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 Marco
    June 29, 2012

    Guys, Teh Curtin is just doing the Gish Gallop, because he has realised he’s made a really big boo-boo when he claimed Tyndall showed N2 and O2 block IR.

  2. #2 Lotharsson
    June 29, 2012

    …he has realised he’s made a really big boo-boo when he claimed Tyndall showed N2 and O2 block IR.

    I’m not even convinced he’s got that far. But he certainly is Galloping.

  3. #3 Bernard J.
    June 29, 2012

    Tim Curtin said at 1:26 pm on 29 June:

    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).

    I don’t know how many times I’ve commented on this canard myself, but there’s one in particular that springs to mind because it recalls the Ringworld reference I raised last week. Said comment is “time-stamped January 7, 2011, 10:30 am on the ‘Sunrise on Ringworld’ thread.

  4. #4 Lionel A
    June 29, 2012

    Bernard J @4.32pm

    Very apt, I wonder if Curtin ponders on the role of O3.

    Whatever having long used boswelox as a replacement for bollocks in writing and speech I now have new epithet at my command in ‘Curtin-Rings’ with which to cast opprobrium.

  5. #5 ianam
    June 29, 2012

    0.75oC over that period, or by just 0.26% in Kelvins

    And what percentage in oC? And why would anyone other than an imbecile think that percentage of a temperature is meaningful?

  6. #6 ianam
    June 29, 2012

    an even smaller proportion of the total mass of the atmosphere

    Come now, Tim, you can do better than that … I’ve seen some of your fellows compare it to the mass of the entire Earth. And why stop there? How about the mass of the entire universe? That’ll show those who think that a 43% increase “sounds a lot”!

  7. #7 Tim Curtin
    www.timcurtin.com
    June 30, 2012

    Robert Murphy: Well, how do YOU explain the statistically insignificant correlations resulting from LSR of changes in temperature and in atmospheric CO2, but strongly significant correlation with atmospheric water vapour in bivariate analysis, with the CO2 still not significant?

    You said: “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”. So the relative size of hot and cool objects is immaterial with respect to the net flow? Can I expect my golf ball to be heated when plunged into a bucket of ice or a glacier?

    You also say “The seasonal carbon cycle …is a well known, well understood phenomenon that is in no way hidden or suppressed”. Really? It is not mentioned by Sherwood here, who assumes that the reduction in atmospheric CO2 that he demands will have no effect on world NPP.

    Finally, re Tyndall again, I said: “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.”

    Yet you claim that Tyndall showed “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.”

    Why then did the needle at the end of his cylinder only move in response to radiation of the heat absorbed by the CO2 and H2O? No heat entered or left the cylinder when it was filled only with N2 and or O2.

    Your inability to grasp what Tyndall’s apparatus did and what he said it did shows that you must be a doctor of divinity with your own unique ability to interpret a text as saying the opposite of what it did say in plain English.

    I have quoted Tyndall repeatedly above to show that indeed for him N2 and O2 are the real GHGs because in effect they block LW radiation: “Thus oxygen and
    hydrogen, which, when mixed in their electrolytic proportions, show a scarcely sensible
    action [at the end of his cylinder], when chemically combined to form aqueous vapour, exert a powerful action. So also with oxygen and nitrogen, which, when mixed, as in our atmosphere, both absorb and radiate feebly, when united to form oscillating systems, as in nitrous oxide, have their powers vastly augmented.” (Lecture 1861:34).

  8. #8 Lotharsson
    June 30, 2012

    Can I expect my golf ball to be heated when plunged into a bucket of ice or a glacier?

    For one thing you are still confusing heating of an object with reception of IR radiation.

    For another you aren’t taking into account the surface area available for radiation between the two objects – especially when you plunge your golf ball into water which effectively provides equal areas (which then has consequences for what gets heated, according to the 2nd Law you like to quote) – and adds conduction of heat to the experiment, which makes the measurement you seek to derive very difficult to disentangle from the data.

  9. #9 Lotharsson
    June 30, 2012

    Why then did the needle at the end of his cylinder only move in response to radiation of the heat absorbed by the CO2 and H2O?

    It did not.

    It moved in response to the reduced transmission of IR radiation because some was absorbed by CO2 and H2O.

    In fact, the following quote applies extremely aptly to your claim:

    Your inability to grasp what Tyndall’s apparatus did and what he said it did shows that you must be a doctor of divinity with your own unique ability to interpret a text as saying the opposite of what it did say in plain English.

    Calling Dunning and Kruger – my DKE meter has exploded.

    I reiterate my earlier dare to recreate Tyndall’s experiment yourself with a very warm IR source and test how much is transmitted through N2 and O2 with your hand. Or buy a commercial remote temperature sensor and try it out through different gases.

    Bet you don’t dare take me up on it and honestly report the results. And if you do, whatever you do don’t use too hot a heat source. I really don’t want you to stupidly burn your hand because you’ve deceived yourself as to what will happen.

    I have quoted Tyndall repeatedly above to show that indeed for him N2 and O2 are the real GHGs because in effect they block LW radiation.

    And you’ve been wrong every single time, because the galvanometer readings mean the very opposite of what you think, as Tyndall made plain.

    Hint: “scarcely a sensible action” refers to scarcely reducing the flow of IR radiation as compared to the (maximal) flow through a vacuum, whereas H2O and CO2 significantly reduced the IR flow. (How exactly do you think they could possibly magnify it?!)

    Go re-read the section of Tyndall on how the zero reading on the galvanometer was calibrated. I am confident you are incapable of understanding it, like so many other things – but one day I hope you surprise me.

  10. #10 Bernard J.
    June 30, 2012

    Well, how do YOU explain the statistically insignificant correlations resulting from LSR of changes in temperature and in atmospheric CO2, but strongly significant correlation with atmospheric water vapour in bivariate analysis, with the CO2 still not significant?

    How?

    1) Well, for a start LSR is not the be-all and end-all of statistical analysis, and it is as prone to GIGO as any other statistical process performed in the hands of one who is insufficiently competent to thus perform it.

    You are one such individual. I present as supporting evidence the claim on The Conversation:

    The 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 has risen 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.

    Anyone who thinks that econometrics is a broadbrush tool with which to analyse any scientific data, rather than a mere application of a subset of statistical procedures to a subset of economic theories, must be incompetent at a fundamentally basic level.

    2) Further to the matters of GIGO and incompetence, need it be pointed out that correlation does not mean causation? It is necessary to operate with an appropriate understanding of how to apply statistical analysis, and of what parameters are pertinent in any analysis, and of why such parameters are pertinent in any analysis, and of what happens when important parameters are omitted from analyses.

    You, Curtin, are possessed of none of the above absolutely prerequisite understandings.

    You said: “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”. So the relative size of hot and cool objects is immaterial with respect to the net flow? Can I expect my golf ball to be heated when plunged into a bucket of ice or a glacier?

    You’re applying specious analogies (do you know which logical fallacy that is?). A better metaphor would be to ask what happens if you stop heat escaping from a radiator: one way to do so would be to measure the temperature of a person standing in thermal equilibrium a room, and then to surround that person with a space blanket and remeasure the temperature. Yes, the mechanisms of heat retention are different,but the effect is the same – and Curtin, you can’t escape by claiming that there is no such thing as the ‘greenhouse’ effect, because you are completely deluded about the physics.

    Your inability to grasp what Tyndall’s apparatus did and what he said it did shows that you must be a doctor of divinity with your own unique ability to interpret a text as saying the opposite of what it did say in plain English.

    Oh, the irony.

    I have quoted Tyndall repeatedly above to show that indeed for him N2 and O2 are the real GHGs because in effect they block LW radiation: “Thus oxygen and
    hydrogen, which, when mixed in their electrolytic proportions, show a scarcely sensible
    action [at the end of his cylinder], when chemically combined to form aqueous vapour, exert a powerful action. So also with oxygen and nitrogen, which, when mixed, as in our atmosphere, both absorb and radiate feebly, when united to form oscillating systems, as in nitrous oxide, have their powers vastly augmented.” (Lecture 1861:34).

    So, what Tyndall said was that:

    1) O₂ + 2.H₂ as a gaseous mixture do not absorb or emit infrared radiation (“[t]hus oxygen and
    hydrogen, which, when mixed in their electrolytic proportions, show a scarcely sensible
    action”).

    2) H₂O in gas form does absorb and emit infrared radiation (“…when chemically combined to form aqueous vapour, exert a powerful action”).

    3) O₂ + 2.N₂ as a gaseous mixture do not absorb or emit infrared radiation (“[s]o also with oxygen and nitrogen, which, when mixed, as in our atmosphere, both absorb and radiate feebly”).

    4) N₂O in gas form does absorb and emit infrared radiation (“…when united to form oscillating systems, as in nitrous oxide, have their powers vastly augmented”).

    Tyndall would be rolling in his grave at your complete mangling of his work.

  11. #11 Tim Curtin
    www.timcurtin.com
    June 30, 2012

    Lotharsson: I asked Murphy “why then did the needle at the end of his cylinder only move in response to radiation of the heat absorbed by the CO2 and H2O?”

    You say “it did not”. That is simply untrue, the needle only moved when heat absorbed by the CO2 and H2O in the cylinder was radiated out.

    Equally false representation of Tyndall when you say “It moved in response to the reduced transmission of IR radiation because some was absorbed by CO2 and H2O.”

    Tyndall showed radiation equalled absorption, and that there was none of either when only N2 and O2 were present, as the needle did not respond to the application of heat at the other end of the cylinder.

  12. #12 Lotharsson
    June 30, 2012

    I do wonder what the editors of the journal that published TC’s latest magnum opus would think of this thread…

  13. #13 Lotharsson
    June 30, 2012

    That is simply untrue, the needle only moved when heat absorbed by the CO2 and H2O in the cylinder was radiated out.

    Saying it does not make it so!

    Why do you think I challenged you to recreate Tyndall’s setup? How much do you want to bet on the outcome? Would I challenge you to recreate it if you were right?

    Tyndall showed radiation equalled absorption, …

    Mistaken.

    Tyndall showed that re-radiation equals absorption . He did not show that IR radiation needs to be emitted after absorption in order to either occur or to propagate, nor did he show that a lack of absorption magically impedes radiation.

    Why do you think I asked you to answer questions about a little thought experiment with two rooms, a corridor, visible light and various barriers…way, way back on the thread? Why do you think people have asked you why the surface temperature of the moon devastatingly refutes your claim here?

    And why do you think I asked you about the kid who catches and randomly re-throws the tennis balls? Do you argue that without him catching them, no balls could ever leave the server’s racket let alone make it to the other end of the court? Because that’s essentially analogous to what you’re arguing about IR radiation here!

    And why do you think you’ve failed to answer these simple questions? Could it be because they make it really plain that you are 180 degrees wrong on this?

    If you want, pretend to yourself that the IR source is purely re-radiation what it has absorbed. (It isn’t, but that’s OK for the purposes of this thought experiment.) What happens to that IR source re-radiation when it enters a vacuum filled tube? Does the vacuum, which doesn’t “absorb and re-radiate” that radiation, impede its flow, or does the IR flow anyway? Do N2 or O2, which have largely the same non-absorptive powers as a vacuum impede that IR re-radiation flow? If your answers to the two scenarios are different – why?

    …and that there was none of either when only N2 and O2 were present, as the needle did not respond to the application of heat at the other end of the cylinder.

    The needle at zero is calibrated to maximum transmitted heat, and deviations from zero record sub-maximal transmitted heat.

    Which means the zero reading for N2 and O2 means that radiation was not impeded. Radiation happily radiates without the presence of an absorptive/re-radiating gas, even in a vacuum, because it is self-propagating. Given that vacuum doesn’t absorb or re-radiate either, how on earth do you think radiation propagates through a vacuum? See that large hot ball in the sky at noon that’s too bright to look at? How does that radiation get to your eye from the sun across all that vacuum entirely absent of re-radiating gas?

    You’ve utterly failed to test your claims against well known evidence. Evidence that even you are surely aware of.

  14. #14 Lotharsson
    June 30, 2012

    …the IR source is purely re-radiationing what it has absorbed…

  15. #15 Marco
    June 30, 2012

    Let me get this right:
    When Tyndall says that the absence of aqueous vapour in the air “would open wide a door for the escape of the earth’s heat to infinitude”
    Teh Curtin claims he actually says that the absence of aqueous vapour “would close a door for the escape of the earth’s heat to infinitude”.

    Really, stupid and Dunning-Kruger does not even cover this kind of idiocy. It’s the alternative universe where up is down and down is up, right is left and left is right.

  16. #16 Robert Murphy
    June 30, 2012

    “Well, how do YOU explain the statistically insignificant correlations resulting from LSR of changes in temperature and in atmospheric CO2, but strongly significant correlation with atmospheric water vapour in bivariate analysis, with the CO2 still not significant?”

    Your ignorance of other factors affecting temperature trends. Hint: I already said what those factors were.

    “You said: “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”. So the relative size of hot and cool objects is immaterial with respect to the net flow? Can I expect my golf ball to be heated when plunged into a bucket of ice or a glacier?”

    I answered this in the very quote from me above you copied: “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.” The ice would indeed radiate EM radiation to the golf ball, as all matter above absolute zero must, but the net heat flow would be from golf ball to ice.
    Are you that incapable of understanding basic English sentences? Yes, you are.

    “You also say “The seasonal carbon cycle …is a well known, well understood phenomenon that is in no way hidden or suppressed”. Really? It is not mentioned by Sherwood here, who assumes that the reduction in atmospheric CO2 that he demands will have no effect on world NPP.”

    Here, enlighten yourself:
    http://carboncycle2.lbl.gov/resources/experts-corner/annual-cycles-of-atmospheric-co2-concentration.html
    http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp001a/ndp001a.pdf
    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/06/01/annual-cycle-of-co2/

    “Why then did the needle at the end of his cylinder only move in response to radiation of the heat absorbed by the CO2 and H2O? No heat entered or left the cylinder when it was filled only with N2 and or O2.”

    It didn’t. You have completely and utterly misunderstood (deliberately?) the experiment. At this point your entrenchment in this position indicates a very strong likelihood of mental illness. I am not kidding about that. You’re nuts.

    “I have quoted Tyndall repeatedly above to show that indeed for him N2 and O2 are the real GHGs because in effect they block LW radiation: ”

    He showed no such thing; he showed the opposite. N2 and O2 cannot block LW radiation – they affect LW radiation the same way that the vacuum filled tube did. The LW radiation just passed on through out the other side. Just like it would pass right on through the atmosphere out to space but for the presence of GHG’s like CO2 and H2O that scatter said LW radiation in all directions.

    Seek professional psychiatric help.

  17. #17 P. Lewis
    June 30, 2012

    It is hard to escape the occasional nagging doubt that this recent and repetitive farrago of madness by TC is one big Poe.

    However, the internal inconsistencies mean it is not a very good Poe. And his “climate” publications and previous blog form with things like low pH seawater becoming potable point to extreme mental confusion over rather basic science rather than an intellectually constructed elaborate Poe.

    No, he really seems to think he is Galileo’s star pupil.

    Sad.

  18. #18 Lotharsson
    June 30, 2012

    …they affect LW radiation the same way that the vacuum filled tube did.

    The galvanometer read zero in both cases. That should tell you something!

    As should the fact that everyone here apart from you disagrees with your unique interpretation of Tyndall’s results. How is it (in your mind) that a whole bunch of people all independently made the same mistake of interpretation, and not one of them has been persuaded by revisiting the evidence or the description of the experiment?!

    (Yeah, yeah, I know – it’s all a giant conspiracy theory or some such…)

  19. #19 Robert Murphy
    June 30, 2012

    “I have quoted Tyndall repeatedly above to show that indeed for him N2 and O2 are the real GHGs because in effect they block LW radiation:”

    Here’s what Tyndall had to say about water vapor’s greenhouse gas (a phrase he doesn’t however use here) properties:

    “No doubt, therefore, can exist of the extraordinary opacity of this substance to the rays of obscure heat: and particularly such rays as are emitted by the earth after it has been warmed by the sun. It is perfectly certain that more than 10 percent of the terrestrial radiation from the soil of England is stopped within 10 feet of the surface of the soil. This one fact is sufficient to show the immense influence which this newly-discovered property of aqueous vapour must exert on the phenomena of meteorology.
    This aqueous vapour is a blanket more necessary to the vegetable life of England than clothing is to man.Remove for a single summer-night the aqueous vapour from the air which overspreads this country, and you would assuredly destroy every plant capable of being destroyed by a freezing temperature. The warmth of our fields and gardens would pour itself unrequited into space, and the sun would rise upon an island held fast in the iron grip of frost. The aqueous vapour constitutes a local dam, by which the temperature at the planet’s surface is deepened: the dam, however, finally overthrown, and we give to space all that we receive from the sun.
    … Its presence would check the earth’s loss; its absence, without sensibly altering the transparency of the air, would open wide a door for the escape of the earth’s heat into infinitude.”
    http://books.google.com/books?id=mTA6AQAAIAAJ&pg=PA424&lpg=PA424&dq=would+open+wide+a+door+for+the+escape+of+the+earth%E2%80%99s+heat+to+infinitude%E2%80%9D&source=bl&ots=6iebLFv-kE&sig=W7VGK2KLZ9TFrK4OUNEiQPKZKuk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pM7uT863JZGI8QT695WRDQ&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=would%20open%20wide%20a%20door%20for%20the%20escape%20of%20the%20earth%E2%80%99s%20heat%20to%20infinitude%E2%80%9D&f=false

    Tyndall understood very well that gases like water vapor and CO2 stop heat from escaping to space. That you feel you understand not only his experiment but his meaning better than he did only makes my suggestion above for you to seek professional help the more urgent.

  20. #20 Tim Curtin
    www.timcurtin.com
    June 30, 2012

    Lotharsson 8:24 am
    I said: “That is simply untrue, the needle only moved when heat absorbed by the CO2 and H2O in the cylinder was radiated out.”

    You say “Saying it does not make it so!” I did not say it, Tyndall does and shows it by his PHYSICAL experiments.

    Then you say: “Why do you think I challenged you to recreate Tyndall’s setup? How much do you want to bet on the outcome? Would I challenge you to recreate it if you were right?” I think the onus of disproof of Tyndall is on you, especially when you are so clever.

    Then I said “Tyndall showed radiation equalled absorption …”
    You say “Mistaken.Tyndall showed that re-radiation equals absorption”. Not true.

    He did show that IR radiation is emitted after absorption and he also did show that in the absence of absorption there is no radiation. Read Tyndall, if you can, which I doubt.

    Then you ask, after a lot of armwaving: “Do N2 or O2, which have largely the same non-absorptive powers as a vacuum impede that IR re-radiation flow?”

    Here I think I agree with you and Murphy, so I reply, yes they do.

    I then said: “there was none of either [absorption or radiation] when only N2 and O2 were present, as the needle did not respond to the application of heat at the other end of the cylinder”.

    You say; “The needle at zero is calibrated to maximum transmitted heat, and deviations from zero record sub-maximal transmitted heat”. Page ref please, I don’t believe you…

    Here is Tyndall: The needle moved steadily in one direction until its maximum deflection was attained, and this deflection showed that in all cases radiant heat was absorbed by the air within the tube: which means the zero reading for N2 and O2 means that radiation IS impeded.

    Then you say; “Radiation happily radiates without the presence of an absorptive/re-radiating gas, even in a vacuum, because it is self-propagating.” Back to phlogiston!

    And then you say even more absurdly; “Given that vacuum doesn’t absorb or re-radiate either, how on earth do you think radiation propagates through a vacuum?” I don’t, as it does not. But that is why an atmosphere consisting only of N2 and O2 is indeed like a vacuum as Murphy has claimed, and that is why N2 and O2 are the real GHGs.

  21. #21 Lotharsson
    June 30, 2012

    Page ref please, I don’t believe you…

    I provided the actual quotes much earlier in the thread. Heck, you provide enough of a quote yourself:

    The needle moved steadily in one direction until its maximum deflection was attained, and this deflection showed that in all cases radiant heat was absorbed by the air within the tube:

    It’s right there in front of your face: maximum deflection equals strong absorption. And absorption and re-radiation in random directions – like the kid catching and rethrowing tennis balls, as I’m sure you know somewhere deep in what remains of your intellect but simply cannot acknowledge – impedes flow.

    So…given that maximum deflection demonstrates strong absorption, you appear to argue that minimum deflection also means absorption? That’s deeply irrational. Especially after I quoted Tyndall’s calibration procedure which demonstrates the opposite.

    But never mind, I’m convinced by now that you need the services of a cognitive health professional. As further evidenced by these:

    Back to phlogiston!

    LOL! & WTF? How the heck do you get there?! Aw, wait:

    I don’t, as it [radiation] does not [propagate through a vacuum].

    Oh, man, absolute ROFLMAO! This is absolutely your greatest hit! Radiation doesn’t propagate through a vacuum!

    So do you actually think that the big bright hot thing that appears in the sky during what we call “daytime” is located inside the earth’s atmosphere? What about those small pinpoints of light that are only visible at night when not obscured by clouds?

  22. #22 Robert Murphy
    June 30, 2012

    Curtin said:
    “Here is Tyndall:…”

    Here is some more:

    “No doubt, therefore, can exist of the extraordinary opacity of this substance to the rays of obscure heat: and particularly such rays as are emitted by the earth after it has been warmed by the sun. It is perfectly certain that more than 10 percent of the terrestrial radiation from the soil of England is stopped within 10 feet of the surface of the soil. This one fact is sufficient to show the immense influence which this newly-discovered property of aqueous vapour must exert on the phenomena of meteorology.
    This aqueous vapour is a blanket more necessary to the vegetable life of England than clothing is to man.Remove for a single summer-night the aqueous vapour from the air which overspreads this country, and you would assuredly destroy every plant capable of being destroyed by a freezing temperature. The warmth of our fields and gardens would pour itself unrequited into space, and the sun would rise upon an island held fast in the iron grip of frost. The aqueous vapour constitutes a local dam, by which the temperature at the planet’s surface is deepened: the dam, however, finally overthrown, and we give to space all that we receive from the sun.
    … Its presence would check the earth’s loss; its absence, without sensibly altering the transparency of the air, would open wide a door for the escape of the earth’s heat into infinitude.”

  23. #23 Bernard J.
    June 30, 2012

    ou say; “The needle at zero is calibrated to maximum transmitted heat, and deviations from zero record sub-maximal transmitted heat”. Page ref please, I don’t believe you…

    Ah, still struggling with the baseline concept Curtin…

    Even 6th graders are able to grasp this notion – it’s astonishing that the idea is beyond you.

    …which means the zero reading for N2 and O2 means that radiation IS impeded.

    Unless, of course, one doesn’t understand what the zeroed quantity is….

    Then you say; “Radiation happily radiates without the presence of an absorptive/re-radiating gas, even in a vacuum, because it is self-propagating.” Back to phlogiston!

    And then you say even more absurdly; “Given that vacuum doesn’t absorb or re-radiate either, how on earth do you think radiation propagates through a vacuum?

    By “[b]ack to phlostigon”, it appears that you are telling us where you are travelling…

    It is not “absurd” to say that “radiation propagates through a vacuum”, because this is exactly what happens.

    How do you think that the sun warms the Earth?

  24. #24 Robert Murphy
    June 30, 2012

    “And then you say even more absurdly; “Given that vacuum doesn’t absorb or re-radiate either, how on earth do you think radiation propagates through a vacuum?” I don’t, as it does not.”

    Radiation doesn’t propagate through a vacuum??!! Really?? How does the radiation from the Sun reach the Earth then? You are aware that the space between the Sun and the Earth is an essential vacuum, right?

  25. #25 Bernard J.
    June 30, 2012

    Bugger. Lotharsson’s always taking the wind from my sails!

    I should refresh before posting.

    Still, it’s telling that each of Curtin’s errors are so obvious to the rest of the world that they elicit rapid responses from more than one person almost as soon as Curtin puts fingers to keyboard.

    Curtin, please direct your children’s attention to this thread, and tell us what they think about your performance here. If they love you and they’re not afflicted with the same ill-educated delusion of Galileonism, they’ll be honest – and you’ll be booked in to see your local medical practitioner.

  26. #26 adelady
    city of wine and roses
    June 30, 2012

    “… how on earth do you think radiation propagates through a vacuum?” I don’t, as it does not. ”

    How on earth can there be even more feathers in this pillow? Or is there a conveyor belt eternally re-patching and delivering refilled pillows for more punishment.

  27. #27 Bernard J.
    June 30, 2012

    Seriously, are there amy friends or relatives of Tim Curtin reading this thread? Even passing acquaintances? If so, do you support the things that he spouts?

    Look at his efforts to date. He has contradicted most of physics, much of chemistry, and a whole lot of biology. Really, he contradicts it – just about everything that the last 200 to 2000 years of science has established as basic universal fact, Curtin completely opposes. Holus-bolus, whole fields of complex scientific endeavour that he has never studied,never worked with, never experienced, never understood…

    At the least, there’s a psychological condition in residence. At the worst, there could be a biological pathology occurring. Kith and kin should be very concerned.

    How is it that an individual such as Curtin is allowed unfettered access to a computer? How is it that apparently serious professional organisations and journals allow his material to be promoted through their media, with no apology?

    I would love to think that this is all some elaborate Poe, but the fact that he participated in Anthony Watts’ travelling Australian roadshow, selling this pseudoscientific snakeoil to gullible members of the public, indicates that Curtin is seriously attempting to influence others to accepting his promulgated ideas.

    And that is A Very Dangerous Thing.

  28. #28 Bernard J.
    June 30, 2012

    I have another term for Curtin Physics™…

    …Tim-Cube™!

  29. #29 Robert Murphy
    June 30, 2012

    On one hand Curtin says that radiation can’t travel through a vacuum, then he says that the N2 and O2 filled containers acted just like the vacuum, but that the N2 and O2 were needed to propagate the radiation. He’s not just contradicting science, he’s contradicting himself. Repeatedly.

  30. #30 Lotharsson
    June 30, 2012

    …Tim-Cube™!

    Absolute gold!

  31. #31 Rattus Norvegicus
    June 30, 2012

    Timmy,

    This quote shows that you did not understand Tyndall’s apparatus:

    Finally, re Tyndall again, I said: “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.”

    Yet you claim that Tyndall showed “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.”

    Why then did the needle at the end of his cylinder only move in response to radiation of the heat absorbed by the CO2 and H2O? No heat entered or left the cylinder when it was filled only with N2 and or O2.

    Tyndall, photosensors not having been invented yet, did not have a way of making precise absolute measurements, so he devised a mechanism able to make precise relative measurements. The zero reading on the galvanometer, set when the tube was evacuated, showed when the reference side of the thermopile was receiving the same amount of radiation as was passed through the tube. The mechanism was wired in such a way as to produce a positive deflection of the meter when the reference side was absorbing more radiation than the tube side. Got that? It is pretty simple (and clever!) after all.

    Now when N2 or O2 were introduced into the tube, no deflection of the meter occurred. If you have followed the discussion thus far this should tell you that N2 and O2 transmitted the same amount of radiation as a vacuum — essentially all of it. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS? When H2O vapor or CO2 were introduced into the tube the meter showed a positive deflection. Given the description of the experimental setup what does this tell you? If you understand the experimental setup this should tell you that LESS radiation was transmitted by H2O and CO2.

    Quit throwing out Tyndall at us as though he supported your position. He does not. He supports the points we have been arguing with you for what, a month now? What an ignorant dofus.

  32. #32 Lotharsson
    June 30, 2012

    He’s not just contradicting science, he’s contradicting himself. Repeatedly.

    What’s more, he doesn’t yet seem to realise it.

  33. #33 Lionel A
    June 30, 2012

    Curtin

    Then you ask, after a lot of armwaving: “Do N2 or O2, which have largely the same non-absorptive powers as a vacuum impede that IR re-radiation flow?”

    Here I think I agree with you and Murphy, so I reply, yes they do.

    That, my dear Curtin, was a facetious question from Robert given your repeated displays of getting Tyndall’s experimental results arse backwards and not ‘getting’ radiation. The correct answer is, of course and clear to everyone but you, that neither N2 nor O2 impede infra-red IR under Earth’s atmospheric conditions of temperature and pressure.

    Rattus has now explained Tyndall’s experimental methodology crystal clear.

    Think of it like this, take a plank balanced on a fulcrum. Now place 90gm weights on the plank at equal distances either side of the fulcrum.

    Place 10gm weights exactly on the centres of the 90gm weights.

    Now remove one of the 10gm weights. What happens?

    Only he who displays invincible ignorance would now continue to debate this point and as for arm-waving, take care that you don’t overdo your effort there else you may go into auto-rotate.

    This really has become the most astonishing thread I have ever followed. I have not seen the like of this ‘too stupid to learn’ anywhere else. You deserve a medal. One of frozen CO2 perhaps with a ribbon of water-ice.

  34. #34 ianam
    June 30, 2012

    It is hard to escape the occasional nagging doubt that this recent and repetitive farrago of madness by TC is one big Poe.

    Indeed, but when I said something similar, some intellectually dishonest jackass with poor reading comprehension (who happens to be on “our side” against TC) said “No”.

  35. #35 ianam
    June 30, 2012

    Back to phlogiston!

    You clearly have no idea what that is.

    “Given that vacuum doesn’t absorb or re-radiate either, how on earth do you think radiation propagates through a vacuum?” I don’t, as it does not.

    I had made numerous attempts to get TC to say this explicitly … and now he finally does.

    Tim Curtin, you are the most ignorant imbecile on the planet. everyone else knows that radiation propagates through a vacuum.

  36. #36 ianam
    June 30, 2012

    Here’s the key to Tim Curtin: He thinks that phlogiston is the ether, and that when the ether was disproved, that showed that radiation doesn’t progagate through a vacuum because, after all, ether was supposedly the medium through which it propagates. He thinks that the idea of something propagating without a medium is “absurd”, and that anything that he thinks is absurd is necessarily false. That this leaves him without an explanation for how light reaches us through space isn’t a problem for him because … well, it just isn’t.

  37. #37 ianam
    June 30, 2012

    I do wonder what the editors of the journal that published TC’s latest magnum opus would think of this thread…

    Or Roger Pielke Sr., who has featured Tim’s work:

    http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/05/25/new-paper-econometrics-and-the-science-of-climate-change-by-tim-curtin/

  38. #38 Lionel A
    June 30, 2012

    And whilst you are still around Curtin maybe you could explain how rising CO2 levels and temperatures have benefited us in the light of this Apple Crop Destroyed.

    More on this theme here .

    This is without looking into Phenological responses to climate change differ across trophic levels. HT Jeff Harvey

  39. #39 Tim Curtin
    www'timcurtin.com
    July 1, 2012

    Lionel A

    How come our tomato crop was not destroyed along with that apple crop last March? The atmopsheric CO2 here was the same as there.

    Why not keep up with the real world? Try this;

    Source: Susanne von Caemmerer, W. Paul Quick, and Robert T. Furbank (2012). The Development of C4 Rice: Current Progress and Future Challenges. Science 336 (6089): 1671-1672.

    [h/t Indur Goklany at WUWT]

    Oops, I forgot that Science is the house journal of Exxon Mobil. Sorry.

  40. #40 bill
    July 1, 2012

    How come our tomato crop was not destroyed along with that apple crop last March? The atmopsheric CO2 here was the same as there.

    You really are that stupid, aren’t you?

  41. #41 Rattus Norvegicus
    July 1, 2012

    Ah, Timmy, ever the ignorant one.

    The photos associated with the WUWT post show rather well the difference between C3 and C4 plants and their response to CO2. While rice is a C3 plant, many of our important food crops, especially corn, are C4 plants.

    It is also important to point out that in a changed climate regime increased CO2 is not the only factor in plant growth — two of the most important, precipitation and temperature — are likely to change radically, and not always in ways conducive to increased productivity. This is especially true in currently highly productive regions such as the US MIdwest and Great Plains.

    And in answer to your question about Ontario, Quebec and the US Upper Midwest and the UK. If you can’t tell the difference between those two areas then I feel truly sorry for you.

    You are an ignorant and foolish man.

  42. #42 Bernard J.
    July 1, 2012

    Why not keep up with the real world? Try this;

    Source: Susanne von Caemmerer, W. Paul Quick, and Robert T. Furbank (2012). The Development of C4 Rice: Current Progress and Future Challenges. Science 336 (6089): 1671-1672.

    Erm, Curtin, if CO₂ is so good for plant growth why is it that rates of growth in rice yield are declining at all? Oh, that’s right, because it isn’t CO₂ that limits rice production in the first place.

    And further, if rates of growth in rice yield are declining, why do we apparently need to switch to a metabolism that is evolved to deal with low concentrations of CO₂? Oh, that’s right, because C4 metabolism also confers a metabolic advantage when water and nitrogen are scarce, and when temperatures are high – all the consequences of a fossil fuel-warmed, post fossil fuel world. In fact, the only useless reason for needing C4 rice is for it to be able to garner additional CO₂.

    Not that C4 rice is the answer to anything. The second law of thermodynamics, that thing which you have repeatedly demonstrated is completely beyond any possibility of your comprehension, strongly suggests that the high-tech genetic-modification approach to agriculture is fraught with multiple weak (and terminal) links in the chains of resource utilisation and biospheric interaction. I am guessing that you won’t have a clue what I mean by this, so I’ll leave it as more homework for you to pursue – unless of course you’re just going to imagine up a Tim-Cube™ Law that completely obviates any need to consider anything that the physics of real world imposes on life and its processes.

  43. #43 Bernard J.
    July 1, 2012

    Odin-on-a-stick, I just saw this over at The Conversation:

    David Keeling who began the CO2 readings at Mauna Loa was at first puzzled by this, but soon grasped that with most 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?

    Only someone as febrilely ideological as Curtin could claim an “inverse relation [sic] between CO₂ and temperature”.

    Every time you say stupid things like this, Curtin, an angel weeps. God’s running out of tissues.

  44. #44 Tim Curtin
    www.timcurtin.com
    July 1, 2012

    Bernard J: do me a favour and plot the readings for atmospheric CO2 and for Gistemp between May and September since 1958/9. Do the respective curves both slope up or down? If not, why not?

  45. #45 Tim Curtin
    www.timcurtin.com
    July 1, 2012

    Lotharsson: “It’s right there in front of your face: maximum deflection equals strong absorption.” But only when CO2 and H20 are in Tyndall’s cylinder, as there is no significant deflection and therefore no absorption when only N2 and O 2 are in the cylinder. You are disingenuous when you leave that out.
    Then you hilariously state: “Radiation doesn’t propagate through a vacuum!” Indeed not, ever had a thermos flask?
    Then you are simply silly, not for the first time, when you talk about the sun. The science in Tyndall is about the difference between solar radiation through a transparent short wave medium consisting of 99% or more N2 and O2, and longwave heat absorption and radiation through the IR, which when consisting of 100% N2 and O2 does not register at all.

  46. #46 Tim Curtin
    www.timcurtin.com
    July 1, 2012

    Robert Murphy, yes that’s a great passage on atmospheric water from Tyndall. So do explain why Trenberth & the AR4 WG1 consider there is no radiative forcing by what they call a “condensing GHG with a short life span in the atmosphere of less than 10 days”, whereas my regressions in myACE2011 and TSWJ 2012 papers show that unlike the CO2, changes in the H2O provide strong and statistically significant explanation for temperature changes both globally and in a wide range of locations.

    You are another getting more silly by the day: “the space between the Sun and the earth is an essential vacuum, right?”. No, wrong: the earth’s atmosphere is a very significant non-vacuum, consisting by more than 99% of N2 and O2.
    However just as a vacuum flask keeps the temperature of its contents constant, I accepted your interpretation of Tyndall’s suggestion that in the infrared the N2 and O2 act AS IF they formed a vacuum preventing absorption and radiation of external heat.

  47. #47 Tim Curtin
    July 1, 2012

    Rattus: you are the dope. If vacuum flasks transmitted radiation to their contents, we would not spend money on them.

    Anyway it is clear you have totally misread and misunderstood Tyndall:

    He showed first: #5: “The air of the laboratory, freed from its moisture and carbonic acid, and permitted to enter until the tube was filled,nter until the tube was filled, produced a deflection of about 1o … One specimen of nitrogen, obtained from the decomposition of nitrate of potash, produced a deflection of about 1o…#8 “Air direct from the laboratory, containing therefore its carbonic acid* and aqueous vapour, produced an absorption of 15…

    “Deducting the effect of the gaseous acids, it was found that the quantity of aqueous vapour diffused through the atmosphere on the day in question, produced an absorption at least equal to thirteen times that of the atmosphere itself… But this aqueous vapour, which exercises such a destructive action on the obscure rays, is comparatively transparent to the rays of 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.”

    But not according to the IPCC, Trenberth, and most of you!

  48. #48 Lloyd Flack
    July 1, 2012

    There is nearly 150,000,000 Km of near vacum between Earth and the Sun yet somehow radiation makes it from one to the other. The univesal constant c is defined as the speed of light in vacum. Just look up any physics refference. You are trying to deny fundamental physics.

  49. #49 wow
    July 1, 2012

    Beef, if vacuum flasks didn’t transmit radiation at all, we wouldn’t have the contents get cold at all.

  50. #50 Lotharsson
    July 1, 2012

    You are disingenuous when you leave that out.

    Good grief!

    The bit you added in I agree with, and was implied by the context that you provided, and doesn’t change the fact that you are in error!

    Similarly:

    But not according to the IPCC, Trenberth, and most of you!

    Er, mate, the IPCC and practically everyone here agree with every word of Tyndall that you quoted. Every single one. Indeed, if we disagreed the entire case for AGW would come crashing down.

    The only here disagreeing with Tyndall’s quotes is you when you place an opposite interpretation on the experimental results, specifically:

    … and therefore no absorption when only N2 and O 2 are in the cylinder.

    Amazing how desperate you are to cling to that, when several people have explained how wrong you are.

    Indeed not, ever had a thermos flask?

    Good grief squared.

    Given the loony “physics” you’ve adopted, perhaps it’s not surprising that you don’t know how a vacuum flask works. Or that you chickened out from answering my question about how we can see the sun…if radiation can’t propagate through a vacuum.

    Or that you simply cannot mentally put two (sunlight crosses vacuum) and two (vacuum flask slows down heat loss) together to make anything other than the fifth root of 17 (vacuum stops radiation).

    Speaking of which, how is it in your eyes that we can see the radiation emitted by the sun across millions and millions of kilometres of vacuum? Is it by denying (as you may be doing) that “the space between the Sun and the earth is an essential vacuum” when you respond “No, wrong:…”? Or is it that you think radiation can do a magical Tim-Cube hyperjump across a vacuum as long as there’s a bit of non-vacuum at the other end to land on (that’s cooler than the radiation source), as you appear to imply with your response “…the earth’s atmosphere is a very significant non-vacuum, consisting by more than 99% of N2 and O2″? If so, how come the Hubble Telescope can see the sun without the aid of earth’s atmosphere?

    (And you aren’t in any intellectual position to discuss radiative forcings when you are so horribly and fundamentally mistaken about the basics.)

    Seriously, TC, you need professional medical help. This thread completely demolishes your last one for gobsmacking looniness.

  51. #51 Bernard J.
    July 1, 2012

    Tim Curtin said:

    Bernard J: do me a favour and plot the readings for atmospheric CO2 and for Gistemp between May and September since 1958/9. Do the respective curves both slope up or down?

    I want to ask him a(nother) question, which likely as not he’ll ignore as he does with the vast majority of questions that I put to him.

    Curtin, are you really saying that because there is a seasonal decline in atmospheric CO₂ concentration from May to September, there is no relationship between atmospheric CO₂ concentration and global temperature?

    Really? is this what you are trying to claim?

  52. #52 Bernard J.
    July 1, 2012

    Curtin.

    If Tyndall had set up his apparatus so that his radiation source was where the sun is, and his detector was where the Earth is, and there was nothing but the vacuum of space in between, what would the needle have done?

    Now, answer these questions:

    1) If Tyndall had filled the space between the sun and the Earth with a gaseous mixture of N₂ and O₂ in a
    molar ratio of 2:1 (similar, but not the same, as a dry Earth atmosphere), what would the needle have done?

    2 If Tyndall had filled the space between the sun and the Earth with a gaseous mixture of H₂ and O₂ in a
    molar ratio of 2:1, what would the needle have done?

    3) If Tyndall had filled the space between the sun and the Earth with gaseous N₂O, what would the needle have done?

    4) If Tyndall had filled the space between the sun and the Earth with gaseous H₂O, what would the needle have done?

    5) If Tyndall had filled the space between the sun and the Earth with a gaseous mixture of N₂ and O₂ in a
    molar ratio of 2:1 (similar, but not the same, as Earth’s atmosphere), and if he added, say, 1% N₂O, what would the needle have done?

    6) If Tyndall had filled the space between the sun and the Earth with a gaseous mixture of N₂ and O₂ in a
    molar ratio of 2:1 (similar, but not the same, as Earth’s atmosphere), and if he added, say, 1% H₂O, what would the needle have done?

    7) If Tyndall had filled the space between the sun and the Earth with a gaseous mixture of N₂ and O₂ in a
    molar ratio of 2:1 (similar, but not the same, as Earth’s atmosphere), and if he added, say, 1% CO₂, what would the needle have done?

  53. #53 Lotharsson
    July 1, 2012

    …the earth’s atmosphere is a very significant non-vacuum, consisting by more than 99% of N2 and O2.

    So let me get this straight. TC thinks that:

    a) radiation doesn’t propagate through a vacuum
    b) but radiation from the sun does reach earth
    c) apparently because the earth’s atmosphere is not a vacuum
    d) but is instead largely filled with stuff that TC thinks acts like a vacuum in that it prevents propagation of (at least the longwave IR) radiation
    e) and that if we didn’t have the GHGs to radiate heat away, that same stuff would be responsible for making earth “fry”

    I’m wondering how TC thinks the incoming solar radiation gets through to the atmosphere in the first place. Presumably that same stuff (N2 and O2) must absorb and re-radiate incoming solar radiation, which otherwise could not propagate? I’m hoping he can point me to experimental evidence of that absorption.

  54. #54 adelady
    city of wine and roses
    July 1, 2012

    “the space between the Sun and the earth is an essential vacuum, right?”. No, wrong: the earth’s atmosphere is a very significant non-vacuum…”

    So for those playing along at home ……

    The radiation from the sun has to travel 150 million kms to get to earth, The fact that space is a near vacuum is completely overridden by the fact that when radiation has already travelled 149.99 million kms from the sun it meets an atmospheric skin around the earth. At which point, the extraordinary power exerted by the puny 10000 kms of earth’s atmospheric layers entirely governs the whole journey. Retrospectively?

    How and why radiation traverses that 149.99 million kms gap when it’s claimed not to be able to do so is yet another of the wondrous mysteries of the universe.

  55. #55 Robert Murphy
    July 1, 2012

    Crazy Tim said:
    “Robert Murphy, yes that’s a great passage on atmospheric water from Tyndall.”

    I thought so. In it he explicitly states that H20 prevents radiation from the surface from escaping to space, and that if you remove that H2O, the Earth would be an ice ball. You have insisted that the opposite is true, and that Tyndall agrees with you. If you still insist that Tyndall agrees, you will be lying.

    “changes in the H2O provide strong and statistically significant explanation for temperature changes both globally and in a wide range of locations.”

    So now you claim H2O is a GHG. Amazing. You’ve spent most of this thread saying that H2O isn’t a GHG.

    “You are another getting more silly by the day: “the space between the Sun and the earth is an essential vacuum, right?”. No, wrong: the earth’s atmosphere is a very significant non-vacuum, consisting by more than 99% of N2 and O2.”

    The Sun is 93 million miles away; our atmosphere is a tiny, tiny percentage of that distance. There is essentially 93 million miles of vacuum between us and the Sun. You aren’t under the delusion that our atmosphere extends out to the Sun, are you?? Your statement is one of the stupidest things I have ever seen on the internet, and that says something.

    “But not according to the IPCC, Trenberth, and most of you!”

    Ah, bringing up your earlier lie where you claim that the IPCC doesn’t consider H2O a GHG. I showed you were lying back then, and since you insist, I’ll do it again:
    From AR4 WG1:
    “The two most abundant gases in the atmosphere, nitrogen (comprising 78% of the dry atmosphere) and oxygen (comprising 21%), exert almost no greenhouse effect. Instead, the greenhouse effect comes from molecules that are more complex and much less common. Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas, and carbon dioxide (CO2) is the second-most important one. Methane, nitrous oxide, ozone and several other gases present in the atmosphere in small amounts also contribute to the greenhouse effect.”
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-1-3.html
    Also,
    “Water vapour is a key climate variable. In the lower troposphere, condensation of water vapour into precipitation provides latent heating which dominates the structure of tropospheric diabatic heating (Trenberth and Stepaniak, 2003a,b). Water vapour is also the most important gaseous source of infrared opacity in the atmosphere, accounting for about 60% of the natural greenhouse effect for clear skies (Kiehl and Trenberth, 1997), and provides the largest positive feedback in model projections of climate change (Held and Soden, 2000)”
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3s3-4-2.html

    You’ll notice that the source of the IPCC contention that water vapor provides 60% of the clear sky GHE comes from a paper by Kiehl and Trenberth.

    Again, seek professional help. You are nuts.

  56. #56 Lotharsson
    July 1, 2012

    And let me get this straight:

    a) Earlier in the thread TC correctly answered that the only mechanism that permits heat to escape the earth’s atmosphere is radiation – convection and conduction do not.
    b) Now TC says that a vacuum blocks radiation (and especially outgoing IR).

    TC, how does outgoing IR – which you say is blocked by the vacuum of space surrounding earth – manage to carry energy away from earth? And since, as you point out, “absorption equals (re-)radiation”, your answer cannot be “the vacuum absorbs the energy” – because then it would be re-radiated.
    And are the satellites that carry longwave IR sensors in orbits outside of the earth’s atmosphere creating fake longwave IR readings of earth to send back to scientists on the ground?

  57. #57 Robert Murphy
    July 1, 2012

    “TC, how does outgoing IR – which you say is blocked by the vacuum of space surrounding earth”

    He doesn’t admit there is such a vacuum.

  58. #58 Lotharsson
    July 1, 2012

    He doesn’t admit there is such a vacuum.

    I was waiting to see if he would argue that space is just filled with GHGs so that the pesky non-self-propagating radiation can be helped along. (And the tennis-ball catching and re-throwing kid is necessary for balls to travel to the net opposite the server…)

    It seems to me TC is engaged in cargo cult thinking (presuming he’s not merely desperately bullshitting himself and us, which cannot be ruled out): imagine a physics naif observing that a human dropped out of a plane with a parachute falls to earth, and that the parachute traps air only to releasing it again by flowing around the edges – and then concluding that it is the parachute’s trapping and re-”emitting” of air that provides the motive force that propels the human towards the earth. He would then expect to be able to step out of the plane without a parachute and float in mid air without falling, and have to be restrained from doing so by people he might then accuse of being crazy and deliberately misrepresenting the One True Physics that only he correctly understands…

  59. #59 Tim Curtin
    www.timcurtin.com
    July 1, 2012

    First let me inform you that you are as ever immensely impertinent. This thread is in in effect mine, given its title, and it is about statistical verification or otherwise of the central claims of AGW “science”. It was not honest for Lambert to give it the title he did because the minor error pointed out by Tamino (Grant Foster) in my TSWJ Table 1, is identical to the same error in Tamino of Closed Mind’s 2nd attack on me, on Table 1 in my ACE2011 paper, where in fact my D-W statistic is fully in accordance with the D-W tables showing auto-correlation, while ALL the other Tables in my TSWJ are fully in accordance with D-W.

    I use Tyndall (1861) in an attempt to explain why my LSRs of changes in GMT vis a vis changes in atmospheric CO2 and H2O show the former always to statistically insignificant, while the latter are always statistically significant. Tyndall shows that is spades. He also shows why N2 and O2 whilst transparent to incoming SW solar radiation are impervious to LW heating in the IR spectrum.

    Now it is for you to explain why and how the above simple account may be in error, above all by reporting your own LSR results (if you can do same, which I doubt).

    It is also for you to give answers to your own questions. I am in charge here. Go to it. But I will answer a few of your first questions:

    1) If Tyndall had filled the space between the sun and the Earth with a gaseous mixture of N₂ and O₂ in a molar ratio of 2:1 (similar, but not the same, as a dry Earth atmosphere), what would the needle have done? NOTHING.

    3) If Tyndall had filled the space between the sun and the Earth with gaseous N₂O, what would the needle have done? BIG MOVEMENT.

    4) If Tyndall had filled the space between the sun and the Earth with gaseous H₂O, what would the needle have done? BIG MOVEMENT.

    But this is getting boring. Next question:
    “Curtin, are you really saying that because there is a seasonal decline in atmospheric CO₂ concentration from May to September, there is no relationship between atmospheric CO₂ concentration and global temperature?”

    There is, but prima facie it is inverse. So Bernie: it is again for you to explain why from May to September there is an inverse correlation between changes in CO2 and temperature. I pose the questions here, you are the one who has to answer, unless you start your own Blog where you can set the rules.

  60. #60 Robert Murphy
    July 1, 2012

    “I use Tyndall (1861) in an attempt to explain why my LSRs of changes in GMT vis a vis changes in atmospheric CO2 and H2O show the former always to statistically insignificant, while the latter are always statistically significant. Tyndall shows that is spades. He also shows why N2 and O2 whilst transparent to incoming SW solar radiation are impervious to LW heating in the IR spectrum.”

    You misused Tyndall in an effort to claim that N2 and O2 were GHG’s and that water vapor and CO2 were not and that they even cooled the planet. Tyndall said the opposite, explicitly stating that water vapor and CO2 stops radiation from escaping to space.

    “1) If Tyndall had filled the space between the sun and the Earth with a gaseous mixture of N₂ and O₂ in a molar ratio of 2:1 (similar, but not the same, as a dry Earth atmosphere), what would the needle have done? NOTHING.”

    Yeah, because N2 and O2 are not GHG’s. They let all the radiation escape. As Tyndall said explicitly, the water vapor (and CO2, which acts the same) did not:
    “The aqueous vapour constitutes a local dam, by which the temperature at the planet’s surface is deepened: the dam, however, finally overthrown, and we give to space all that we receive from the sun.
    … Its presence would check the earth’s loss; its absence, without sensibly altering the transparency of the air, would open wide a door for the escape of the earth’s heat into infinitude.”

  61. #61 Lionel A
    July 1, 2012

    Why not keep up with the real world? Try this;

    Source: Susanne von Caemmerer, W. Paul Quick, and Robert T. Furbank (2012). The Development of C4 Rice: Current Progress and Future Challenges. Science 336 (6089): 1671-1672.

    Numbskull. That has nothing to do with apples which rely upon a temperature control for setting. Keeping up with the real world I try to with this one but clearly you are on another, in another universe where the laws of physics are upside down. You really are t’other side of the mirror aren’t you.

    It is well know that crops require nutrients other than CO2, the also require adequate, but not too much, water (ever drowned pot plants – I got trouble from SWMBO once for that). It is recognised that much CO2 enhanced growth can in fact degrade the crops nutritional value and eating quality and can also lead to week plants more susceptible to disease. But of course you either don’t know that, because you will not pay attention to anything that threatens your shibboleths

    Every time you post here you reveal a new depth to your ignorance. Why did you give up whilst you are behind?

  62. #62 Lionel A
    July 1, 2012

    Tim Curtin @ 6:55 am

    Rattus: you are the dope. If vacuum flasks transmitted radiation to their contents, we would not spend money on them.

    No Curtin it is you who is the dope.

    I’ll point out yet again my analogy to Tyndall’s experimental methodology quoting from my June 30, 3:45 pm, now pay close attention:

    Rattus has now explained Tyndall’s experimental methodology crystal clear.

    Think of it like this, take a plank balanced on a fulcrum. Now place 90gm weights on the plank at equal distances either side of the fulcrum.

    Place 10gm weights exactly on the centres of the 90gm weights.

    Now remove one of the 10gm weights. What happens?

    Only he who displays invincible ignorance would now continue to debate this point…

    I’ll add to that if you henceforth should continue to misrepresent Tyndall, and others here, then there is but one conclusion to draw, which is if heat energy transfers across the inside of your head then the only mechanism will be radiation for that is all that can transfer heat through a vacuum.

    Now as for this gem, yes I did notice that it was not addressed to myself:

    First let me inform you that you are as ever immensely impertinent. This thread is in in effect mine, given its title…

    That is like the Emperor shouting ‘look at my clothes, look at my clothes’, whilst totally and utterly naked right down to his soul.

  63. #63 Lotharsson
    July 1, 2012

    First let me inform you that you are as ever immensely impertinent.

    Good grief, you’re even deluded about that.

    I am in charge here.

    Deluded about that too.

    I pose the questions here…

    Not exclusively, so wrong about that in a sense…

    …, you are the one who has to answer, unless you start your own Blog where you can set the rules.

    Er, TC, you seem to have added a new delusion – that this is your blog. Go ahead, try and create a new thread. Point us at it when you succeed. I’ll be waiting over here…

    (And I notice you haven’t answered a whole bunch of inconvenient questions about how you think radiation works, and vacuums affect radiation, and how the heck we can see the sun, and that tennis-ball catching kid, and why the moon hasn’t fried yet even though it is surrounded by all that insulating vacuum, and so forth…)

  64. #64 FrankD
    July 1, 2012

    >I am in charge here.

    Fuck me, his delusionometer goes to Eleven!

    >Now it is for you to explain why and how the above simple account may be in error.
    We’ve been talking about buying some pet goldfish, and kicking around names. I have a Shebunkin with Timmehs name on it. 8 pages of doing little else, and he still can’t see his error.

    I’d like to reassure Loth, BJ etc that this is worth the effort. The home viewers are getting an immense amount of entertainment…

  65. #65 Lotharsson
    July 1, 2012

    …his delusionometer goes to Eleven!

    And eleven means I’m making more sense than is humanly possible, damnit! Zero is what you get when you pass complete impertinent nonsense through the tubez, like your comments! And those IPCC guys! You are simply lying when you say it measures delusion – eleven means so utterly sensible I can barely stand it – and you clearly can’t understand it! And only two or three people on the planet read eleven – and I’m struggling to think who the others are, but that guy on some random forum who I reckon backed my view is probably one of them!

    (Nah…quick efforts at satire simply can’t compete…)

  66. #66 Lloyd Flack
    July 1, 2012

    Tim Curtin, the point of having a vacum flask is to prevent heat from escaping by conduction or convection not to prevent radiation. The effective vacum between Earth and the Sun does stop heat getting here by those means. It does not form any barrier at all to radiation. Sivering such a flask does reduce but not eliminate radiation. You have no idea at all of what you are taking about. The only way I think you could end up saying things that are so dumb is by not making any effort to understand and only trying to come up with arguments for your desired conclusion.

  67. #67 Lotharsson
    July 1, 2012

    I also wonder if the folks at The Conversation who endure TC’s regular comments are aware of this thread.

    The home viewers are getting an immense amount of entertainment…

    It started out entertaining, but I’m now concerned that TC may have cracked and be in need of professional help.

  68. #68 wow
    July 1, 2012

    Beef, if the plants could use all that extra CO2, why haven’t they?

  69. #69 P. Lewis
    July 1, 2012

    Tim Curtin reinvents…

    The number line: 1, 3, 2, 7, 16, 4, 9D1, 3, 6, … And since vacuums don’t exist and nothing exists in a vacuum, he’s done away with the number 5!

    The alphabet: Still WIP. He’s exactly halfway through; he’s got 19 of the graphemes and given them names, but he hasn’t come up with the other 23 graphemes and names yet.

  70. #70 Bernard J.
    July 1, 2012

    But this is getting boring. Next question

    Why won’t you answer the other questions – the ones for which questions 1 to 4 served as baselines?

    Oh, that’s right – because you know that you’re up the proverbial polluted water course with no means of levereaged propulsion. That, and the inconvenient fact that the whole bloody concept of baselines is completely beyond you…

    So Bernie: it is again for you to explain why from May to September there is an inverse correlation between changes in CO2 and temperature. I pose the questions here, you are the one who has to answer, unless you start your own Blog where you can set the rules.

    Oh, you sad, deluded old fool. You can’t explain the physics behind a cherry-picked snippet of a complex interaction of parameters that you pretend supports your contention, but which you know deep down in your belly has nothing to do with your claim of inverse relationship, so you reflect the questioning on to me instead. Stay on topic – if you are able.

    If my questions from 8:14 am on 1 July are too confronting for you though, we can instead pick apart your claim of inverse correlation a little more, as this May-September thing seems to be so important to you…

    When I compare the cyclic May-September decrease in atmospheric CO₂ to the two planetary hemispheres, I get a positive correlation with the South and an inverse one with the North. Why do you think that this is? If your claim of inverse effect is valid, then surely something else is happening in the South? What might that be? Oo, if you’ve missed at least one additional parameter, how many more have you missed? And might it be something else entirely is occurring more generally in the decadal warming trajectory, that you are ignoring?

    And Curtin, you can’t be scientific about anything if your attention span evaporates halfway through answering a few simple questions. Certainly, if you want to be able to deduce the flaws in your idiocy about the May-September CO₂/temperature relationship, you’ll carefully answer each of the questions in the preceding paragraph. If you haven’t cottoned on to it by now (after years of avoiding the thousands of questions that I’ve put to you) this is the pedagogical approach I employ to encourage enlightenment in my own students. You clumsily emulate it whenever you’re squeezed into a corner, but it seems that you don’t actually understand how one might learn from genuinely trying to grasp what others are trying to lead you toward.

    You would do well to consider the knowledge of tens of thousands of professional scientists, including those of us on this blog and others – in all matters of scientific understanding, there are many of us here who wipe the floor with you. You may have scammed your way through a career in economics, but you’re fooling no-one about your complete absence of any ability in science – except yourself.

  71. #71 luminous beauty
    July 1, 2012

    “So Bernie: it is again for you to explain why from May to September there is an inverse correlation between changes in CO2 and temperature.”

    May to September is the northern hemisphere summer. Since most of the earth’s land is in the northern hemisphere, and since there is greater seasonal variability in land surface temperatures than sea surface temperatures, there is an upward seasonal signal in the global temperature record reflecting NH summer.

    Summer is also when plants photosynthesize the most CO2. Since most of Earth’s flora grow in the NH, there is downward seasonal cycle in global CO2 concentration reflecting NH summer.

    That wasn’t so hard, was it?

  72. #72 Lionel A
    July 1, 2012

    Tim Curtin @ 4:15 am WRT crops:

    Why not keep up with the real world?

    Well in the real world we get this:

    Greenland Melt Record Likely

    this

    NBC Meteorologist On Record Heat Wave: ‘If We Did Not Have Global Warming, We Wouldn’t See This’

    and this

    Hell And High Water Strikes, Media Miss The Forest For The Burning Trees

    Problem for you is that this is only a small fraction of examples showing increasing CO2 and temperatures are not necessarily, indeed almost certainly are not, a good thing as this sample will show you:

    Scholarly articles

    Trust to GM crops did I catch you advocating somewhere? Well lookee here:

    Nature fights back against GM corn

    This may be getting away from the main topic of YOUR (Hah!) thread but you started this meme running way up there somewhere, but this simply reflects your inability to offer sensible opinion on just about any aspect to do with global warming and climate change.

  73. #73 Robert Murphy
    July 1, 2012

    “This thread is in in effect mine…”

    Last time I checked, it was still Tim Lambert’s.

  74. #74 luminous beauty
    July 1, 2012

    “This thread is in in effect mine…”

    The narcissism in this one is of truly megalomaniac proportions.

  75. #75 Lionel A
    July 1, 2012

    To add to that ‘Greenland Melt Record Likely’ that I raised to make Curtin think (yeah remote possibility I know) consider this:

    Greenland Ice Sheet Melt Nearing Critical ‘Tipping Point’ and note the comments about possibleprobable increase in sea level rise if Grennland ice enters a new melt phase and consider what that could mean for the stability of West Antarctic ice.

    Also note the comment about a crashed nuclear bomber payload.

    Also this The Weekend Wonk: Measuring Sea Level in Detail was linked to. Worth you watching Curtin.

    Note the advice, from Nicholas Shackleton alluded to early on, ‘Give yourself time to think’.

    So Curtin, before firing back with the same ol’, same ol’, give yourself time to think about all issues that you have clearly misunderstood and also read up on them from sources other than those that you normally seem to rely upon. Are you dyslexic by any chance?

  76. #76 ianam
    July 1, 2012

    You are another getting more silly by the day: “the space between the Sun and the earth is an essential vacuum, right?”. No, wrong: the earth’s atmosphere is a very significant non-vacuum, consisting by more than 99% of N2 and O2.

    So Tim thinks that the Earth’s atmosphere extends to the sun. or something. It’s hard to say, because Tim’s stupidity exceeds human comprehension. The closest thing to it I’ve ever seen is Zippy the Pinhead.

  77. #77 Tim Curtin
    www.timcurtin.com
    July 2, 2012

    Now that you have all become as inane as ianam’s last post, time to call a halt.

  78. #78 Bernard J.
    July 2, 2012

    Tim Curtin.

    Now that Luminous Beauty has fluffed your brain for you with a succinct and very clear explanation, do you understand why your ‘discovery’ about the annual cyclic May-September decrease in atmospheric CO₂ is a spurious cherry pick?

    And are you prepared to answer all of the questions that you avoided the first, second, and third (et cetera) times around?

    And really:

    “This thread is in in effect mine…”

    if this were the case, Deltoid would in fact be moderated by dozens of the world’s silliest climate change deniers, because most of the threads are eponymously focussed on them. The same holds for RealClimate, Open Mind, Rabbet Run, and all of the other science-based blogs that deconstruct the nonsense of the Denialati. So how exactly does this work?

    Conversely, there are around the world scientists – and their supporters – who apparently “own” threads on WWWT, the Curry House, Bishop Bump, Climate Audit [sic], (et cetera, et cetera, et cetera), but I don’t see them given permission to moderate the threads.

    Your general logic is as poor as is your scientific understanding.

  79. #79 Lotharsson
    July 2, 2012

    Ah, TC declines to continue attempting to defend the glaring conflicts between his claims and objective reality…

    Any bets on whether he’ll be back, as he was on other threads after declaring his departure?

  80. #80 Bernard J.
    July 2, 2012

    Now that you have all become as inane as ianam’s last post, time to call a halt.

    Bletchley Park says that this really means:

    Run away! Run away!

  81. #81 ianam
    July 2, 2012

    time to call a halt.

    Whatever it takes, cretin.

  82. #82 bill
    July 2, 2012

    First let me inform you that you are as ever immensely impertinent. This thread is in in effect mine, given its title, and it is about statistical verification or otherwise of the central claims of AGW “science”.

    In honour of its custodial association with His Supreme Galacticship, and in order to sate his righteous sense of injustice in the face of discursive discourse violating the bounds of this, His Eponymous Realm, could we not simply truncate the title of his Historical legacy gifted to the global intertubes, thus obviating surplus wordage, magnitude three, and yielding the succinct and apt ‘Tim Curtin’s incompetence’, and then call it quits?

    Duffer, if you’re reading this, his a silly old bugger who really is a Master at getting the attention you crave…

  83. #83 wow
    July 2, 2012

    It’s more about your incompetence, Beef.

    The thread is about you, not yours.

  84. #84 P. Lewis
    July 2, 2012

    There is a saying that seems apposite at this juncture.

    I guess TC needs a little more thinking time to rework the basic physics of Einstein and Planck. And that is really only fair, as those luminaries didn’t have us blog-world oiks taking up their valuable time whilst trying to lay the foundations of modern physics.

  85. #85 FrankD
    July 2, 2012

    “This thread is in in effect mine…”

    “…time to call a halt.”

    Okay Tim, since this thread is yours, just close it to further comments. :-)

  86. #86 Chris O'Neill
    July 2, 2012

    Peter Medawar’s review of Teilhard de Chardin’s “The Phenomenon of Man” is remarkably applicable to anything purportedly scientific Curtin has written:

    “Teilhard practised an intellectually unexacting kind of science in which he achieved a moderate proficiency.”

    This would be economics in Curtin’s case.

    “He has no grasp of what makes a logical argument or of what makes for proof. He does not even preserve the common decencies of scientific writing, though his book is professedly a scientific treatise.”

    Medawar concluded his review with:

    “I have read and studied The Phenomenon of Man with real distress, even with despair. Instead of wringing our hands over the Human Predicament, we should attend to those parts of it which are wholly remediable, above all to the gullibility which makes it possible for people to be taken in by such a bag of tricks as this. If it were an innocent, passive gullibility it would be excusable; but all too clearly, alas, it is an active willingness to be deceived.”

    I noticed the citation of Medawar’s review in Scholars and Rogues “Surrounded by people “educated far beyond their capacity to undertake analytical thought””. The phenomenon of active willingness to be deceived is, of course, widespread in climate science denial.

  87. #87 Rattus Norvegicus
    July 2, 2012

    Chris,

    The best part about that post is the first comment. In it the commentator makes the author’s point for him by misapplying a set of facts and observations to reach an incorrect and invalid conclusion. Much like Tim.

  88. #88 Mark Harrigan
    Melbourne
    July 2, 2012

    Folks, this is not the first (nor I suspect will it be the last) time that Tim Curtin has shown that his grasp of basic physics is, shall we say, tenuous at best.

    On The Conversation he has said (when belittling Trenberth’s Energy Budget papers and the issue of radiative forcing)

    ” What tosh! How much heat is delivered by 0.9 W per sq. metre? Not enough to boil a kettle!” to try and belittle how much the energy imbalance impacted the planet.

    I answered

    “Well Tim the correct answer is talk about how much power is involved and the answer is 459 Terra Watts of power or 459,000,000,000,000 Joules every second.”

    That IS the power delivered to the planet by 0.9 Wm-2

    He then went on to say “In brief, it requires 50 Watts to get a kettle to boil in 3 minutes”

    To which I replied “For a perfectly insulated kettle with 1kg of water at STP, it takes 419Kj to increase a litre of water’s temperature from 0 degrees to 100 degrees. That would take 50 Watts of power about 2 hours and twenty minutes :)
    If the water were at room temperature it would take 50 Watts about 1hr 50 minutes.”

    Not content with this demonstration of scientific illteracy Mr Curtin continued here
    https://theconversation.edu.au/can-australian-farmers-take-on-the-challenge-of-climate-change-6957
    Tim Curtin:

    “Photons are the light energy arriving from the sun; the infrared LW radiation from the surface travels only from warm to cool. We still all want to know how much electricity your solar panels generate at night from all that back radiation.
    In reply to Timothy Curtin, Mark Harrigan
    “Wrong – photons are emitted from bodies producing energy. They don’t get to “select” whether or not they travel TO a cooler body. The spectrum (or range of frequencies or wavelengths) of photons from a heat emitting body is a function SOLELY of its blackbody radiation curve the spectral shape of which varies according to temperature. It does NOT vary according to what body those photons subsequently pass through, or are absorbed by, or are reflected by.
    Mr Curtin just continues to demonstrate he is at the top the climate science Dunning-Kruger effect class – which is to say not only does he not have a clue what he is talking about but that he is astoundingly unaware of his total ignorance.”
    and
    “Oh yes, probably wasting my time with Tim “Dunning-Kruger” Curtin but this comment on Solar panels and IR radiation is so astoundingly silly it beggars belief.
    Tim – photons come in quanta (discrete packets of energy) that are inversely proportional to the wavelength and proportional to the frequency. So High frequency photons (e.g. UV) have higher energy per quanta than low frequency (e.g. IR)
    For a solar panel to work the quanta of the photon must be above the excitation energy (band-gap) of the panel which is a function of its chemical composition. If the photon is too high frequency it passes through and doesn’t get absorbed. If the photon is too low frequency (longer wavelength) it cannot produce electricity but just heats the panel.
    Most solar panels have a very poor spectral response in the IR range.
    In other words the Back Radiation (being IR) is irrelevant when talking about solar panels.
    A simple explanation is here http://pvcdrom.pveducation.org/CELLOPER/spectral.htm
    a more complex one is here http://www.eere.energy.gov/basics/renewable_energy/pv_cell_conversion_efficiency.html
    One would have hoped you’d have the sense to stop embarrassing yourself with the silly ignorant statements you make in this area – but apparently not :)
    —————
    Tim Curtin

    Once you mention Dunning Kruger, which fits you perfectly, I know it is a waste of time conversing with you.
    The question you refuse to answer is what happens to Trenberth’s back radiation to the earth of 324 W/sq. per second day and night. Neither you nor D-K have a clue.
    Bye.
    Mark Harrigan
    Idiotically wrong again. The notion of a Watt per second is physically meaningless.
    A Watt is a JOULE PER SECOND.
    Tim – stop making such a silly ass of yourself (by the way 342 Wm-2 is the total incident solar radiation at TOA it is NOT the backscattered IR that Trenberth reports – that’s actually around 333 Wm-2)
    One wonder how you manage to get things so wrong and not see it.
    Tim “Dunning Kruger” strikes again!!

    ——————
    Tim Curtin

    ….. what is the heat content of the photons? If it is the 342 W/sq.m.PER SECOND backradiated to earth according to Trenberth & co, what happens to that incredible amount of heat? We would all be fried critters by now if Trenberth is right
    Mark Harrigan
    See my comment above. Curtin has no idea what he is even saying. A Watt (a unit of power) is a Joule (a unit of energy) per second.
    To talk about W/m-2 per second is physics gibberish – which reflects Mr Curtin’s understanding of the subject matter – which is to say less than zero.
    And 342 @m-2 is the total incident Solar power at TOA – backscattered Ir is about 333 Wm-2
    Tim Curtin
    Thanks Mark, I am glad you agree that the IPCC’s AR4 WG1 is total gibberish, because at p. 96 when displaying Trenberth’s Mickey Mouse cartoon, it states “The amount of energy reaching the top of Earth’s atmosphere EACH SECOND on a surface area of one square metre facing the sun during DAYTIME is about 1,370 Watts, and the amount of energy per square metre per second averaged over the entire planet is one quarter of this (Fig.1)” – and of that amount only 168 W/sq.m reaches the surface.
    But by Trenberth’s sorcery, no less than 390 W/sq.m. is radiated by the surface, and 324 W/sq.m. [PER SECOND] is back radiatted, hallelujah! Alas, despite that, we need our fire going flat out here in Canberra tonight, as the back radiation never seems to reach us with or without panels, and we are giving up on carbon taxed electric heating.
    —-
    Mark Harrigan
    I really don’t know whether to laugh or cry at such persistent idiocy.
    Tim – IPCC is 100% correct – you just 150% fail to understand it.
    The amount of energy… per second (that’s power measured in Watts) is indeed 1370 Watts (joules every second) per square meter
    Let me re-word the IPCC statement in kindergarten terms for you to understand
    The amount of energy (joules) reaching the top of Earth’s atmosphere EACH SECOND on a surface area of one square metre facing the sun during DAYTIME is about 1,370 Watts (1370 Joules per second per m2), and the amount of energy per square metre per second averaged over the entire planet is one quarter of this (Fig.1) (that’s the 342Wm-2 I have alluded to).
    You know I’ve never before encountered someone so obdurately dense.
    ————-
    Looks like he continues this silliness here. One does have to wonder at the sanity of someone so astoundingly silly

  89. #89 Lionel A
    July 2, 2012

    Chris O’Neill

    As this thread unfolded, and Curtin descended ever lower, Medawar’s deconstruction of Teilhard sprang to mind my having come across this via Richard Dawkin’s book ‘A Devil’s Chaplin’ ( which is more a collection of essays by others than a pure Dawkins and none the worse for that and I recommend it) and it is to the RDF site that I now turn first with the extended version of a chapter therein.

    Please note the link at head of comment to original article by Jerry Coyne who is another author worth reading:

    Postmodernism Disrobed

    Readers of Curtin’s paper may think of his writing style.

    And one for tone trolls to consider, sorry about the choice of words in the title, not mine (just incase Curtin should get fired up):

    Are we phalluses? – Comments

    These words of Dawkins are particularly apt these days:

    Similarly, when I employ ridicule against the arguments of a young earth creationist, I am almost never trying to convert the YEC himself. That is probably a waste of time. I am trying to influence all the third parties listening in, or reading my books.

    For an example of just what Dawkins means search on YouTube for Wendy Wright.

    Mention of Medaware crops up quite often at the RDF site quite rightly for such a keen thinker.

  90. #90 P. Lewis
    July 2, 2012

    Thomas Jefferson said:

    Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; …

    I’m quite fond of ridicule, as some may have noted. The quotation goes on thus:

    … them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.

    which may be useful in another sphere.

  91. #91 Lionel A
    July 2, 2012

    Oops!
    Dawkins’ and not Dawkin’s and Medawar not Medaware.

  92. #92 Rattus Norvegicus
    July 2, 2012

    Lionel A,

    The second link in your comment (Are we phalluses?) is empty.

  93. #93 Lionel A
    July 2, 2012

    Sorry about that, drop a ” and it fails but still looks good in the post. Not helped by the text in the Post Comment box being smaller than the main page thus the missing ” is much harder for old eyes to spot.

    Please can we have our preview back. Please.

    Hope this works:

    Are we phalluses?

  94. #94 ianam
    July 2, 2012
  95. #95 wow
    July 3, 2012

    It.s a common enough phallusy…

  96. #96 bill
    July 3, 2012

    wow – boom boom!

    Look, seriously, where’s the evidence from history, or social anthropology, that unfailing ‘reasonable’ politeness in the face of intractable belligerence is what succeeds? Sure, reasonable opponents (if such still exist in this debate) might be talked around; enemies, on the other hand – that’s irredeemable opponents – must be defeated, and if necessary humiliated in the process. All else is tone-trolling writ large…

  97. #97 wow
    July 3, 2012

    You have to be comfortable using your language, bill. Neither utter restraint nor forced anger works and some just aren’t comfortable with saying “You ignorant whine prick, listen….” and I won’t tell them they must.

    It would be nice if they returned the favour and stopped saying I’m doing it wrong, though. Even non-trolling complaint is forcing someone to act different and if someone can’t respond to a query because they’re busy obsessing over the f-bomb in it,they’re definitely doing it wrong.

  98. #98 bill
    July 3, 2012

    wow: Oh, sure, if folks are naturally polite and relatively imperturbable, all the better. Many ways of being brutally Speciesist and pelt-acquisitive to the Cat, and all that… those who can be magnificently scathing while being unswervingly polite are the most impressive of all.

    But I’ve come from a background of having to contend with people who argue that withholding information regarding protest intentions from the Police is a species of violence, and I’ve been upbraided for shouting unkind things at Arms Dealers and obstructing passage of their vehicles. Now, if folks want to stand around bearing witness, I’m happy with that… but how about returning the same courtesy with regard to my chosen NVDA?… (with the emphasis on the ‘D’ bit here, while still firmly maintaining the ‘NV’)

  99. #99 Bernard J.
    July 4, 2012


    The Ballad of Brave Sir Robin

    Bravely bold Sir Robin rode forth from Camelot.
    He was not afraid to die, O brave Sir Robin!
    He was not at all afraid to be killed in nasty ways,
    Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Robin!

    He was not in the least bit scared to be mashed into a pulp,
    Or to have his eyes gouged out, and his elbows broken;
    To have his kneecaps split, and his body burned away;
    And his limbs all hacked and mangled, brave Sir Robin!

    His head smashed in and his heart cut out
    And his liver removed and his bowels unplugged
    And his nostrils raped and his bottom burned off
    And his pen…

    Brave Sir Robin ran away.
    Bravely ran away, away!
    When danger reared its ugly head,
    He bravely turned his tail and fled.
    Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
    And gallantly he chickened out.
    Bravely taking to his feet
    He beat a very brave retreat,
    Bravest of the brave, Sir Robin!

    He is packing it in and packing it up
    And sneaking away and buggering up
    And chickening out and pissing off home,
    Yes, bravely he is throwing in the sponge…

    [I'd originally replaced 'Sir Robin from Camelot' with 'Tim Curtin from Denielot', and with his subsequent misdeeds, but one can't genuinely improve on Monty Python...]

  100. #100 Bernard J.
    July 4, 2012

    I should have probably added a salient but little-known fact…

    Brave Sir Robin named his horse ‘Science’.

The site is undergoing maintenance presently. Commenting has been disabled. Please check back later!