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 Lionel A
    June 26, 2012

    TC 1:47 pm

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

    Writes he who is responsible for one of the longest threads that keeps returning to the same points. Points which you fail to understand because of your boneheaded refusal to go and actually read up on the science despite plenty of markers.

    As for intelligent comments, it has become crystal clear that you do not have the mental capacity to understand such when you come across them. Thus your multiple accusations against others of not making worthwhile comments come from an invalidated foundation.

  2. #2 Robert Murphy
    June 26, 2012

    “Robert Murphy: can you explain more fully?”

    Explain what more fully? What else needs to be said? Tyndall showed that the presence of N2 or O2 has no effect on the transmission of LW radiation through an atmosphere. If the atmosphere were 100% N2 or O2 – or if there were no atmosphere at all – the same amount of LW radiation that the surface emitted would reach space. N2 and O2 are transparent to LW radiation. H2O and CO2 are not; when LW radiation reaches a molecule of H20 or CO2, it gets scattered in every direction. As a result, some of the LW radiation that would have reached space unimpeded but for the presence of CO2 and H2O instead gets scattered back down to the surface. Of course, some doesn’t and makes it out into space. But the thing is, that radiation was already going up to space before it made contact with the CO2 or H2O. The H2O and the CO2 don’t “cool” the planet, they keep some of the radiation that would have escaped into space from leaving. This warms the surface, and causes cooling higher up in the atmosphere.

    The part of atmosphere where more than half of the radiation escapes into space (the TOA) is higher than it would otherwise be – and it’s cooler. It’s about 255K, the black-body temperature of the Earth if it had no atmosphere. Without an atmosphere or GHG’s, the effective radiative surface is the ground/ocean surface. Because of GHG’s, the effective radiative surface is high in the atmosphere; the more GHG’s the higher it is. That layer still has to be about 255K. That’s why the Earth’s surface temp can about 33K above the black-body temp.

    That the surface is emitting 396 watts/m^2 is an observation, as is the amount coming in from the Sun. The amount leaving at the TOA is just about the same as comes in from the Sun (but significantly less than what is coming from the planet’s surface), so the entire Earth (atmosphere and planet) has a mostly stable temperature. If a little more comes in than goes out, warming will occur over time (that’s the present case); a little less coming in than is going will cause cooling over time.

    What you need to do is mentally follow the LW radiation as it leaves the surface of the Earth and goes up toward space; what happens if it comes in contact with N2 or O2? With CO2 or H2O? If there were no atmosphere at all? The latter case is the same as if there were only N2 or O2. How can that possibly be warmer than when the LW radiation is scattered by H2o or CO2 in every direction?

  3. #3 Wow
    June 26, 2012

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

    Yes, Captain Subtext has translated that for us:

    Captain Subtext: “I cannot answer your questions without knowing I’m wrong, therefore I will pretend it is YOUR fault that I’m not answering, not my own”

    You are incapable of answering because you’re a lunatic.

  4. #4 P. Lewis
    June 26, 2012

    LOL!

    So “it’s not a conspiracy, but it is” sort of sums up your comment regarding Kiehl and Trenberth. Which sort of mirrors your contention that non-GHGs are the real GHGs.

    There is no hope. He will not get it. There is not even a flicker.

    He’s a one-lemon battery; i.e. two lemons short of being able to power a single red LED. Indeed, it’s even possible his lemon has been shorted and is no longer capable of useful output anyway.

  5. #5 Wow
    June 26, 2012

    There is no more lemon. He has reached the end of lemon.

    Now he just sucks.

  6. #6 ianam
    June 26, 2012

    “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?”

    If I do, then you must agree that I’m correct that your views have not been confirmed, right?

    But no. When someone points out factual or logical flaws in your claims, you have an obligation to carefully and honestly examine them. That you not only not do that, but argue that you’re right because someone else agreed with you, just makes you an intellectually dishonest dick with zero credibility.

  7. #7 Tim Curtin
    www.timcurtin.com
    June 27, 2012

    Thank you Robert Murphy.

    But I do not understand how you can write this: “Tyndall showed that the presence of N2 or O2 has no effect on the transmission of LW radiation through an atmosphere”, when his cylinder if filled only with N2 and O2 failed to record any LW radiation of heat. As Tyndall also showed, there is a huge increase in LW radiation (X 15) when CO2 and H2O are in the cylinder, so the rest of your first para. is also in error, they cannot and do not “keep the radiation that would have escaped into space from leaving”, because they radiate all they absorb. If they retained their absorbed heat you would have a point, but as Tyndall showed very clearly they radiate – i.e. expel – all the heat they have absorbed, and that is why they really are not GHGs.

    And as Tyndall showed, the N2 and O2 do NOT absorb in the IR LW and therefore cannot and do not radiate, so they are what retain heat emanating from the earth’s surface.

    What YOU need to do is mentally follow the LW radiation as it leaves the surface of the Earth and goes up toward space. When it comes in contact with N2 or O2, it is not absorbed in the IR and therefore cannot be radiated, while when it hits CO2 or H2O, it IS absorbed and thereby gets to be radiated from warmish surface to ever cooler atmosphere the higher that is.

    BTW, here is total confirmation of Tyndall’s results, even virtually repeating his very words: “It is known that symmetrical diatomic molecules like nitrogen, oxygen and hydrogen, do not absorb infrared radiation, even though their vibrational frequencies are in the infrared region. These homonuclear diatomic molecules have no permanent dipole moment and lack a mechanism by which they can interact with the electric field of the light.”

    See Infrared Spectroscopy, http://www.umsl.edu/~orglab/documents/IR/IR2.html

  8. #8 bill
    June 27, 2012

    The Thing That Wouldn’t Understand, anyone?

    My confident prediction: no amount of pointing out how daft ‘as Tyndall showed very clearly they radiate – i.e. expel – all the heat they have absorbed, and that is why they really are not GHGs’ is going to make any difference, because while it may be difficult to get anyone to understand something where their income depends on not understanding it, it’s impossible to move someone whose Autumnal self-perception is predicated on not understanding something.

  9. #9 Lotharsson
    June 27, 2012

    …I do not understand…when his cylinder if filled only with N2 and O2 failed to record any LW radiation of heat.

    Indeed! Despite several people patiently pointing out the error in your quote, you have still failed to understand.

    As Tyndall also showed, there is a huge increase decrease in LW radiation (X 15) when CO2 and H2O are in the cylinder,…

    Fixed it for you. Go figure out where you made your error. Your nose has been rubbed in it several times on this thread already. And it leads you to make other ludicrous claims.

    …they cannot and do not can “keep [some of] the radiation that would have escaped into space from leaving”, because they radiate all a portion of what they absorb back to earth, which by definition means that portion does not escape to space

    Fixed it for you.

    What part of “back to earth” constitutes “escapes to space” in your mind?

    …as Tyndall showed very clearly they radiate – i.e. expel – all the heat they have absorbed but as Tyndall clearly showed they do not radiate all of it in the direction of the original radiation

    Fixed it for you – with reference to the error in your first quote where you seem to think H2O and CO2 magically amplify the amount of IR radiation traversing Tyndall’s cylinder.

    And as Tyndall showed, the N2 and O2 do NOT absorb in the IR LW and therefore cannot and do not radiate, so they are what do not retain radiated heat

    energy emanating from the earth’s surface.

    Fixed it for you.

    It is correct that N2 and O2 retain heat derived from the surface via other mechanisms, but as you agree, those other mechanisms cannot transmit energy to space. You’d better understand the first order dynamics (radiation to space) before you try to get a handle on the second order dynamics (e.g. heat transfer to the atmosphere by other mechanisms).

    …here is total confirmation of Tyndall’s results,…

    Again, no-one is disputing Tyndall’s results except you and your erroneous claims (e.g.) about how the galvanometer reading relates to the amount of IR radiation successfully traversing the tube. You also use your erroneous understanding to derive a fundamentally flawed interpretation of atmospheric physics which is being disputed – but on the basis of agreeing with Tyndall’s results.

  10. #10 Wow
    June 27, 2012

    Tim, you gormless idiot, have you looked at the diagram of his setup?

    The zero reading is NOT from a reading through the opposite side of the vessel where the IR source is.

    It’s reading the transverse intensity. The radiation SCATTERED in the vessel.

    With N2 and O2 there is no interaction and therefore zero reading of scattered (requires interaction) IR radiation.

    Explain otherwise why the evacuated vessel which has NO N2 O2 gives the same reading.

  11. #11 Lotharsson
    June 27, 2012

    Bummer, formatting error :-(

    And I concur with bill’s prediction.

    It seems to me that TC can’t figure out whether N2 and O2 are opaque to radiation or transparent to it, but he’s temporarily sure it’s the one or the other, depending on which particular flawed claim he’s making at the very moment.

  12. #12 Lotharsson
    June 27, 2012

    Let’s try this formatting:

    … his cylinder if filled only with N2 and O2 failed to record any LW radiation of heat recorded 100% unimpeded radiation of heat, the same as experienced by a “vacuum-filled” cylinder.

    Fixed it for you.

    A zero reading on the galvanometer – as explained repeatedly – by definition, via calibration – means the amount of IR traversing the cylinder is the same as traverses the cylinder when it is evacuated. In other words, the maximum amount that can traverse the cylinder for the given experimental setup.

    A positive reading on the galvanometer means – by definition, via experimental design – that less IR traverses the cylinder than traverses it when the cylinder is evacuated.

    LESS, Tim, LESS.

    So the gases that produce a positive reading do indeed prevent IR energy emitted by the source from escaping through the cylinder to the thermopile at the other end. Just like the same gases in the atmosphere prevent IR energy emitted by the earth’s surface from escaping through the atmosphere to space.

    Man up and admit your fundamental error. (Unfortunately I bet you don’t.)

  13. #13 Bernard J.
    June 27, 2012

    Tim Curtin is painfully obviously unaware of the concept of ‘baseline’…

    …amongst all of the other basic precepts of science of which he is ignorant.

    It’s as if Curtin has a little rag in his brain, similar to Princess Aud’s, that completely obscures from sight that which is patently obvious to all others in the room.

  14. #14 Robert Murphy
    June 27, 2012

    Curtin:
    “But I do not understand…”

    We know.

    “As Tyndall also showed, there is a huge increase in LW radiation (X 15) when CO2 and H2O are in the cylinder, so the rest of your first para. is also in error, they cannot and do not “keep the radiation that would have escaped into space from leaving”, because they radiate all they absorb.”

    Yes, they radiate it in ALL DIRECTIONS, including down.

    “If they retained their absorbed heat you would have a point, but as Tyndall showed very clearly they radiate – i.e. expel – all the heat they have absorbed, and that is why they really are not GHGs.”

    I know they scatter the LW radiation they encounter, in all directions, including down. This radiation was already on its way out into space. Again, follow the LW radiation. Where would it have ended up if there was no atmosphere at all? The same place as if the atmosphere were all N2 or O2.

    “And as Tyndall showed, the N2 and O2 do NOT absorb in the IR LW and therefore cannot and do not radiate, so they are what retain heat emanating from the earth’s surface.”

    No, that is why they do NOT retain the LW radiation. They don’t do anything to it, so it just keeps on traveling out into space unimpeded. Why is this so hard for you to understand? The N2 and the O2 act just like a vacuum as far as retaining the LW radiation – they don’t. How could they be retaining the LW radiation if they don’t react with it? What stops the LW radiation from escaping into space if all there is N2 or O2 that don’t do anything to the LW radiation?

    “What YOU need to do is mentally follow the LW radiation as it leaves the surface of the Earth and goes up toward space.”

    I have. You don’t seem capable of doing so.

    “When it comes in contact with N2 or O2, it is not absorbed in the IR and therefore cannot be radiated..”

    There’s your error – it already was radiated, by the surface. All of that LW radiation was already going straight out to space. It’s not that the LW radiation isn’t radiated, it isn’t re-radiated so it keeps traveling to space. If nothing reacts with it, it does go out into space. If something does and scatters it in all directions (like CO2 or H2O), some of that LW radiation originally radiated by the surface gets scattered back toward the surface again.

    “BTW, here is total confirmation of Tyndall’s results, even virtually repeating his very words: “It is known that symmetrical diatomic molecules like nitrogen, oxygen and hydrogen, do not absorb infrared radiation, even though their vibrational frequencies are in the infrared region. These homonuclear diatomic molecules have no permanent dipole moment and lack a mechanism by which they can interact with the electric field of the light.”

    Yes, he’s confirming they are not GHG’s.

  15. #15 Lotharsson
    June 27, 2012

    All of that LW radiation was already going straight out to space. It’s not that the LW radiation isn’t radiated, it isn’t re-radiated so it keeps traveling to space.

    TC, imagine a tennis player serving a ball over the net. If nothing impedes its progress it will hit the back wall of the tennis court.

    Now imagine a mischievous kid on the other side who catches each served ball and then spins around to face a randomly selected direction and throws the ball in the direction they are facing.

    If the player serves at the same rate, both with and without the kid, do:

    a) more
    b) less
    c) the same number

    of balls reach the net when the kid is catching and randomly re-throwing them, as compared to when there’s no kid?

  16. #16 Tim Curtin
    www.timcurtin.com
    June 27, 2012

    Murphy: congrats on all your new Laws of Physics:

    1. Murphy: “Yes, they radiate it in ALL DIRECTIONS, including down”. Not possible to radiate from cooler to warmer (2nd Law).

    2. Murphy’s 2nd Law: “The N2 and the O2 act just like a vacuum as far as retaining the LW radiation – they don’t.” The N2 and O2 CANNOT be part of a vacuum.

    #3. Murphy’s 3rd Law; “No, that is why they do NOT retain the LW radiation. They don’t do anything to it, so it just keeps on traveling out into space unimpeded.” We are talking about the LW infrared, and the N2 and O2 fail to propel heat through it, as Tyndall showed and my link to UMSL.edu.confirmed.

    4. Robert Murphys’s 4th Law: “What stops the LW radiation from escaping into space if all there is N2 or O2 that don’t do anything to the LW radiation?” The N2 and O2 would prevent all LW radiation escaping into space were it not for the CO2 and H2O that absorb and radiate the heat (including that derived from the N2 and O2) from the earth’s surface, unlike the N2 and O2 which cannot and do not.

    5. Let me repeat the total confirmation of Tyndall’s results by umsl.edu virtually repeating his very words: “It is known that symmetrical diatomic molecules like nitrogen, oxygen and hydrogen, do not absorb infrared radiation, even though their vibrational frequencies are in the infrared region. These homonuclear diatomic molecules have no permanent dipole moment and lack a mechanism by which they can interact with the electric field of the light.”

    See Infrared Spectroscopy, http://www.umsl.edu/~orglab/documents/IR/IR2.html

    6. Murphy: why not publish your paper rubbishing Tyndall and UMSL? Good luck!

  17. #17 Tim Curtin
    www.timcurtin.com
    June 27, 2012

    Lotharsson: you are too boring to deserve a response. Dry up, until you can make a substantive contribution as Murphy at least tried to do!

    BTW, how goes it with your LSR refutations of my regressions in my TSWJ and ACE2011 papers?

  18. #18 Wow
    June 27, 2012

    Tim. you’re a buffoon. And again, because you can’t answer “what’s doing the work of N2/O2 in an empty flask”, you run off like a little lord fontleroy going “Oh, you don’t deserve a response”.

    Hey, here’s a clue for you, dingbat: why not just go with we’re ALL too boring to deserve your ravings and eff off?

  19. #19 Wow
    June 27, 2012

    “Not possible to radiate from cooler to warmer (2nd Law). ”

    WRONG.

    “The N2 and O2 CANNOT be part of a vacuum.”

    Yup, you’re a frigging moron. IN YOUR QUOTE: “The N2 and the O2 act just like a vacuum”

    FFS.

    “and the N2 and O2 fail to propel heat through it”

    They fail to STOP it, FFS.

    “The N2 and O2 would prevent all LW radiation escaping into space”

    WRONG.

    “It is known that symmetrical diatomic molecules like nitrogen, oxygen and hydrogen, do not absorb infrared radiation”

    THEN HOW THE FUCK DO THEY STOP RADIATION LEAVING THE EARTH MORON!

  20. #20 Robert Murphy
    June 27, 2012

    “Murphy: congrats on all your new Laws of Physics:”

    Not new, standard physics of the last century or so.

    “1. Murphy: “Yes, they radiate it in ALL DIRECTIONS, including down”. Not possible to radiate from cooler to warmer (2nd Law).”

    Hot or cold doesn’t apply to individual molecules. That’s why a block of ice in my living room will emit EM radiation into my warmer living room. The net heat flow will be from the room to the ice, but that doesn’t stop the ice from radiating energy (as all matter above absolute zero must do). A molecule of Co2 that encounters a photon of LW radiation will scatter it in all directions.

    “2. Murphy’s 2nd Law: “The N2 and the O2 act just like a vacuum as far as retaining the LW radiation – they don’t.” The N2 and O2 CANNOT be part of a vacuum.”

    No shit – that’s why you’ll notice that word “like”, Are you really this dense? Yes, you are.

    “We are talking about the LW infrared, and the N2 and O2 fail to propel heat through it, as Tyndall showed and my link to UMSL.edu.confirmed.”

    No, no, NO! He showed that the N2 and O2 failed to stop the heat from traveling through the container and leaving it. There was no need for anything to be present to “propel” the heat – it was radiating from his heat source. He got the same results for a vacuum as he did for a container filled with N2 and O2. In the same way, the N2 and O2 in the atmosphere fail to stop the heat from escaping into space.

    “The N2 and O2 would prevent all LW radiation escaping into space were it not for the CO2 and H2O that absorb and radiate the heat ”

    How?? The N2 and O2 don’t react with the radiation. How could that possibly stop it?

    “It is known that symmetrical diatomic molecules like nitrogen, oxygen and hydrogen, do not absorb infrared radiation, even though their vibrational frequencies are in the infrared region. These homonuclear diatomic molecules have no permanent dipole moment and lack a mechanism by which they can interact with the electric field of the light.”

    Yes, Tyndall showed that N2 and O2 are not GHG’s and do not trap LW radiation.

    You seriously have mental problems Mr. Curtin. I hope you get the medical/psychological help you need.

  21. #21 Lotharsson
    June 27, 2012

    Not possible to radiate from cooler to warmer (2nd Law).

    Epic Do-Not-Understand-Physics Fail redux.

    The N2 and O2 CANNOT be part of a vacuum.

    Epic English Comprehension Fail.

    He did not claim that. He said that – as far as radiation goes – they have the same effect as a vacuum. You continue to parade your stubborn stupidity to the world by insisting the very opposite despite you yourself citing the very experiment that proves you wrong.

    You are doing a first class impression of a complete and utter physics failure – or an outright denialist.

  22. #22 Lotharsson
    June 27, 2012

    …you are too boring to deserve a response…

    I’ll take that as an admission from you that “Oh shit, I can’t answer those very simple questions because then even I would have to admit I was so very very wrong”.

    Thanks.

  23. #23 Lotharsson
    June 27, 2012

    We are talking about the LW infrared, and the N2 and O2 fail to propel heat through it,…

    You stubbornly deluded and very stupid man when it suits you.

    Tyndall clearly shows that they fail to impede the flow of IR radiation, just like a vacuum fails to impede the same flow.

    The moon shows the same thing. A vacuum doesn’t “propel heat”, just like N2 and O2 do. There’s nothing in a vacuum to absorb and re-emit photons. But the moon isn’t frying! Why?

    Radiation propagates without any substance that “propels heat”, as many different people have pointed to you out in may different ways.

    Are you seriously this deeply in denial about basic basic physics? Do you actually think the only reason one can see visible light from far distant stars separated from one by huge expanses of vacuum is because some intergalactic medium that means those expanses are not actually a vacuum “propels light”? (Heck, what about experiments with vacuum chambers were one can clearly see light through the vacuum? Magic, voodoo, or a violation of your claims?)

    If a medium does not impede the flow of radiation, then it will flow unimpeded. If there is no medium, then radiation will also flow unimpeded.

    The substances that (as you erroneously say) “propel heat” by absorption and re-emission impede heat flow by reducing the rate of propagation, just like the kid catching tennis balls and throwing them in random directions does – regardless of your unwillingness to answer my question about it.

  24. #24 P. Lewis
    June 27, 2012

    There can be no sensible discussion with TC.

    He is incapable of entertaining the internationally and long-recognised definition of what a GHG actually is (which is in accordance with his “hero” Tyndall’s findings, whose results no one here with any sense has ever doubted) because it leads to an inconvenient and ideologically incompatible corollary: that there must be downwelling longwave radiation.

  25. #25 Lotharsson
    June 27, 2012

    Gack. If only preview would be my friend again.

    You are a stubbornly deluded man…

    A vacuum doesn’t “propel heat”, just like N2 and O2 do not.

    …vacuum chambers werewhere one can clearly…

  26. #26 Wow
    June 27, 2012

    For the brain-dead Tim:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment

    http://www.physicsclassroom.com/mmedia/waves/em.cfm

    So there’s no damn need for anything to propagate IR through the damn atmosphere.

  27. #27 chek
    June 27, 2012

    What is TC’s endgame here?

    Roy Spencer would throw a fit if Curtin’s fundamental misunderstandings made it into a WTFUWT article, let alone into a flawed ‘paper’ the deniers could wave about.

  28. #28 Bernard J.
    June 27, 2012

    “1. Murphy: “Yes, they radiate it in ALL DIRECTIONS, including down”. Not possible to radiate from cooler to warmer (2nd Law).”

    Tim Curtin, can you actually explain the mechanism that you imagine prevents a ‘greenhouse’ gas from radiating infrared in random directions?

  29. #29 Lotharsson
    June 27, 2012

    Roy Spencer would throw a fit if Curtin’s fundamental misunderstandings made it into a WTFUWT article, let alone into a flawed ‘paper’ the deniers could wave about.

    Maybe we should help that scenario along a bit ;-)

  30. #30 Richard Simons
    June 27, 2012

    And as Tyndall showed, the N2 and O2 do NOT absorb in the IR LW and therefore cannot and do not radiate, so they are what retain heat emanating from the earth’s surface.

    If they do not absorb in the IR, how do they capture this heat?

    “Yes, they radiate it in ALL DIRECTIONS, including down”. Not possible to radiate from cooler to warmer (2nd Law).”

    Serious questions. How does Earth know it is not supposed to radiate in the direction of Alpha Centauri? How is it possible to compare the radiation coming a cloud to that coming from clear night sky?

    Tim Curtin, can you actually explain the mechanism that you imagine prevents a ‘greenhouse’ gas from radiating infrared in random directions?

    He must have been told this at some stage by someone he trusts. He probably thinks of the 2nd Law as being issued by fiat, therefore no explanation is needed. I doubt it has crossed his mind that the laws of physics can be explained logically.

  31. #31 Lotharsson
    June 27, 2012

    He probably thinks of the 2nd Law as being issued by fiat, therefore no explanation is needed.

    He also frequently confuses differential/relative values for absolute values, and seems to have a similar mental block when it comes to the distinction between oppositely directed directional fluxes and nett flux.

  32. #32 Lionel A
    June 27, 2012

    TC

    BTW, here is total confirmation of Tyndall’s results, even virtually repeating his very words: “It is known that symmetrical diatomic molecules like nitrogen, oxygen and hydrogen, do not absorb infrared radiation, even though their vibrational frequencies are in the infrared region. These homonuclear diatomic molecules have no permanent dipole moment and lack a mechanism by which they can interact with the electric field of the light.”

    Why do you feel the need to muddy the waters by ‘virtually quoting’ Tyndall.

    But even so you fail to parse the quote so as to arrive at the correct conclusion (hint with emphasis) that N2 and O2 do neither absorb nor radiate in the LW IR radiation band, at least under the Earth’s atmospheric conditions of temperature and pressure.

    I am astonished that you can read about the structure and behaviour of molecules without realising how this impacts on your misunderstandings.

    As for the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics you need to study this
    Confusion over the Basics.this Sensible Heat, Latent Heat and Radiation.

    Now WRT that Earth energy budget schematic of Trenberth, albeit the earlier 1997 version you need to study here What’s the Palaver? – Kiehl and Trenberth 1997 .

    Seriously, why should anybody bother to put in effort to critique any of your papers when you have done such a fine job of undermining them here with your intransigence and invincible ignorance?

    Are you really too stupid to be a twerp?

    :

  33. #33 Marco
    June 27, 2012

    Richard, what the hell? Don’t you know that the earth can’t radiate towards Alpha Centauri?! Them two stars are waaaaaaay hotter than the earth, so earth cannot emit radiation in their general direction!

    You would have to conclude that if you are teh Curtin…

  34. #34 Lotharsson
    June 27, 2012

    …so earth cannot emit radiation in their general direction!

    Earth must account for both General and Special Relativity and astrophysical dynamics so that it can accurately predict where all of the zillions of stars in the universe will be (including ones not yet currently formed) when Earth’s otherwise-prohibited radiation would have reached their location – so that it knows to prohibit radiation in those directions but not the others. And it has to account for the complex gravity-influenced paths that each possible direction of radiation will take as the universe around it evolves. And it has to do this differently for each of the subtly different perspectives of every single point on Earth.

    Immensely fracking knowledgeable and intelligent, Earth is!

    I imagine one could learn a hell of a lot more than we currently know about the dynamics of the universe from studying which directions Earth permits itself to radiate and which it prohibits.

    Of course, it must also predict the impacts of certain human behaviours, such as nuclear explosions and satellite orbital decay causing them to re-enter the earth and create a fireball – avoiding any radiation in those directions too.

    So each and every point on Earth’s surface has way more precise predictive ability than humans do!

  35. #35 Lotharsson
    June 27, 2012

    Oh, and each point on Earth must be able to solve the three+ body problem with perfect precision so that it can predict the impact billions of years hence and avoid sending a photon towards a yet-to-be-formed star…

    …and it must know the position of every other particle in the entire universe to do so, which will (if we can figure out how to extract that knowledge) reveal whether the universe is infinite or not.

    Geez, I think TC might be on to a whole slew of Nobel Prizes here!

    (Just to be clear, don’t take that seriously, TC. That was sarcasm.)

  36. #36 ianam
    June 27, 2012

    Not possible to radiate from cooler to warmer (2nd Law).

    The 2nd Law of thermodynamics does not mention radiation. It’s about heat: “A form of energy associated with the motion of atoms or molecules and capable of being transmitted through solid and fluid media by conduction, through fluid media by convection, and through empty space by radiation.”

  37. #37 Lotharsson
    June 27, 2012

    And those French guys in the castle from “Monty Python and The Holy Grail” can’t fart in your general direction if your temperature is warmer than their arses.

    FTW!

  38. #38 Robert Murphy
    June 27, 2012

    “Them two stars are waaaaaaay hotter than the earth, so earth cannot emit radiation in their general direction!”

    And those French guys in the castle from “Monty Python and The Holy Grail” can’t fart in your general direction if your temperature is warmer than their arses.

  39. #39 Lotharsson
    June 27, 2012

    Weird – WTF is National Geographic’s blog platform doing inserting my comment, made after Robert Murphy’s, in front of his? Maybe it’s based on the philosophical principles of the TC school of relativity?

  40. #40 ianam
    June 27, 2012

    We are talking about the LW infrared, and the N2 and O2 fail to propel heat through it

    What the heck does that string of words mean? Molecules propelling heat through longwave radiation? This gets all the concepts upside down.

    Since N2 and O2 do not absorb IR, they are not heated by it. Rather, the IR heats the first molecules it reaches that do absorb it … possibly in Alpha Centauri, or beyond.

  41. #41 Bernard J.
    June 27, 2012

    One of the implications of Curtin’s insistence that a cooler object does not radiate toward a hotter one, is that there is a truncated conical volume between the two objects that is absent of cool-body radiation.

    Imagine the Earth/Alpha Centauri that Richard Simons mentioned at 1:46 pm on June 27. Given the current distance between the two bodies, this’ black volume’ in respect of earth-emitted radiation would be a miniscule proportion of the total volume of the current three-dimensional infrared radiation volume of the Earth.

    Imagine then that Alpha Centauri moved closer to the Earth… As it did so, the s/H ratio of the truncated cone would increase, in simultaneity with the ratio of ‘black volume’ to the three-dimensional infrared radiation volume of the Earth. As a consequence, the radiation flux in the ‘non-black’ portion of the earth’s three dimensional radiation volume would necessarily increase – unless there was some magical, concurrent reduction in the total infrared radiated by the Earth. As Alpha Centauri came within touching the Earth, almost half of the Earth’s three-dimensional radiative volume would have disappeared, and the infrared radiative flux in the remaining volume almost doubled!

    This is a staggeringly profound result. It’s also one that should have been empirically confirmed long before now, as physicists have studied the properties of more simply-scaled dynamic radiative systems.

    Is there a conspiracy to hide this universe-shattering phenomenon?

  42. #42 Lotharsson
    June 27, 2012

    Is there a conspiracy to hide this universe-shattering phenomenon?

    It starts with those dastardly galvanometer makers and their evil insistence that, when coupled to a pair of thermopiles, their readings correspond to a reduction in received radiation. Everyone knows that zero on any instrument in any configuration means zero radiation, and can’t possibly mean anything else!

  43. #43 Bernard J.
    June 27, 2012

    Heh, I see that Lotharsson was pondering matters astronomical at the same time as was I.

    In the vein of this theme, I’m still keen to hear Tim Curtin’s response to my post of June 9 at 4:40 pm, on page 3, regarding the implication of spherical, incoming-ER horizons surrounding stars. There’s also the matter of the heating of the sun in a Sphereworld scenario, as I described on June 10, 1:27 am, on page 4.

  44. #44 Bernard J.
    June 27, 2012

    Hmmm…

    Thinking about the Sphereworld scenario, it strikes me that one could very easily test Curtin’s claim that cold does not radiate to hot.

    If one completely surrounded a continuously radiating body with a sphere of matter, the temperature of that radiating body would not increase until the temperature of the sphere itself reached the same temperature as the central radiator, and then they would increase together in lockstep – assuming that Curtin Physics™ operated.

    Conversely, if the physics of reality operated, the temperature of central radiator would increase almost immediately after it was surrounded, and certainly long before the surrounding sphere equilibrated.

    I can think of a number of every-day situations that immediately prove the one and disprove the other…

  45. #45 Wow
    June 27, 2012

    In Curtain’s world, how on earth does a vacuum flask of coffee EVER get cold?

  46. #46 Lotharsson
    June 27, 2012

    I can think of a number of every-day situations that immediately prove the one and disprove the other…

    And I guarantee TC can’t – not even after others have written them down and he has read their description.

  47. #47 Lotharsson
    June 27, 2012

    …how on earth does a vacuum flask of coffee EVER get cold?

    Even more incredible – how does a vacuum flask of liquid nitrogen on Earth ever warm up? No matter which direction you look from the point of view of the flask, the surrounding environment is hotter than the contents so the environment can’t possibly contribute radiate any energy across the vacuum barrier that contributes to warming the contents.

  48. #48 Lotharsson
    June 27, 2012

    Damn you, no-preview!

    …can’t possibly contribute radiate…

  49. #49 Lotharsson
    June 27, 2012

    Oh, wait, my understanding of Curtin Physics is confused. Hot to cold is OK, just not the other way. Wow nailed it the first time.

  50. #50 Lionel A
    June 27, 2012

    Lotharson @4:11

    Yeah. I know the feeling. I have recently had to double check some of my posts to make sure I am writing what I think and not what Curtin thinks. Sheesh. This villages idiot (well the latest here is just one of a number) is getting dangerous with this effluence of nitruc acid.

  51. #51 Wow
    June 27, 2012

    Though the question then becomes “Why do people bother with a vacuum flask to keep things cold? Just fill it with CO2!”

  52. #52 Lotharsson
    June 27, 2012

    “Why do people bother with a vacuum flask to keep things cold? Just fill it with CO2!”

    Nah, wait, doesn’t that mean the hot surroundings will radiate even more heat into the flask thus warming it more quickly, because CO2 “propels heat” and a vacuum does not – and IR can only ever travel from hot to cold?

    I’m so confused by Curtin Physics (a comment which, sadly, he is likely to take seriously).

  53. #53 Wow
    June 27, 2012

    Ah, but the HOT coffee will be kept warmer because CO2 *cools* things only!

  54. #54 Lotharsson
    June 27, 2012

    Ah, but the HOT coffee will be kept warmer because CO2 *cools* things only!

    Dangit, I forgot that rule!

  55. #55 Wow
    June 27, 2012

    And shouldn’t it work to stop the hotter atmosphere around the flask cooling by sending heat to the cold liquid nitrogen (which is still hotter than interstellar space)!

    In fact, according to curtain theory, the vacuum of space is one of the most important heat conductors in the universe!

  56. #56 ianam
    June 27, 2012

    You folks are getting yourselves very confused. You should leave it at asking The Curtain how the sun manages to warm the Earth without the 93 million miles of space in between being filled with H2O, CO2, or anything else “to propel heat through it”.

  57. #57 bill
    June 28, 2012

    Ooh, yes, let’s see if we can’t get this (ahem)… ‘published’ over at Watts!

    (It’s not like there’s much of a benchmark to pass, given that he just put up this literally disgusting exercise by Monckton

    “BUT what about the ickle birdies?” wailed the ancient, off-blonde representative of the planet’s indigenous peoples in the shapeless, grimy, crumpled eco-sackcloth shift that is de rigueur this season among the female of the species here at the shapeless, grimy, crumpled Rio conference center.

    )

  58. #58 Richard Simons
    June 28, 2012

    Lotharsson @2:48

    Earth must account for both General and Special Relativity and astrophysical dynamics so that it can accurately predict where all of the zillions of stars in the universe will be (including ones not yet currently formed) when Earth’s otherwise-prohibited radiation would have reached their location – so that it knows to prohibit radiation in those directions but not the others. [SNIP]So each and every point on Earth’s surface has way more precise predictive ability than humans do!

    It’s even more impressive than that! The Hubble telescope can point in a direction opposite to the sun and photograph stars that are less bright than the sun. This means that the light must have known, from all those light years away, that in the future a 2m diameter object would eclipse the sun and aim precisely to it, a feat comparable with aiming a gun from Earth and hitting the left nostril of a beetle on Titan that, a month from now, will be just starting its mating dance.

  59. #59 Rattus Norvegicus
    June 28, 2012

    Isn’t it about time the name of thread was changed to “Tim Curtin’s Basic Incompetence”?

  60. #60 Lotharsson
    June 28, 2012

    It’s even more impressive than that!

    Indeed!

    And it’s even more impressive than that! The Hubble telescope, while so pointed, at any given point in time might or might not suffer a catastrophic failure traceable to a quantum event, said failure opening a tiny but clear path through the telescope coincident with the incoming photon’s path and allowing sunlight through. Curtin’s emitting molecule must not only completely accurately know the position of every single atomic particle in the Newtonian universe in order to predict how the universe evolves (including all human actions); it must also be able to predict the outcomes of all quantum events with complete accuracy too!

    Not only does this have major implications for physics, astronomy, chemistry – and therefore biology, sociology, neurology and climate science – but also for philosophy and religion. Truly, a shower of Nobel Prizes await when the experimental confirmations roll in, which should be any day now because they’re really not that difficult to test!

  61. #61 Bernard J.
    June 28, 2012
    It’s even more impressive than that!

    Indeed!

    I think that what Curtin has discovered, with the help of the rest of us, is an extension of entanglement, not only in space, but in time as well, and with every particle and photon inextricably entangled with every other such entity.

    And yes, there are profound repercussions for religion and philosophy. For one, it would seem to imply that Fatalism reigns absolute, and therefore that free will is a fiction of the highest order.

    This of course means that Curtin can’t help the fact that he is an ignorant old fool – the universe determined that it would be so from the instant of the Big Bang.

    Now, if only we could determine if the universe had decided that Curtin would eventually learn sense.

    Of course, maybe the universe doesn’t want us to know whether it has decided that Curtin will eventually learn sense…

  62. #62 Mack
    June 28, 2012

    Bernerd June 27th 3.45pm.
    “If “…”would not”….”reached”….”would “increase”2x…..
    “after”…”long before”
    All hypothetical and time related . The world IS Bernie. It is NOW. Extract you head away from the little circles of the sun and earth you are drawing on the blackboard and come into the real world. Nasif Nahle might help ;)

  63. #63 Bernard J.
    June 28, 2012

    “If “…”would not”….”reached”….”would “increase”2x…..
    “after”…”long before”
    All hypothetical and time related .

    Erm, KarenMackSpot, placing random words in quotation marks isn’t an argument…

    If you have a problem with any of the inductive steps of my reasoning, please detail it.

    Yes, I know, you’ve never before been able to engage in such a demanding level of intellectual respone (to date even the unwrapping of the manual has been beyond you), but if you’re going to contradict me you need to, you know… logically contradict me – and with a coherent argument.

    I know that it irks you to have Curtin’s anti-global warming pseudoscience deconstructed for the rubbish that it is, but if you think that it somehow holds water then put some logic behind your whining.

    And note, relying on Nassif Nahle as a reliable witness is like telling us that Santa Claus is your alibi for not running over the neighbour’s cat. If you don’t understand why this is so then it’s simply more evidence against the premise of even your tenuous grasp on reality.

  64. #64 Bernard J.
    June 28, 2012

    Damn this lack of preview. Down with National Geographic.

    —————————————

    “If “…”would not”….”reached”….”would “increase”2x…..
    “after”…”long before”
    All hypothetical and time related .

    Erm, KarenMackSpot, placing random words in quotation marks isn’t an argument…

    If you have a problem with any of the inductive steps of my reasoning, please detail it.

    Yes, I know, you’ve never before been able to engage in such a demanding level of intellectual respone (to date even the unwrapping of the manual has been beyond you), but if you’re going to contradict me you need to, you know… logically contradict me – and with a coherent argument.

    I know that it irks you to have Curtin’s anti-global warming pseudoscience deconstructed for the rubbish that it is, but if you think that it somehow holds water then put some logic behind your whining.

    And note, relying on Nassif Nahle as a reliable witness is like telling us that Santa Claus is your alibi for not running over the neighbour’s cat. If you don’t understand why this is so then it’s simply more evidence against the premise of even your tenuous grasp on reality.

  65. #65 Lotharsson
    June 28, 2012

    Responding to TC’s “8:54 am” comment on the open thread:

    Robert Murphy, I treat you as the only if partial exception to that comment.

    Still too chicken to answer my question about the kid catching and randomly rethrowing tennis balls, I see. Predictable.

    Robert Murphy wrote:

    That’s why a block of ice in my living room will emit EM radiation into my warmer living room. The net heat flow will be from the room to the ice, but that doesn’t stop the ice from radiating energy (as all matter above absolute zero must do).

    TC responded:

    Where are your observations and measurements for ML #1?

    Why should he point them out, when others have pointed out observations and measurements of “back radiation”, and you still insist it does not occur? You patently do not derive your conclusions from observations and measurements! Where are your observations and measurements that refute it?

    And given that any barely competent high school student can do their own observations of this phenomenon, you should find obtaining suitable observations really easy. Heck, you can go to your local electronics store and buy a remote temperature sensor for a few bucks – how the heck do you think they work?!

    If your house was encased in ice a hundred metres thick, surely by ML#1 the ice’s EM radiation should warm it. If not, why not?

    It will indeed make the house warmer than the house would be if it were floating in deep space, because the ice radiates more energy to the house than deep space does by virtue of being at a higher temperature than deep space is. But as Robert already pointed out:

    The net heat flow will be from the room to the ice…

    Why? See Thermodynamics, Second Law of! Consider that the house must also radiate to the ice by virtue of its own starting temperature, and more strongly than the ice by virtue of having a higher temperature than the ice.

    Your corollary to ML#1 is also wrong “A molecule of Co2 that encounters a photon of LW radiation will scatter it in all directions.” Not so, only from hot to less hot.

    Sigh – still wrong.

    The molecule has no concept of “hot”, because temperature is a statistical measure over an extended region. A molecule is (for at least this purpose) a point object. It has its own measure of energy, but it alone does not have temperature. (How does the molecule decide in which direction the statistical average is higher than the statistical average in its immediate region? Did you not yet read the satirical responses based on taking your concept here seriously?)

    Had the heat travelled through the cylinder when filled only with N2 and O2, Tyndall’s galvanometer would have measured the heat leaving the other end of the cylinder. It did not.

    It did.

    You should try reading the experiment again. Or failing that, the children’s annotated version provided in the thread above. A ‘zero’ on the galvanometer means the maximum possible heat (for the given source, cylinder and heat sensor) was detected. N2 and O2 read ‘zero’.

    Heck, go set up Tyndall’s experiment yourself and use a really hot IR source – but don’t come complaining to us when you burn your hand by putting it over the other end of the N2/O2-filled tube.

    In fact this means Tyndall did show that N2 and O2 are GHG’s and do trap LW radiation, because they “do not absorb infrared radiation”, and therefore cannot reradiate it.

    You need to see a neuro specialist.

    A substance cannot simultaneously “trap LW radiation” and yet “not absorb [LW] infrared radiation” – just like a substance cannot simultaneous “trap light” and yet “not absorb light”. Trapping of directional radiation implies absorption (and the corresponding randomly directed re-radiation).

    I previously linked to a full inventory of the infrared spectrum. There is no N2 at all, and only minuscule amounts of O2, much as Tyndall surmised. By far the largest inhabitants are the H2O and CO2, all busily radiating through their respective favoured wavelengths, along with smaller amounts of CH4 and N2O.

    Which is exactly what is expected from the conventional understanding of the terms “radiation”, “incoming solar radiation”, “outgoing LW infrared”, “greenhouse gas”, “atmospheric physics” and “climate science”. Clown-trolling again?

  66. #66 Wow
    June 28, 2012

    Timski is refuting Stephan’s Law.

  67. #67 ianam
    June 28, 2012

    The world IS Bernie. It is NOW.

    How simple life is without a forebrain.

  68. #68 Tim Curtin
    June 28, 2012

    Thanks Lotharsson 10:58 am Responding to TC’s “8:54 am” comment on the open thread:

    Apologies, I do not know how that happened, here is my post intended for this thread:

    Crikey, 42 hatemails from you lot in less than 24 hours!

    Robert Murphy, I treat you as the only if partial exception to that comment.

    Re Murphy’s Law #1: “That’s why a block of ice in my living room will emit EM radiation into my warmer living room. The net heat flow will be from the room to the ice, but that doesn’t stop the ice from radiating energy (as all matter above absolute zero must do).”

    Where are your observations and measurements for ML #1? If your house was encased in ice a hundred metres thick, surely by ML#1 the ice’s EM radiation should warm it. If not, why not?

    Your corollary to #1 is also wrong “A molecule of Co2 that encounters a photon of LW radiation will scatter it in all directions.” Not so, only from hot to less hot.

    ML#2: “The N2 and the O2 act just like a vacuum as far as retaining the LW radiation – they don’t.” I said “the N2 and O2 CANNOT act like a vacuum as when they are present there is no vacuum. We are talking about the LW infrared, and the N2 and O2 fail to propel heat through it, as Tyndall showed and my link to UMSL.edu.confirmed.”

    You replied: “No, no, NO! [Tyndall] showed that the N2 and O2 failed to stop the heat from traveling through the container and leaving it.”

    That is simply untrue. Had the heat travelled through the cylinder when filled only with N2 and O2, Tyndall’s galvanometer would have measured the heat leaving the other end of the cylinder. It did not. That finding does not mean that N2 and O2 can act “like” a vacuum, they are not and do not, but it does mean they are the real GHGs.

    Enough of Murphy’s laws, but for one FINAL comment:
    I am glad you repeated my source even if you clearly misunderstand it:

    “It is known that symmetrical diatomic molecules like nitrogen, oxygen and hydrogen, do not absorb infrared radiation, even though their vibrational frequencies are in the infrared region. These homonuclear diatomic molecules have no permanent dipole moment and lack a mechanism by which they can interact with the electric field of the light.”

    In fact this means Tyndall did show that N2 and O2 are GHG’s and do trap LW radiation, because they “do not absorb infrared radiation”, and therefore cannot reradiate it.

    I previously linked to a full inventory of the infrared spectrum. There is no N2 there at all, and only minuscule amounts of O2, much as Tyndall surmised. By far the largest inhabitants are the H2O and CO2, all busily radiating through their respective favoured wavelengths, along with smaller amounts of CH4 and N2O.

  69. #69 Tim Curtin
    www.timcurtin.com
    June 28, 2012

    Lotharsson sez; “Why should he point them out, when others have pointed out observations and measurements of “back radiation”, and you still insist it does not occur? ”

    But the real NASA’s carbon budget shows no back radiation, which is purely a figment of Trenberth’s fevered imagination.

    Loth: just link to actual measured data showing back radiaton etc and all the other garbage in everything you put up here.

  70. #70 Tim Curtin
    www.timcurtin.com
    June 28, 2012

    Further to my last posts here:

    1. At Climate etc;

    novandilcosid June 27, 2012 at 8:50 pm |

    On the subject of sensitivity of the SURFACE temperature to changes in CO2 concentration, there has been much talk of TOA imbalances forcing changes to temperature at the surface.

    I think no-one denies that there are changes in energy balance throughout the atmosphere due to changes in CO2 concentration.

    These changes are mostly in the upper atmosphere, and will be different for different seasons and latitudes (due to the different temperature profiles). They manifest as temperature changes at the affected location.

    I cannot at present describe any mechanism for these temperature changes to propagate to the surface.

    Perhaps some kind soul will direct me to an explanation (with examples from the real world).

    When I look at radiosonde data I do not see any support for propagation of high altitude temperature changes to the Surface. But I do see lots of evidence for propagation of surface temperature changes into the high altitudes.”

    Then at the linked http//theinconvenientskeptic.com

    John Kehr statee that “Every 1 °C change in temperature results in a 2.2 W/m^2 increase in NH OLR. There is simply no physical method by which CO2 is capable of overcoming this barrier. There never has been and there never will be. ”

    That is why global warming by means of CO2 level is impossible and always will be impossible. [h/t to novandilcosid for this link to Edim's link to John Kehr around here]:

    http://judithcurry.com/2012/06/25/questioning-the-forest-et-al-2006-sensitivity-study/#comment-213305

  71. #71 Bernard J.
    June 28, 2012

    Loth: just link to actual measured data showing back radiaton etc and all the other garbage in everything you put up here.

    Tim Curtin, start here, and get a clue.

  72. #72 chek
    June 28, 2012

    With Tim Curtin reduced to citing invisible internet mates and KurryKommenters for his support, there can barely be a handful of nanometers remaining to form the bottom of this barrel.

  73. #73 Bernard J.
    June 28, 2012

    That is why global warming by means of CO2 level is impossible and always will be impossible.

    Really? Then how did the Earth emerge from its snowball stage, and how did it reach the temperatures it did during the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum? Or do you completely dispute the science and the empirical data of paleoclimatological physics also?

    Remind me – when was the last time that you walked into a physics laboratory? Have you ever used a galvanometer? Do you know how to operate a pyrgeometer? Where would you start in trouble-shooting a recalcitrant Van de Graaff generator? Have you ever aligned an argon laser?

    Help us out here – we’re just trying to understand how it is that you know better than the world’s best physicists…

  74. #74 Robert Murphy
    June 28, 2012

    “Where are your observations and measurements for ML #1? If your house was encased in ice a hundred metres thick, surely by ML#1 the ice’s EM radiation should warm it. If not, why not?”

    All matter above absolute zero emits EM radiation; ALL. That includes 100 meters of ice encasing my house. This radiation going from the ice to my house won’t warm the house because more radiation is going from the house to the ice. Overall, the net flow is from house to ice. That doesn’t stop the ice from radiating EM radiation in all directions, as ALL matter above absolute zero must do.

    “Your corollary to #1 is also wrong “A molecule of Co2 that encounters a photon of LW radiation will scatter it in all directions.” Not so, only from hot to less hot.”

    As was pointed out to you, heat is a statistical measurement of lots of molecules; one molecule doesn’t have heat. A molecule of CO2 has no way of “knowing” not to radiate in any particular direction.

    “That is simply untrue. Had the heat travelled through the cylinder when filled only with N2 and O2, Tyndall’s galvanometer would have measured the heat leaving the other end of the cylinder. It did not.”

    Yes he did. ALL of the heat left the cylinder, just as it did when the cylinder was filled with a vacuum. Only the CO2 and the H2O prevented some of the heat from escaping the cylinder.

    “In fact this means Tyndall did show that N2 and O2 are GHG’s and do trap LW radiation, because they “do not absorb infrared radiation”, and therefore cannot reradiate it.”

    How do they trap it if they don’t interact with it? Are you really this stupid?? If there had been no N2 or O2 in the cylinder (it was a vacuum), the exact same results would have been seen – and were, by Tyndall.

  75. #75 Wow
    June 28, 2012

    “Not so, only from hot to less hot.”

    Where the hell do you get that from Stephan’s law, Curtain?

  76. #76 Wow
    June 28, 2012

    Here’s proof of radiation going from cold to hot:

    http://www2.glos.ac.uk/gdn/origins/earth/ch1_2.htm

    That’s radiation coming FROM the 3K deep space TO the earth at 300K.

  77. #77 Lotharsson
    June 28, 2012

    But the real NASA’s carbon budget shows no back radiation…

    Rubbish!

    Repeating a falsehood, even one you believe because you’re incapable of following a simple demonstration that the diagram you’re referring to has netted out the effect of back radiation, does not make it true.

    And another commenter already pointed to other NASA diagrams that show it un-netted.

    And if you had any intellectual integrity, you’d be able to find published observations of back radiation for yourself in about 10 seconds via this newfangled Teh Google thingamijig.

    I cannot at present describe any mechanism for these temperature changes to propagate to the surface.

    Argument from (someone else’s) personal ignorance is a fallacy.

    There is simply no physical method by which CO2 is capable of overcoming this barrier.

    Argument from (someone else’s) personal ignorance is a fallacy. (And I fail to see why increased outgoing radiation is “a barrier” – the commenter appears to not know what they talk about.)

  78. #78 Bernard J.
    June 28, 2012

    Wow observed:

    That’s radiation coming FROM the 3K deep space TO the earth at 300K.

    Permit me to pre-empt Curtin…

    The thing is, that radiation is from the Big Bang, the hottest thing ever, so each of those photons is actually warmer than the Earth – even though photons don’t have the property “heat”, and even though – by Curtin’s own insight – photons don’t exist…

    It’s so easy when all you need to do is to sell woo, and Curtin is an A-grade woo-artist.

  79. #79 Lionel A
    June 28, 2012

    TC @ 1:11 pm

    I cannot at present describe any mechanism for these temperature changes to propagate to the surface.

    That is because of either your invincible ignorance or your determined ideological blindness.

    Ho! Hum! Into the breach again!

    Here you go:Curtin <a href="http://scienceofdoom.com/2011/09/02/radiative-forcing-and-the-surface-energy-balance/"Radiative Forcing and the Surface Energy Balance . Now what do you think that first word in that title is trying to tell you?

    Now here is some more help with that concept of radiation that is giving you so much trouble.

    Now WRT that pesky Global Energy Balance paying particular attention to 2.2 where we find this:

    N2 does notfigure at all in absorption, and O2 absorbs only in the far UV (where there is little solar energy flux) and, a little, in the near IR:the dominant constituents of the atmosphere are incredibly transparent across almost the whole spectral range of importance.

    and this:

    the absorption of terrestrial radiation is dominated by triatomic molecules – O3 in the UV, H2O, CO2 and others in the IR because it so happens that triatomic molecules have rotational and vibrational modes that can easily be excited by radiation with wavelengths in the IR.

    Now try and rest your case.

  80. #80 Lionel A
    June 28, 2012

    Aarghhhh! Nil preview!!!

    Here you go:Curtin Radiative Forcing and the Surface Energy Balance . Now what do you think that first word in that title is trying to tell you?

  81. #81 Lionel A
    June 28, 2012

    Curtin. While we are at it, another attempt with this:

    The Discovery of Global Warming which you should read but I am not hopeful as you ignore all pointers to tackling that invincible ignorance.

    Must have run up against a limit trying to squeeze this last link in, also stumbled on that nasty ‘Slow down you are posting too quickly’ rock in the road when posting a corrected link above.

    The pain we suffer in suffering this fool Curtin.

  82. #82 Wow
    June 28, 2012

    Curtain, what is the temperature of a 15um photon?

    If you have a body radiating 200W and another body radiating 200W what is the total radiation? Is it zero?

  83. #83 Wow
    June 28, 2012

    I’m gonna call Tim curtain beef curtains from now on, beef for short.

    He deserves it.

    Jesus christ, he’s got to be the dumbest object in the frigging universe.

  84. #84 P. Lewis
    June 28, 2012

    I’m gonna call Tim curtain beef curtains from now on, beef for short.

    Think yo’ might ‘ave meant jerk beef. Or jerk for short!

  85. #85 bill
    June 28, 2012

    A molecule of CO2 has no way of “knowing” not to radiate in any particular direction.

    This calls to mind Eli Rabett’s notion of individual photons running around with thermometers so they can studiously avoid hitting an object cooler than themselves…

  86. #86 bill
    June 28, 2012

    …whoops – hotter!

  87. #87 Wow
    June 29, 2012

    Nah, it’s UK slang. However, “Beef Jerk” could be the second-level slang for the american audience.

  88. #88 Lotharsson
    June 29, 2012

    One wonders how TC rationalises the concept that radiation can propagate through a vacuum, given that he seems to think a gas medium is needed to absorb and re-radiate it for propagation to happen.

    Earth would be bloody cold if that were the case.

    Or maybe he’s a secret proponent of an aetheric theory.

  89. #89 Wow
    June 29, 2012

    Aye, Beef seems to believe there is an aether again.

    He’s a bit behind the times…

  90. #90 Tim Curtin
    June 29, 2012

    What with Wimbledon and Lords on tele this evening, its not that easy to think of something to to set you-all into a frenzy of hate.

    However before the tennis and cricket, I did post this at The Conversation in response to its severely intellectually challenged Steve Sherwood of UNSW, his intellectual impairment being a sine qua non for employment there, eg England, Archer, and Diesendorf:

    Steve’s article states: “CO₂ is a powerful greenhouse gas; the more there is, the warmer the climate…”. There is actually no statistically significant econometric evidence to support that claim, not least because while the atmospheric concentration of CO2 does increase steadily at around 0.3% p.a., and by nearly 40% in total since 1900, there is no such comparable steady increase in global annual mean temperatures, which have risen by only 0.75oC over that period, or by just 0.26% in Kelvins, since 1900.

    A further reason for the evident disconnect between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature increases is that while the article claims the former has increased from 280 parts per million ppm to 400 ppm now, which sounds a lot, but is actually only 0.04% of a million parts of the atmosphere, and an even smaller proportion of the total mass of the atmosphere (0.016% in 2010).

    However even a trace gas as minor as atmospheric CO2 is within the total atmosphere could have serious consequences if it was actually poisonous, but concentrations are known to reach 5,000 ppm in nuclear submarines submerged for long periods without killing their crews.

    The article is also misleading in its use of numbers in failing to mention that within every year there is a very large difference between the ppm of CO2 in May and in September. In May 2011 the reading at Mauna Loa was 394.16 ppm, in September it had dropped to 389.

    Naturally the Sherwood article similarly fails to mention that the Gistemp global temperature anomaly is always warmer in September, when the ppm are at their intra-annual lowest, than it is in May, when the ppm reading is much higher.

    Plotting May-September CO2 readings since they began in 1958 and Gistemp anomalies, there is evidently an a priori NEGATIVE correlation between CO2 and temperature.

    David Keeling who began the CO2 readings at Mauna Loa was at first puzzled by this, but soon grasped that with most of the world’s land mass in the NH with its chief cropping season in its summer from May to September, it was agriculture and forestry that explained the inverse relation between CO2 and temperature.

    But most climate scientists tend to keep quiet about all this. I wonder why?

    .

  91. #91 Robert Murphy
    June 29, 2012

    Curtin:
    “Steve’s article states: “CO₂ is a powerful greenhouse gas; the more there is, the warmer the climate…”. There is actually no statistically significant econometric evidence to support that claim, not least because while the atmospheric concentration of CO2 does increase steadily at around 0.3% p.a., and by nearly 40% in total since 1900, there is no such comparable steady increase in global annual mean temperatures, which have risen by only 0.75oC over that period, or by just 0.26% in Kelvins, since 1900.”

    That might (might) be a valid point if CO2 was the only thing affecting temperatures. Since that isn’t the case, and every climate scientist knows this, your “point” is moot. Look up solar activity, or aerosols. Then acquaint yourself with ENSO and its effects on inter-annual variability and short term temperature trends.

    “A further reason for the evident disconnect between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature increases is that while the article claims the former has increased from 280 parts per million ppm to 400 ppm now, which sounds a lot, but is actually only 0.04% of a million parts of the atmosphere, and an even smaller proportion of the total mass of the atmosphere (0.016% in 2010).”

    Actually, that doesn’t tell you anything. A tiny amount of arsenic (compared to your body mass) will kill you. About 1% of the atmosphere is responsible for all of the GHE. It doesn’t take much of a change to have a noticeable affect.

    “However even a trace gas as minor as atmospheric CO2 is within the total atmosphere could have serious consequences if it was actually poisonous, but concentrations are known to reach 5,000 ppm in nuclear submarines submerged for long periods without killing their crews.”

    Nobody is claiming that the rise in CO2 is going to make the concentration poisonous. The issue isn’t a direct physiological reaction for organisms, but a physical one for the Earth’s energy budget. Your point is completely irrelevant.

    “The article is also misleading in its use of numbers in failing to mention that within every year there is a very large difference between the ppm of CO2 in May and in September. In May 2011 the reading at Mauna Loa was 394.16 ppm, in September it had dropped to 389.”

    Hey, you discovered the seasonal carbon cycle! Now you know what every first year student in the subject knows. Completely irrelevant “gotcha!”.

    “Naturally the Sherwood article similarly fails to mention that the Gistemp global temperature anomaly is always warmer in September, when the ppm are at their intra-annual lowest, than it is in May, when the ppm reading is much higher. ”

    You do know that the seasonal carbon cycle is mostly felt in the Northern Hemisphere, right? Globally the change is much smaller.

    “David Keeling who began the CO2 readings at Mauna Loa was at first puzzled by this, but soon grasped that with most of the world’s land mass in the NH with its chief cropping season in its summer from May to September, it was agriculture and forestry that explained the inverse relation between CO2 and temperature.

    But most climate scientists tend to keep quiet about all this. I wonder why”

    The seasonal carbon cycle (where CO2 goes down in the NH Spring and Summer as the growing season kicks in and up in the NH Fall and Winter as the growing season stops and leaves fall off and decay) is a well know, well understood phenomena that is in no way hidden or suppressed. Yet again you show you complete ignorance of the field you have the gall to blindly attack.

  92. #92 Wow
    June 29, 2012

    “There is actually no statistically significant econometric evidence to support that claim”

    From the Wiki:
    Econometrics is “the application of mathematics and statistical methods to economic data”

    Now, since the claim wasn’t economic, you’re an idiot, Beef.

    “there is no such comparable steady increase in global annual mean temperatures”

    How many doublings is 1.4x?

    Now, multiuply that by 3.2C.

    Now, compare that figure to the 0.9-1.1C we currently have.

    Pretty close, isn’t it. 2C per doubling is no longer possible.

    Again, you’re proving yourself an idiot, Beef.

    “but is actually only 0.04% of a million parts of the atmosphere, and an even smaller proportion of the total mass of the atmosphere (0.016% in 2010).”

    Gosh, you mean to say 0.016% is 40% of 0.04%? Yes, we knew that. Three proofs of idiocy, Beef.

    “However even a trace gas as minor as atmospheric CO2 is within the total atmosphere could have serious consequences if it was actually poisonous”

    It can have a serious consequence if not poisonous. It just won’t be poison.

    Four! Four points of idiocy for Beef! Bwa ha! ha! ha!

    “In May 2011 the reading at Mauna Loa was 394.16 ppm, in September it had dropped to 389. ”

    Both above the 280ppm baseline before industrialisation.

    Five idiocies, Beef.

    “the Gistemp global temperature anomaly is always warmer in September, when the ppm are at their intra-annual lowest”

    Which would mean that that extremely tiny CO2 change (.000045%) has, to you, a notable difference in temperature.

    Six! Will we get to double figures idiot count on the one post, Beef? The tension mounts!

    “there is evidently an a priori NEGATIVE correlation between CO2 and temperature”

    Except that since there is a 1C increase when increasing from 280 to 390, there is an a priori POSITIVE correlation between CO2 and temperature.

    SEVEN! We’re nearly at double-digit idiot, Beef!

    “it was agriculture and forestry that explained the inverse relation between CO2 and temperature”

    So when we cut the grass (a 0.0001% reduction in living matter mass of the planet), that causes cooling HOW, exactly?

    Eight idiot points, Beef.

    And since we now have orders of magnitude more agriculture, shouldn’t this be shown in a wider and wider difference (to orders of magnitude) between global sept and global Jan temps? So why isn’t it?

    NINE idiocies from Beef in the one message!

    “But most climate scientists tend to keep quiet about all this. I wonder why?”

    WE HAVE OUR TENTH!

    Beef, you cram more idiot in a single package than anything else in the multiverse.

    You truly are denser than a black hole. Made of rural hicks.

  93. #93 Wow
    June 29, 2012

    Beef, the iron in your body is not toxic and is a tiny fraction of your body mass.

    If I were to remove it, despite it not being poison (“no iron” isn’t a posion), you will die if I remove it from your body.

  94. #94 Richard Simons
    June 29, 2012

    Tim: you pile misunderstanding on top of confusion. First: I see no hate directed towards you. Extreme frustration, yes. Amazement that anyone could get it so consistently wrong, yes. But nothing like hate.

    no statistically significant econometric evidence

    Economics? Why are you bringing that in?

    while the atmospheric concentration of CO2 does increase steadily at around 0.3% p.a., and by nearly 40% in total since 1900, there is no such comparable steady increase in global annual mean temperatures, which have risen by only 0.75oC over that period, or by just 0.26% in Kelvins, since 1900.

    Are you assuming that, if rising CO2 causes rising temperature, a doubling of CO2 causes a doubling of the temperature? No-one has ever claimed anything remotely like this. You need to think about what the different temperature scales mean, while you’re at it.

    A further reason for the evident disconnect between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature increases is that while the article claims the former has increased from 280 parts per million ppm to 400 ppm now, which sounds a lot, but is actually only 0.04% of a million parts of the atmosphere,

    Oh dear! That is like saying that a shirt is only a tiny amount of your weight, therefore it is not important to wear one for protection against sunburn. I see you are making the same silly claim over at ‘The Conversation’.

    David Keeling who began the CO2 readings at Mauna Loa was at first puzzled by this, [the rise in CO2 in winter and the fall in summer] but soon grasped that with most of the world’s land mass in the NH with its chief cropping season in its summer from May to September, it was agriculture and forestry that explained the inverse relation between CO2 and temperature.

    But most climate scientists tend to keep quiet about all this. I wonder why?

    Because seasonal variations and long term variations are caused by different things.

  95. #95 Lotharsson
    June 29, 2012

    …its not that easy to think of something to to set you-all into a frenzy of hate.

    What strange delusions you have.

    Hint: Piteous incredulous laughter != hate.

    …but is actually only 0.04% of a million parts of the atmosphere…

    Good grief, an “economist” who can’t balance a simple two-income two-expenditure scenario, and can’t do simple fractions.

    400ppm = 400/1,000,000.

    0.04% of a million parts = 0.0004 * 1/1,000,000.

    Perhaps you were striving to say “0.04% of the atmosphere”, but then you still need to correct your invocation of the fallacy of Small Proportions Can’t Have Significant Effects (as others have already pointed out).

    On the latter, you won’t – you haven’t done in the past, and your entire schtick necessarily rests on fallacies and falsehoods.

  96. #96 Richard Simons
    June 29, 2012

    The impressive thing about Tim Curtin is not that he combines all the common misunderstandings about climate change in one person, but that he also has some that are his and his alone (N2 being a greenhouse gas, acidifying seawater to make it potable, for example).

  97. #97 Lionel A
    June 29, 2012

    Curtin you are now nothing but road kill and judging by your latest rant over at The Conversation you simply keep rolling into different lanes to be run over again.

    As many there and here have demonstrated time and time again you have no grasp of atmospheric physics and keep clutching at the straws of repeatedly debunked myths. You claim to have been studying this issue for a long time. How long is ‘long’ in your world?

    Pay attention at the back there and study some science before offering yourself to the next truck. Repeating your tired old mantra just will not do. I think we have had enough of your invincible ignorance.

    It isn’t hate we feel for you but as I wrote above, which you seem to have ignored, but pity. Pity for one who keeps making such a damned fool of himself and still doesn’t GET IT!

    OTOH you if it turns out that you are one of those advising this sad example of humanity then pity could change to something else. ‘With Contempt’ being how we view the likes of Plimer, Carter and Monckton.

  98. #98 Robert Murphy
    June 29, 2012

    “while the atmospheric concentration of CO2 does increase steadily at around 0.3% p.a., and by nearly 40% in total since 1900, there is no such comparable steady increase in global annual mean temperatures, which have risen by only 0.75oC over that period, or by just 0.26% in Kelvins, since 1900.”

    OMG, I have just realized what you were saying here and how stupid this claim is (thanks to Richard Simons above). When Co2 goes up 40%, the claim isn’t that temperature in Kelvin will go up 40%. Only a moron would expect that.
    By that logic, glacial periods are no concern because at their deepest points the Earth’s temps only go down about 2.4%. How could such a small change make any difference???!!! lol

    If you actually knew even an iota of climate science, you would know that the effects of rising GHG’s are logarithmic. You get the same ~3C warming with every doubling of CO2: from 280ppmv to 560ppmv, from 560ppmv-1120ppmv, and so on.

  99. #99 Lionel A
    June 29, 2012

    TC in reply to Gary Murphy at The Conversation:

    Otherwise save your breathing out of CO2 and desist from arm waving.

    Are you aware of how unintentionally hilarious your are being TC. You only accuse others of ‘arm waving’ because your Black Knight has been thoroughly dismembered and can no longer manage even that. Your Black Knight has continued with stupid such as to be hung, drawn and quartered. Now, just In case you cannot comprehend subtlety of that last it is sarcasm and not a threat.

  100. #100 Lotharsson
    June 29, 2012

    Only a moron would expect that.

    Or someone hoping to mislead the deeply gullible.

    Perhaps someone TC has read.

Current ye@r *