atmosphere could not hold this energy for any significant amount time and I have never any adequate explanation of exactly how this kind of energy is supposed to be “trapped” nor any attempt to quantify the amount energy which can transferred. I assume the delay and the amount energy transferable is somewhat insignificant.

  63. #63 Tim Curtin
    www.timcurtin.com
    June 25, 2012

    Further to my last here is Markus Fitzhenry at The Conversation:

    “Thus far, the science of atmosphere has rested on the paradigm of Greenhouse. It is a misinterpretation of the observations of the french scientist Baron Fourier by Arrhenius in 1896. It is that misconception, of previous known physical laws , that has polluted our perceptions of the earths atmosphere into the modern ages. To shift that invalid principal one has to offer a different perception born of observations and proved in the universal application of it in, within a symbolic syntax (maths). This is the crux of the matter The current paradigm demands our atmosphere is gas in an enclosed house. The correct principal is that the enclosure itself is the whole of the atmosphere. Consider the greenhouse roof to start at the earths surface and end at the top of our atmosphere. The invalid greenhouse principal is false when subjected to the principal of conservation of energy. They cannot explain why it is so except for the introduction of a new invalid principal. As we have always done, when our knowledge of the universe of physics reaches the end of our ability to predicate, we fear the unknown. We naturally conserve our existence and fear is a mechanism of this conservation. It must be so, that earth, water, air, are different forms of the manifestation of energy in mass. The perception of a greenhouse allows a supposition that the energy equation of the equilibrium of mass can be different in its different forms of manifestation. Baron Fourier would be aghast. “

  64. #64 Tim Curtin
    www.timcurtin.com
    June 25, 2012

    NMore from Marcus: Basically, the assumption by the IPCC that all the absorbed Infra Red radiation (IR) is directly thermalised is wrong. At >200 ppmV [CO2] there is no increase in absorptivity/emissivity [assuming Kirchhoff’s law at equilibrium]. These data are routinely used in furnace design and are correct in that they work. The experiments were done using a heated/cooled container and there are good theoretical reasons that the real process is absorption then pseudo-scattering to give indirect thermalisation at the walls of the container, so the real process is the effectiveness of the CO2 at scattering energy to the container walls and vice versa. There is no direct process for transfer of absorbed quanta in GHG molecules by multiple collisions to symmetrical N2 and O2 as apparently claimed in climate science. Molecules have no memory so Local Thermal Equilibrium (LTE) is restored once an already excited molecule emits the same quantum: no direct thermalisation. This is kinetic selection in that the energy is transferred by multiple pseudo-scattering events as if the GHGs were a heat transfer medium, only stopping when the quantum is absorbed/thermalised at a heterogeneous interface, or heads off to space. In the atmosphere, the ‘container’ is clouds and bare aerosols giving the impression of direct thermalisation. Nahle has shown theoretically from partial molar specific heat data The ultimate arbiter is the experimental data of Hottel and Leckner. Clouds are grey bodies because the absorbed band specific IR is thermalised over many more wavelengths, so again making a very different heat transfer problem than the IPCC claims. Thus cloud under surfaces will emit specular IR in the atmospheric window back to the Earth whose energy will have originally been partly CO2 specific. On the contrary, there will also be transfer in the other direction so it probably cancels out. As the atmosphere thins and has fewer clouds, the IR emitted by clouds and warm air will preferentially escape to space because as it is pseudo-scattered, it is selected to escape UP. This means that as height increases, the emissivity DOWN tends to zero. At Bottom of Atmosphere (BOA), the boundary condition is that only the net IR UP is important in that the rest of the heat transfer is conduction and convection, the total being 160 W/m^2. In effect the emissivity of the earth’s surface is <<1 and radiative flux only exceeds [conductive plus convective] flux at ~100 °C [see McAdams’ Heat Transfer for example. Thus the IPCC claim that there is a radiative equilibrium between a 'blackbody' surface in equilibrium and 'blackbody' air is completely wrong. At TOA there is zero DOWN IR. At BOA, UP IR = 63 W/m^ and it is claimed that 40W/m^2 of this goes through the atmospheric window. Let’s assume this is correct. The net result is that the climate models artificially increase heat in the system by a factor of [240+333-240]/240 = 1.39 and the IR bit by a factor of [23 + (333-240)]/23 = 5.04. This shifts the calculation to IR dominance whereas the real atmosphere is dominated by convective processes; thus the incorrect modelling is the origin of the unphysical positive feedback. In summary: thermalisation is indirect and because the scattering of IR from the Earth’s surface asymptotes at ~200 ppmv [CO2], there can be no net CO2-(A)GW in the post ice age World."

    Once again I rest my case.

  65. #65 Tim Curtin
    www.timcurtin.com
    June 25, 2012

    Finally, here is the total refiutation of Kevin (aka Donald Duck) Trenberth and the totaliity of AR4;

    http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/erbe/components2.gif

    You guys have nowhere to go when NASA confronts Kevin Dickhead.

  66. #66 Bernard J.
    June 25, 2012

    Once again I rest my case.

    And on the basis of your case, the jury finds that you are guilty of being a completely ignorant and deluded (and likely cognitively impaired) ideologically-fugued emeritus.

    Curtin, you have presented no case. I see text-bombs with no carriage returns, but no succinct and pertinent construction of a “case”. You simply dash from pillar to post like a drunken butterfly, plucking random snippets of scientific quotation from the air, pasting them to your tongue with the copious drooling drivel of fevered ideology, but there’s no actual science.

    Really, you have nothing.

    Do your children read these postings? Do they know how ridiculously you’re behaving? Do they know that you are at the least an embarrassing igorant fool, and perhaps more seriously that you’re in the early stages of mental decline?

    I don’t ask such questions lightly. However, anyone who genuinely understands the subject matter that you bastardise knows that you are stratospheric on the scale of not-being-in-touch-with-reality.

    Do yourself a favour. Print this thread, and take it and yourself to your nearest general practitioner.

    S/he will refer you to a specialist for serious and careful medical scrutiny.

  67. #67 Robert Murphy
    June 25, 2012

    Tim Curtin:
    “I suspect this thread has gone on too,long, not least because the continuous ad homs from you lot can be quite wearing.”

    Tim Curtin on this very thread:

    “You guys have nowhere to go when NASA confronts Kevin Dickhead.”

    “and that is what Grant Closed Mind Foster”

    “Loathsome Lotharssome:…”

    “Lewis: you are thicker than a miilion planks.”

    “Your are all clowns.”

    “Finally, here is the total refiutation of Kevin (aka Donald Duck) Trenberth”

    “Yes, you are all 10 year olds!”

    Hypocrisy, thy name is Tim Curtin.

    And lest anybody forgets, in his first post on this thread, he said:
    “What I also note is that none here or there has ever published any let alone immaculate LSR analysis of their claimed AGW against ALL the relevant causative agents, which since Tyndall (1861) and Arrhenius have shown [H2O] to be much more potent than [CO2], as my paper showed repeatedly.”

    where he claims H2O to be a causative agent of warming. He berated the IPCC for allegedly not recognizing water vapor as a GHG (they do of course – they say it’s the most important one as far as the total GHE is concerned -Curtin was as usual completely wrong), then he turns around and says that neither water vapor or CO2 are GHG’s at all, that they instead cool the planet! Apparently he’s never been outside on a humid night and noticed how much warmer it is than a dry night. A foolish consistency may be the hobgoblin of little minds, but a foolish inconsistency is no better.

  68. #68 Wow
    June 25, 2012

    “you’re in the early stages of mental decline?”

    Nah, he’s in deep decline. Seriously. Deep deep deep decline.

    Have a look at his “Hey, refute my claim CO2 and H2O trap IR!” when everyone is telling him they trap IR.

    Have a look at his continuing repetition of a lie that has been pointed out time and time again.

    That isn’t “early stages”, that’s nearly life-support stage mental decline.

  69. #69 Wow
    June 25, 2012

    “Finally, here is the total refiutation of Kevin”

    Case in point of his brain damage, that.

    HEY! NIMROD! that’s talking about 100% of solar input. What the FECK does that have to do with total energy budget?

    Here’s a hint: NAFF ALL.

    Where, for example, is the “back radiation” that you whine on and on (and on and on and on…) about in that picture?

  70. #70 Lotharsson
    June 25, 2012

    I suspect this thread has gone on too,long,…

    Yes, because you refuse to correct basic errors in your claims – and as you have just done once more, you engage in a Gish Gallop or Monckton Maneuver (presumably) when your claims become untenable even to you.

  71. #71 Wow
    June 25, 2012

    “So, in a way, N2 and O2 ‘trap’ the climate system heat.”

    Not in a way that is called “The Greenhouse Effect”.

    “The bulk of the atmosphere (N2 and O2) gains energy from the surface by convection/evaporation”

    102W/m^2

    “plus from the absorbed radiative heat from ‘GHGs””

    390W/,^2.

    Note also Timski, here you’re calling the gasses that AREN’T N2 and O2 “GHGs”.

    “There is no direct process for transfer of absorbed quanta in GHG molecules by multiple collisions to symmetrical N2 and O2″

    Yes they to. Inelastic collision. And note again: Not N2 and O2 as GHGs.

    “At >200 ppmV [CO2] there is no increase in absorptivity/emissivity [assuming Kirchhoff’s law at equilibrium].”

    Yes there is. Optical depth goes linearly with PPV until several percent of concentration.

    “Nahle has shown theoretically from partial molar specific heat data”

    He’s also shown that that heating is EACH SECOND, therefore after 1 year, the temperature of his theoretical model is hotter than the corona of the sun.

  72. #72 Lotharsson
    June 25, 2012

    …have supported my claims based on Tyndall…

    Er, no – read it closely, and the quote you provided does nothing of the sort.

    It discusses still another mechanism for moving heat around the atmosphere – but fails to analyse the differential effect of N2 and O2 vs a planet without them, and in particular it fails to comment on the impact of N2 and O2 on the the rate of energy loss to space, which is what is directly affected by a GHG. It is true that convection and conduction carry surface energy into the atmosphere – but your main claim to infamy is that (a) without N2 and O2 the earth “would fry” and (b) that without atmospheric CO2 and H2O the earth would be a lot warmer. To support either of those claims you need to provide evidence to support what would happen with atmospheres devoid of either N2 and O2, or CO2 and H2O (and you could take the KT diagram as a starting point – if you actually understood it). The quote tackles neither scenario.

    It also specifically fails to refute your implication that GHGs somehow only magically radiate away from the earth’s surface. Or that back radiation violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. And it reveals gross ignorance of fairly basic climate science:

    Any electromagnet radiation is traveling at speed of light- the atmosphere could not hold this energy for any significant amount time and I have never any adequate explanation of exactly how this kind of energy is supposed to be “trapped” nor any attempt to quantify the amount energy which can transferred. I assume the delay and the amount energy transferable is somewhat insignificant.

    So he’s building his case against a set of very well tested claims on a completely untested assumption and his own ignorance of atmospheric physics? Really?

    But since you are well known for your ability to interpret a powerful refutation of your claims as supporting them, none of this is not the least bit surprising.

  73. #73 Lotharsson
    June 25, 2012

    …here is Markus Fitzhenry at The Conversation…

    …asserting a load of almost entirely incoherent nonsense with no evidential support or even logic to back up the assertions – so no wonder it is right up your alley.

    The invalid greenhouse principal is false when subjected to the principal of conservation of energy.

    How ROFL-worthy. This (false) complaint is cited by you – a dogged proponent of persistently failing to correctly sum the energy flows in the KT diagram, even after your primary-school level error is pointed out multiple times!
    And the quotes you have provided give no support to the claim that Fitzhenry even understands what he dubs “the invalid greenhouse principal [sic]” (which again puts it right up your alley).

    More from Marcus…

    …who appears to assert the reality of back-radiation.

    Oh, wait, you claim it doesn’t exist. So man up, TC and tell us straight: which parts of Marcus’ rambling commentary are invalidated if he’s wrong on that?

    And then there’s this nougat of pseudoscience:

    As the atmosphere thins and has fewer clouds, the IR emitted by clouds and warm air will preferentially escape to space because as it is pseudo-scattered, it is selected to escape UP.

    Unsurprisingly no details are forthcoming on the magic selection mechanism! Does Maxwell’s daemon play a role, or maybe some kind of supernatural entity? Molecules equipped with gyroscopes or gravitational sensors coupled to a cute system of lenses? Or does Marcus rely on a hitherto unknown “principal” of physics which he hasn’t bothered to support with – you know – actual experimental evidence?

    You guys have nowhere to go when NASA confronts Kevin Dickhead.

    Hypocritical hypocrite is hypocritical.

    Also doesn’t appear to understand that a bidirectional energy flow diagram and net energy flow diagram may look different to those who don’t bother reading carefully – but still represent exactly the same understanding.

    (Hint: that rightmost upward directed red arrow without a percentage attached is ~21% of incoming solar radiation ~= 72 W/m^2. In KT97 the net of upward IR absorbed by the atmosphere and downward IR emitted by the atmosphere is 66W/m^2. We’re talking very similar quantities once rounding to nearest percent is taken into account. I’m confident you don’t and probably won’t understand this, because you can’t read the relatively simple KT diagram correctly in the first place.)

    And you commit the fallacy of argument by appeal to authority to boot. Can we get it in writing that NASA is an authority for you on climate science matters? They’ve done climate science research that contradicts many of your claims – I assume you’ll withdraw them now that you’ve chosen NASA as your authoritative source?

  74. #74 P. Lewis
    June 25, 2012

    LOL.

    TC, that NASA cartoon is essentially the same diagram as Kiehl and Trenberth’s in what they portray about ins and outs.

    100% (in) = (6+20+4+64+6)% (out). Does in vs out balance (as “=” implies)? Yes!

    Kiehl and Trenberth 1997: 342 (in) = 107+235 (out)/67+168 (in) = 235 (out). Do ins vs outs balance? Yes!

    [Note, in what follows, exact/true figures may differ slightly from those presented here, as I’m only talking ballpark.]

    A clue for TC: about 90% of what comes in from the sun doesn’t get out in the first instance because of those, you know what, … non-GHG(!) GHGs (or was it GHG GHGs?); no matter, H2O, CO2, etc. (but not O2, N2 or Ar). Yes, apart from narrow windows at around 2, 3.5, 8 and 10 µm, the atmosphere is largely opaque to IR! Guess what happens to most of that Earth-emitted radiation? It gets absorbed and is re-radiated. By what and where to I wonder?

    It’s called the natural greenhouse effect. The Kiehl and Trenberth diagram, on a basic level, is essentially the same whether you’re talking pre-industrial CO2 levels or 2012 CO2 levels.

    What’s more, 235/265 W/m2 at TOA equates to a black/grey-body temperature of about 255 K IIRC. And 390 W/m2 at the surface equates to a global average black/grey-body temperature of about 288 K.

    The only way for the surface of the Earth to emit 235/265 W/m2 is if the average global surface temperature were ~255 K! And guess what? If there was no greenhouse effect, then looking up you would see no DLR. If there is DLR, then we know there is a GH effect. Guess what we see? DLR!

    Is the average global surface temperature 255 K?

    No! It’s ~288 K

    The Earth’s surface radiation depends on the actual temperature. That’s where the 390 W/m2 or whatever comes from.

    So, the only “dickhead” is the one you continually prove to be: the ideologically blinkered, science-challenged, mega-hubristic Tim(ewaster) Curtin.

  75. #75 Lionel A
    June 25, 2012

    Curtin

    I think that you should spend awhile in this sandpit and then move onto this other topic .

    Then don’t forget to push on to Home when done. for the bigger picture. And boy do you need that bigger picture especially opinion on the value of stuff from Nasif Nahle and Claes Johnson.

    Your case has fallen off its rest having never been in equilibrium anyway..

  76. #76 Bernard J.
    June 25, 2012

    Lionel A.

    One of the funniest, if understated, comments that I have seen regarding the second law of thermodynamics was SoD’s comment:

    In the case of the imaginary second law, there is some energy floating around. No advocates have so far explained what happens to it. Probably it floats off into space where it can eventually be absorbed by a colder body.

    Alert readers will be able to see the tiny problem with this scenario..

    I suspect that Tim Curtin will not be sufficiently alert that he could see this “tiny problem”…

  77. #77 Chris O'Neill
    June 26, 2012

    Dim Cretin:

    “You guys have nowhere to go when NASA confronts Kevin Dickhead.”

    I can hardly wait.

  78. #78 ianam
    June 26, 2012

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/22/a-response-to-dr-paul-bains-use-of-denier-in-scientific-literature/ is a hoot. Robert G. Brown dishonestly, falsely, foolishly claims that

    On WUWT most of the skeptics do not “deny” AGW, certainly not the scientists or professional weather people (I myself am a physicist) and honestly, most of the non-scientist skeptics have learned better than that

    and then in the comments writes at length trying to convince people that … the Greenhouse Effect is real and energy can travel from hot to cold! Tim Curtin should head over there and join in.

  79. #79 ianam
    June 26, 2012

    Er, make that “trying to convince people that … energy can travel from cold to hot”.

  80. #80 Lotharsson
    June 26, 2012

    On WUWT most of the skeptics do not “deny” AGW, …

    That alone is a hoot!

    Tim Curtin should head over there and join in.

    Although over there he’d be merely one largely indistinguishable voice in a massive choir, and would therefore likely garner very little individual attention…

  81. #81 Tim Curtin
    www.timcurtin.com
    June 26, 2012

    Lotharsson said (1): “To support either of those claims you need to provide evidence to support what would happen with atmospheres devoid of either N2 and O2, or CO2 and H2O…” How many more times do I have to reprint Tyndall’s results with atmospheres devoid of N2 and/or O2 but full of H2O and/or CO2, showing that the latter are up to 15 times more absorbent – and radiative – than the former?

    (2) L: you are one who should take the KT diagram as a starting point – as you actually do not understood its absurd claims that the earth radiates more than double (390 W/sq.m) what it absorbs from the sun (165 W/sq. m.), and its even greater absurdity that “back radiation” from KT’s misnamed GHGs is 324 W/sq.m.

    The NASA diagram on Earth’s Energy Budget I linked to makes no mention of the K-T nonsense on back radiation: it show the earth absorbs 51% of the incoming solar energy, of which 7% escapes by conduction and rising air, 23% is carried to clouds and the atmosphere by latent heat, 15% is radiation absorbed by the atmosphere and 6% radiates directly to space.

    My interpretation of Tyndall has been confirmed in exchanges between Edim and gbaikie at Climate Etc. (Science held hostage in climate debate): “The bulk of the atmosphere (N2 and O2) gains energy from the surface by convection or evaporation plus from the absorbed radiative heat from ‘GHGs’. This energy of the bulk cannot be transferred to space – it can only be transferred to ‘GHGs’, which radiate it to space. So, in a way, N2 and O2 ‘trap’ the climate system heat.”

    Thus it is the IPCC’s wrongly named GHGs that allow the heat trapped by the N2 and O2 to be radiated to space, and so they are NOT the “partial (sic) blankets” claimed by AR4 WG1 p.97.

  82. #82 Jeff Harvey
    June 26, 2012

    *My interpretation of Tyndall has been confirmed in exchanges between Edim and gbaikie at Climate Etc. (Science held hostage in climate debate)*

    Now this IS hilarious! Tim’s silly theories have not been confirmed in the halls of science, at a university, a major conference, or in the peer-reviewed literature, but on a climate change denial blog! So that’s it then. I am sure that flat-earth and other crackpot theories have also been ‘confirmed’ on blogs.

    This is pure comedy gold. Reading this thread, it just gets better and better.

  83. #83 ianam
    June 26, 2012

    My interpretation of Tyndall has been confirmed in exchanges between Edim and gbaikie

    Ah yes, scientific confirmation is obtained by someone somewhere on the internet agreeing with you.

    Well, that’s incredibly stupid and intellectually dishonest … i.e., completely typical of you.

  84. #84 ianam
    June 26, 2012

    That alone is a hoot!

    Yes, certainly, but what makes it extra specially funny is how the WUWT denizens so immediately and thoroughly falsified it.

    This part is also very amusing:

    professional weather people

    He seems to have never read Joe Bastardi, or the recent survey that showed that more than half of American TV weather forecasters disbelieve AGW; an earlier survey found that 29% think that “global warming is a scam”.

  85. #85 Lotharsson
    June 26, 2012

    How many more times do I have to reprint Tyndall’s results with atmospheres devoid of N2 and/or O2 but full of H2O and/or CO2, showing that the latter are up to 15 times more absorbent – and radiative – than the former?

    As many times as it takes to sink in to your intransigent read-only brain that no-one, except perhaps you in your other claims, is disputing those of Tyndall’s results.

    Read it again. I and everyone else agree with those results.

    As I previously stated – and you failed to comprehend – the dispute is over your claim that “therefore N2 and O2 are the ‘real’ GHGs” and “without N2 and O2 we would fry”. By now I seriously doubt that you even comprehend what it would take to demonstrate that claim, and I rather doubt you are capable of comprehending.

    But it’s really not very difficult. Answer these simple multiple choice questions:

    1) In Tyndall’s proper experiment, is the rate of IR energy traversing the tube in scenarios where the galvanometer shows a positive deflection:

    a) higher
    b) lower
    c) exactly the same as

    the rate of IR energy traversing the tube when the galvanometer reads “zero”?

    2) Which of the following mechanisms allows a planet to transfer energy to/through space. Choose all that apply:

    a) Convection
    b) Conduction
    c) Radiation
    d) Other: please specify

    3) Consider two planets A and B, identical save that planet A’s atmosphere contains some gases that reduce the rate of outgoing IR radiation to space for a given surface temperature as compared to planet B. Allow both planets to reach radiative balance at the top of atmosphere (outgoing radiated energy equals incoming radiated energy). Is the global average surface temperature of planet A:

    a) higher
    b) lower
    c) identical to

    the global average surface temperature of planet B?

    Then apply your new-found knowledge to your previous claims and see how many survive…

  86. #86 Lotharsson
    June 26, 2012

    …as you actually do not understood its absurd claims that the earth radiates more than double (390 W/sq.m) what it absorbs from the sun (165 W/sq. m.), and its even greater absurdity that “back radiation” from KT’s misnamed GHGs is 324 W/sq.m.

    Don’t be an idiot – if you can!

    If I have a bank account and receive a weekly government benefit of $165, and yet spend $390 cash per week, would you claim it absurd?

    Would you still claim it absurd if I pointed out that you had failed to account for all of my weekly income, and that I also work and receive a weekly salary of $324 bringing my weekly total up to $489?

    Would you still claim it absurd if I further pointed out that my job is at a supermarket where $350 of my weekly $390 cash spend goes on supermarket goods, and $40 is spent elsewhere?

    You would fail high school accounting with your current analysis.

    Tim, this is deadly serious without any intent to insult: if you are still maintaining that KT is “absurd” after several people have explained basic accounting to you, then I strongly urge you to see a neuro/cognitive specialist. Something ain’t right if you can’t do something as simple as add up all sources of incoming IR and compare with all sources of outgoing IR.

  87. #87 Lotharsson
    June 26, 2012

    The NASA diagram on Earth’s Energy Budget I linked to makes no mention of the K-T nonsense on back radiation

    That is correct, because it has netted outgoing and back radiation, as others have explained to you. It’s like saying “I earn a weekly wage from a supermarket and buy goods from it, and after all of that my nett weekly gain/loss is $X”.

    What it doesn’t show is any significant disagreement with KT, no matter how many times you bluster that it does.

  88. #88 Lotharsson
    June 26, 2012

    So, in a way, N2 and O2 ‘trap’ the climate system heat.”

    This part is misleading, but you won’t understand why.

    You can’t understand second order effects when you deny first order effects. Answer my multiple choice questions first and see where they lead.

  89. #89 P. Lewis
    June 26, 2012

    Well, seeing as NASA is the latest go to source of Earth’s energy budget, try this one, or this one, or …!

  90. #90 P. Lewis
    June 26, 2012

    TC, are there any peer-reviewed literature critiques of the Kiehl and Trenberth paper in the 15 years or so since they published their diagram (the theory/contents of which were known before they published the various energy budget components in that form) that deal with “error” you perceive?

    If not, then why not?

    Do you not think that the literally thousands, upon thousands, upon thousands of scientists working in areas allied to climate and weather who use that information on a regular basis would not have seen the “problem/error” in the original paper and the update and submitted to the journal concerned, or any other climate-related journal? Don’t you think that such a “gross error” would have been spotted by the two sets of peer reviewers?

    If not, then why not?

    Either they (and other scientists) are correct. Or there is some giant, world-wide scientist conspiracy. Or you have a mega-hubristic personality.

    Are there other options?

  91. #91 Robert Murphy
    June 26, 2012

    “How many more times do I have to reprint Tyndall’s results with atmospheres devoid of N2 and/or O2 but full of H2O and/or CO2, showing that the latter are up to 15 times more absorbent – and radiative – than the former?”

    The part where Tyndall showed that H2O and CO2 keep some of the LW radiation that is emitted by the surface from escaping into space (by scattering it in every direction), thus keeping the surface warmer than it would be if all of the LW radiation were unimpeded by reaction with the atmosphere, as it is with N2 and O2? That part that we all agree with but you completely misunderstand? What would be the point in repeating what you are not capable of comprehending?

  92. #92 Jeff Harvey
    June 26, 2012

    P. Lewis,

    You have pinpointed the crux of the matter. That’s why Tim’s musings are so funny to me. I am not saying that people cannot make important contributions to science by discovering major omissions. But as Paul Ehrlich once said, for every Galileo whose ideas cahnge the course of science there are tens of thousands of pretenders who claim to have come up with new evidence countering conventional wisdom but which turn out to be utter nonsense. That its take a retired conservative economist to do this – and someone who, unlike Galileo, has no pedigree whatsoever in the relevant fields – should make everyone very, very, very sceptical. That Treberth’s ideas are shared by tens of thousands of scientists is also telling.

  93. #93 Wow
    June 26, 2012

    Actually, I don’t find it funny now.

    It’s too scary-pathetic.

    Like on the Simpsons when Bart writes on the back of Homer’s head “Insert Brain Here” and he goes chasing the back of his head to see what’s written.

    To begin with, the family is laughing at the silly antics.

    Then, as he continues to whimper pathetically, continuing the stupidity, it’s no longer funny.

    Tim is like the nutcase drunk who yells and screams at his imaginary friend. Pathetically damaged even if hurting nobody but themselves, and no longer a character of ridicule because he’s just so terribly broken.

  94. #94 Tim Curtin
    www.timcurtin.com
    June 26, 2012

    BTW, there are two new (unrelated) papers on my website http://www.timcurtin.com), enjoy!

    Bernard J: “I am sure that flat-earth and other crackpot theories have also been ‘confirmed’ on blogs”. That has to be especially applicable to you, as there is no evidence you have contributed anything useful on blogs or anywhere else since ?2000.

    Ianam 6:52 am I said “My interpretation of Tyndall has been confirmed in exchanges between Edim and gbaikie”.

    You say: “Ah yes, scientific confirmation is obtained by someone somewhere on the internet agreeing with you.” By that token your disagreements with me here are of no consequence. Do you agree? Anyway you have not ever made a worthwhile contribution here, nor ever will.

    Lotharsson 7.23 am: “As many times as it takes to sink in to your intransigent read-only brain that no-one, except perhaps you in your other claims, is disputing those of Tyndall’s results.” Bejasus, when have I ever disputed Tyndall here?

    Then you pose these questions:
    1) In Tyndall’s proper experiment, is the rate of IR energy traversing the tube in scenarios where the galvanometer shows a positive deflection:
    a) higher
    b) lower
    c) exactly the same as
    the rate of IR energy traversing the tube when the galvanometer reads “zero”?
    It depends on the gases in his cylinder.

    “Which of the following mechanisms allows a planet to transfer energy to/through space. Choose all that apply:
    a) Convection
    b) Conduction
    c) Radiation
    d) Other: please specify”

    Radiation.

    “Consider two planets A and B, identical save that planet A’s atmosphere contains some gases that reduce the rate of outgoing IR radiation to space for a given surface temperature as compared to planet B. Allow both planets to reach radiative balance at the top of atmosphere (outgoing radiated energy equals incoming radiated energy). Is the global average surface temperature of planet A:
    a) higher
    b) lower
    c) identical to the global average surface temperature of planet B?”

    You tell me, as you have omitted most of the relevant variables. How is it relevant? It also depends on their respective distances from the sun.

    Then you shift from physics to cash flows:

    “I have a bank account and receive a weekly government benefit of $165, and yet spend $390 cash per week, would you claim it absurd?”

    No, as that is exactly what the Gillard-Swan government is enabling right now in Australia, by abolishing your income tax on all or most of your income below $80,000, as part of its so-called carbon tax, the biggest ever income redistribution ever adopted anywhere in the world, which will have close to ZERO effect on consumption of CO2-intensive consumption.

    Then you deny that the NASA diagram does not support the K-T cartoon, despite the total absence of back radiation from the NASA diagram. How do you explain that?

    Now for P. Lewis: 9:17 am

    “TC, are there any peer-reviewed literature critiques of the Kiehl and Trenberth paper in the 15 years or so since they published their diagram (the theory/contents of which were known before they published the various energy budget components in that form) that deal with “error” you perceive?”

    No, because the IPCC + 97% of climate “scientists” are like the 97% of cardinals at the Vatican who put Galileo into house arrest. Only last week yet another editor was fired for trying to exclude advocacy from purported climate science papers.

    You then ask: “is there is some giant, world-wide scientist conspiracy”. NO, only subservience of most people – and especially climate “scientists” – to the conventional wisdom, especially when for the latter there is a well documented gravy train (Australia’s ARC is known for giving preference to research projects mentioning climate change in their titles, even in largely unrelated subjects such as archaeology, I know, been there, seen that!).

    Robert Murphy: can you explain more fully?

    Wow: as always you are a waste of space. Have you ever made an intelligent comment to anybody ever?

  95. #95 Lotharsson
    June 26, 2012

    Bejasus, when have I ever disputed Tyndall here?

    Epic Comprehension Fail!

    You insistently argue that we are disputing Tyndall, when we are not. We are disputing your conclusions for which you (erroneously) claim Tyndall’s work as support. Do try to keep up with your own claims.

  96. #96 Lotharsson
    June 26, 2012

    It depends on the gases in his cylinder.

    Frack me while I’m ROFLMAO!

    So let me get this straight – are you arguing that the galvanometer may show a positive deflection for reason A if gas X is in the tube, and for reason B if gas Y is in the tube?

    Seriously?

    WTF do you think Tyndall’s galvanometer is actually responding to? Please specify precisely what you think it is measuring.

  97. #97 Lotharsson
    June 26, 2012

    You tell me, as you have omitted most of the relevant variables.

    Epic Comprehension Fail again.

    I specified that the planets were identical except that one has a bit of what scientists like to call “greenhouse gases” and one does not.

    Feel free to consider the proportion of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere of the planet that has them to be small enough to not significantly vary the volume or concentration of the non-GHGs between the two planets, but are strong enough GHGs to significantly affect the radiative properties of the atmosphere.

  98. #98 Bernard J.
    June 26, 2012

    Bernard J: “I am sure that flat-earth and other crackpot theories have also been ‘confirmed’ on blogs”. That has to be especially applicable to you, as there is no evidence you have contributed anything useful on blogs or anywhere else since ?2000.

    “[N]o evidence?”

    Oh dear. Have you forgotten how many times I’ve (along with so many others) demonstrated you to be profoundly in error in the breadth of matters of science?

    Do you really need to be reminded – again?

    I know that it’s impolite to laugh at those with an impairment, but I guffawed… Especially as it wasn’t even me who said what you attributed to me.

    I think that’s what is colloquially referred to as an ‘own goal’…

  99. #99 Lotharsson
    June 26, 2012

    No, as that is …

    So you agree that it is not absurd to observe that one source of income a person has is less than their outgoing spending because they may have a second source of income…

    …but you continue to insist that it is absurd to observe that a planetary surface radiates more IR energy than it receives from one source of incoming radiation even though physicists point out that (a) there is a second source of incoming radiation and (b) any idiot can go down to the physics supply shop and buy the equipment to measure the local magnitude of that that second source themselves.

    Intellectually consistency – ur doin it rong.

    How do you explain that?

    And there’s the third Epic Comprehension Fail!

    I and others have already explained it. Repeatedly. See above.

    (You haven’t demonstrated that the explanation is wrong – merely repeated your claim. Do you realise that repeating rebutted claims rarely even works in disputes between primary school kids?)

  100. #100 Wow
    June 26, 2012

    “Radiation.”

    And if the atmosphere is transparent to that frequency of radiation, what happens to that radiation?

    Remember, the temperature of the earth is at a temperature that radiates 390W/m2.

    What happens to that 390W/m2 when there is no gas in the atmosphere that blocks that frequency of radiation.

Current ye@r *