Tim Curtin's incompetence with basic statistics

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 (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.

More like this

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07/yes-virginia-cooler-objects-can-mak…

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

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

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

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

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

Eh?!

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

Eh?!

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

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

...and to radiate it back to the earth - backradiation.

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

re Bernard June 21, 2:29 pm

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

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

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

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

You're being an extraordinarily obtuse fool about this.

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

Odin-on-a-stick, you're slow.

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

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

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

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

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 23 Jun 2012 #permalink

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

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

You are an idiot.

These are all incontrovertible facts, Tim.

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

No it doesn't.

This too is an incontrovertible fact.

Crap. I hate this new blog format...

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

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 23 Jun 2012 #permalink

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"The law that entropy always increases holds"

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

100% wrong. Again.

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

And what's wrong with that?

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

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

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 23 Jun 2012 #permalink

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"No,"

I said I can *almost* believe. Sheesh.

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

Sheesh.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Robert Murphy (not verified) on 23 Jun 2012 #permalink

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Tim Curtin (not verified) on 23 Jun 2012 #permalink

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Robert Murphy (not verified) on 23 Jun 2012 #permalink

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

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

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

How? Should he be worried about his personal safety?

By Robert Murphy (not verified) on 23 Jun 2012 #permalink

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The earth absorbs 492W/m2

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

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

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

Correct.

"or anything else"

False.

"so they are the real GHGs."

False.

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

True.

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

False.

"No, they scatter photons"

False.

"in ALL directions, not just up. This is observation."

False.

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

False.

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

CO23???

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where footnote 1 explains:

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

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

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

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

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

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

He later helpfully points out :

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

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

So when you say:

The "0" reading indicates zero absorption and radiation...

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

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

And Tyndall's evidence also directly contradicts you:

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

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

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

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 23 Jun 2012 #permalink

He's not using logic to derive claims.

Faith.

Unshakeable and ignorant faith.

Unshakeable and ignorant faith.

Indeed.

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

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 23 Jun 2012 #permalink

Both A and not-A lead to his conclusion.

(In his mind, that is...)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 23 Jun 2012 #permalink

What there is of it...

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

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

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 23 Jun 2012 #permalink

The Light Of God shines from his monitor, Bernard.

TC, at 3:22am you wrote

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

Er, you are wrong, again.

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

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

Then at 4:29am you wrote:

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

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

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

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

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 23 Jun 2012 #permalink

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

There was nothing to negate, git.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, my regressions confirm this.

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

7. "the number of degrees through which the RADIATION from the [gases] urged the needle of the galvanometer :-
Air . ......0
Oxygen ... 0
Nitrogen. .... 0
Hydrogen ..... 0
Carbonic oxide . . . 12
Carbonic acid .. 18
Nitrous oxide . . . . 29
Olefiant gas ... 53”
8. "If we inspect the results above recorded, we shall find that the elementary gases hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and the mixture atmospheric air, possess absorptive and radiative powers beyond comparison less than those of the compound gases."

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

By Tim Curtin (not verified) on 24 Jun 2012 #permalink

You have yet to controvert any of them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

How about it?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 24 Jun 2012 #permalink

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

Which is what several people have been saying all along.

What's the problem?

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

Inane: "There was nothing to negate, git."

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

You made a claim

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

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

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

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

and sufficient scientific understanding

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

"My claim was about my mental state"

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

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

talking about yourself?

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

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

Your claim was about Tim’s mental state,

You're a lying sack of garbage.

“pulling off an elaborate Poe

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

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

What I don't understand is why.

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

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

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

LOL:

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

Wheel rediscovered! We've only known it since ...what? Since Tyndall's measurements!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Tim Curtin (not verified) on 24 Jun 2012 #permalink

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

Wow: you are indeed a WoSpace.

By Tim Curtin (not verified) on 24 Jun 2012 #permalink

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

Now.

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

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

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

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

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

What use is a definition acknowledged by virtually everyone anyway?

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

A facepalm just isn't sufficient!

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

No worries.

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

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

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

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

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

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

And - as others have asked - given that N2 and O2 are essentially equivalent to no atmosphere at all, why hasn't our Moon "fried"?

Inquiring minds want to know.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 24 Jun 2012 #permalink

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

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

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

By Richard Simons (not verified) on 24 Jun 2012 #permalink

TC June 23, 4:29 am

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

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

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

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

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

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

TC June 23, 12:42 pm

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

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

TC 12:28 pm

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

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

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

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

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

You are becoming a joke

He has never not been. As Tim Lambert wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and

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

Dear Fans

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

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

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

By Tim Curtin (not verified) on 25 Jun 2012 #permalink

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

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

By Tim Curtin (not verified) on 25 Jun 2012 #permalink

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

Once again I rest my case.

By Tim Curtin (not verified) on 25 Jun 2012 #permalink

Once again I rest my case.

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

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

Really, you have nothing.

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

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

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

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

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 25 Jun 2012 #permalink

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

Tim Curtin on this very thread:

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

"and that is what Grant Closed Mind Foster"

"Loathsome Lotharssome:..."

"Lewis: you are thicker than a miilion planks."

"Your are all clowns."

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

"Yes, you are all 10 year olds!"

Hypocrisy, thy name is Tim Curtin.

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

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

By Robert Murphy (not verified) on 25 Jun 2012 #permalink

"you’re in the early stages of mental decline?"

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

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

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

That isn't "early stages", that's nearly life-support stage mental decline.

"Finally, here is the total refiutation of Kevin"

Case in point of his brain damage, that.

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

Here's a hint: NAFF ALL.

Where, for example, is the "back radiation" that you whine on and on (and on and on and on...) about in that picture?

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

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

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 25 Jun 2012 #permalink

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

Not in a way that is called "The Greenhouse Effect".

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

102W/m^2

"plus from the absorbed radiative heat from ‘GHGs""

390W/,^2.

Note also Timski, here you're calling the gasses that AREN'T N2 and O2 "GHGs".

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

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

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

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

"Nahle has shown theoretically from partial molar specific heat data"

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

...have supported my claims based on Tyndall...

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 25 Jun 2012 #permalink

...here is Markus Fitzhenry at The Conversation...

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

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

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

More from Marcus...

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

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

And then there's this nougat of pseudoscience:

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

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

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

Hypocritical hypocrite is hypocritical.

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

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

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

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 25 Jun 2012 #permalink

LOL.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is the average global surface temperature 255 K?

No! It's ~288 K

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

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

Curtin

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

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

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

Lionel A.

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

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

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

I suspect that Tim Curtin will not be sufficiently alert that he could see this "tiny problem"...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 25 Jun 2012 #permalink

Dim Cretin:

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

I can hardly wait.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 25 Jun 2012 #permalink

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

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

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

Er, make that "trying to convince people that ... energy can travel from cold to hot".

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

That alone is a hoot!

Tim Curtin should head over there and join in.

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

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 26 Jun 2012 #permalink

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

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

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

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

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

By Tim Curtin (not verified) on 26 Jun 2012 #permalink

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

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

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

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 26 Jun 2012 #permalink

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

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

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

That alone is a hoot!

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

This part is also very amusing:

professional weather people

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a) higher
b) lower
c) identical to

the global average surface temperature of planet B?

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

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 26 Jun 2012 #permalink

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

Don't be an idiot - if you can!

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

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

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

You would fail high school accounting with your current analysis.

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

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 26 Jun 2012 #permalink

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

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

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

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 26 Jun 2012 #permalink

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

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

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

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 26 Jun 2012 #permalink

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

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

If not, then why not?

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

If not, then why not?

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

Are there other options?

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

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

By Robert Murphy (not verified) on 26 Jun 2012 #permalink

P. Lewis,

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

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 26 Jun 2012 #permalink

Actually, I don't find it funny now.

It's too scary-pathetic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Radiation.

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

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

Then you shift from physics to cash flows:

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

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

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

Now for P. Lewis: 9:17 am

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

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

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

Robert Murphy: can you explain more fully?

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

By Tim Curtin (not verified) on 26 Jun 2012 #permalink

Bejasus, when have I ever disputed Tyndall here?

Epic Comprehension Fail!

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

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 26 Jun 2012 #permalink

It depends on the gases in his cylinder.

Frack me while I'm ROFLMAO!

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

Seriously?

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

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 26 Jun 2012 #permalink

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

Epic Comprehension Fail again.

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

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

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 26 Jun 2012 #permalink

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

"[N]o evidence?"

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

Do you really need to be reminded - again?

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

I think that's what is colloquially referred to as an 'own goal'...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 26 Jun 2012 #permalink

No, as that is ...

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

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

Intellectually consistency - ur doin it rong.

How do you explain that?

And there's the third Epic Comprehension Fail!

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

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

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 26 Jun 2012 #permalink

"Radiation."

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

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

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

TC 1:47 pm

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

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

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

"Robert Murphy: can you explain more fully?"

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

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

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

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

By Robert Murphy (not verified) on 26 Jun 2012 #permalink

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

Yes, Captain Subtext has translated that for us:

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

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

LOL!

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

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

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

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

Now he just sucks.

"You say: “Ah yes, scientific confirmation is obtained by someone somewhere on the internet agreeing with you.” By that token your disagreements with me here are of no consequence. Do you agree?"

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

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

Thank you Robert Murphy.

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

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

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

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

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

By Tim Curtin (not verified) on 27 Jun 2012 #permalink

The Thing That Wouldn't Understand, anyone?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fixed it for you.

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

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

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

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

energy emanating from the earth’s surface.

Fixed it for you.

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

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

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

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 27 Jun 2012 #permalink

Bummer, formatting error :-(

And I concur with bill's prediction.

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

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 27 Jun 2012 #permalink

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

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

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

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

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

Let's try this formatting:

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

Fixed it for you.

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

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

LESS, Tim, LESS.

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

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

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 27 Jun 2012 #permalink

Tim Curtin is painfully obviously unaware of the concept of 'baseline'...

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

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

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 27 Jun 2012 #permalink

Curtin:
"But I do not understand..."

We know.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Robert Murphy (not verified) on 27 Jun 2012 #permalink

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

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

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

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

a) more
b) less
c) the same number

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

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 27 Jun 2012 #permalink

Murphy: congrats on all your new Laws of Physics:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Tim Curtin (not verified) on 27 Jun 2012 #permalink

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

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

By Tim Curtin (not verified) on 27 Jun 2012 #permalink

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

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

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

WRONG.

"The N2 and O2 CANNOT be part of a vacuum."

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

FFS.

"and the N2 and O2 fail to propel heat through it"

They fail to STOP it, FFS.

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

WRONG.

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

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

"Murphy: congrats on all your new Laws of Physics:"

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

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

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

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

No shit - that's why you'll notice that word "like", Are you really this dense? Yes, you are.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Robert Murphy (not verified) on 27 Jun 2012 #permalink

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

Epic Do-Not-Understand-Physics Fail redux.

The N2 and O2 CANNOT be part of a vacuum.

Epic English Comprehension Fail.

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

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

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 27 Jun 2012 #permalink

...you are too boring to deserve a response...

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

Thanks.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 27 Jun 2012 #permalink

There can be no sensible discussion with TC.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 27 Jun 2012 #permalink

Gack. If only preview would be my friend again.

You are a stubbornly deluded man...

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

...vacuum chambers werewhere one can clearly...

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 27 Jun 2012 #permalink

What is TC's endgame here?

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

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

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

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 27 Jun 2012 #permalink

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

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

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 27 Jun 2012 #permalink

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Richard Simons (not verified) on 27 Jun 2012 #permalink

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

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

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 27 Jun 2012 #permalink

TC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you really too stupid to be a twerp?

:

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

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

...so earth cannot emit radiation in their general direction!

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

Immensely fracking knowledgeable and intelligent, Earth is!

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

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

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

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 27 Jun 2012 #permalink

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

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

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

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

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 27 Jun 2012 #permalink

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

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

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

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

By Robert Murphy (not verified) on 27 Jun 2012 #permalink

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

FTW!

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 27 Jun 2012 #permalink

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

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 27 Jun 2012 #permalink

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

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

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

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

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

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 27 Jun 2012 #permalink

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

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

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

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

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

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 27 Jun 2012 #permalink

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

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

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 27 Jun 2012 #permalink

Hmmm...

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

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

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

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

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 27 Jun 2012 #permalink

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

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

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

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 27 Jun 2012 #permalink

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

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

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 27 Jun 2012 #permalink

Damn you, no-preview!

...can’t possibly contribute radiate...

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 27 Jun 2012 #permalink

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

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 27 Jun 2012 #permalink

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

Lotharson @4:11

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

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

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

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

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 27 Jun 2012 #permalink

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

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

Dangit, I forgot that rule!

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 27 Jun 2012 #permalink

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

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

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

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

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

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

)

Lotharsson @2:48

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

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

By Richard Simons (not verified) on 27 Jun 2012 #permalink

Isn't it about time the name of thread was changed to "Tim Curtin's Basic Incompetence"?

By Rattus Norvegicus (not verified) on 27 Jun 2012 #permalink

It’s even more impressive than that!

Indeed!

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

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

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 27 Jun 2012 #permalink
It’s even more impressive than that!

Indeed!

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

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

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

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

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

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 27 Jun 2012 #permalink

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

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

Erm, KarenMackSpot, placing random words in quotation marks isn't an argument...

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

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

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

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

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 28 Jun 2012 #permalink

Damn this lack of preview. Down with National Geographic.

---------------------------------------

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

Erm, KarenMackSpot, placing random words in quotation marks isn't an argument...

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

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

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

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

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 28 Jun 2012 #permalink

Responding to TC's "8:54 am" comment on the open thread:

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

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

Robert Murphy wrote:

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

TC responded:

Where are your observations and measurements for ML #1?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sigh - still wrong.

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

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

It did.

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

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

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

You need to see a neuro specialist.

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

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

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

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 28 Jun 2012 #permalink

Timski is refuting Stephan's Law.

The world IS Bernie. It is NOW.

How simple life is without a forebrain.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Tim Curtin (not verified) on 28 Jun 2012 #permalink

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

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

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

By Tim Curtin (not verified) on 28 Jun 2012 #permalink

Further to my last posts here:

1.At Climate etc;

novandilcosid June 27, 2012 at 8:50 pm |

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then at the linked http//theinconvenientskeptic.com

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

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

http://judithcurry.com/2012/06/25/questioning-the-forest-et-al-2006-sen…

By Tim Curtin (not verified) on 28 Jun 2012 #permalink

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

Tim Curtin, start here, and get a clue.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 28 Jun 2012 #permalink

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

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

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

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

Help us out here - we're just trying to understand how it is that you know better than the world's best physicists...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 28 Jun 2012 #permalink

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Robert Murphy (not verified) on 28 Jun 2012 #permalink

"Not so, only from hot to less hot."

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

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

Rubbish!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 28 Jun 2012 #permalink

Wow observed:

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

Permit me to pre-empt Curtin...

The thing is, that radiation is from the Big Bang, the hottest thing ever, so each of those photons is actually warmer than the Earth - even though photons don't have the property "heat", and even though - by Curtin's own insight - photons don't exist...

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

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 28 Jun 2012 #permalink

TC @ 1:11 pm

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

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

Ho! Hum! Into the breach again!

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

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

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

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

and this:

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

Now try and rest your case.

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

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

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

The pain we suffer in suffering this fool Curtin.

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

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

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

He deserves it.

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

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

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

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

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

...whoops - hotter!

Nah, it's UK slang. However, "Beef Jerk" could be the second-level slang for the american audience.

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

Earth would be bloody cold if that were the case.

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

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 29 Jun 2012 #permalink

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

He's a bit behind the times...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

By Tim Curtin (not verified) on 29 Jun 2012 #permalink

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Robert Murphy (not verified) on 29 Jun 2012 #permalink

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

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

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

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

How many doublings is 1.4x?

Now, multiuply that by 3.2C.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Both above the 280ppm baseline before industrialisation.

Five idiocies, Beef.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eight idiot points, Beef.

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

NINE idiocies from Beef in the one message!

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

WE HAVE OUR TENTH!

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

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

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

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

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

no statistically significant econometric evidence

Economics? Why are you bringing that in?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Richard Simons (not verified) on 29 Jun 2012 #permalink

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

What strange delusions you have.

Hint: Piteous incredulous laughter != hate.

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

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

400ppm = 400/1,000,000.

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

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

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

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 29 Jun 2012 #permalink

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

By Richard Simons (not verified) on 29 Jun 2012 #permalink

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Robert Murphy (not verified) on 29 Jun 2012 #permalink

TC in reply to Gary Murphy at The Conversation:

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

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

Only a moron would expect that.

Or someone hoping to mislead the deeply gullible.

Perhaps someone TC has read.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 29 Jun 2012 #permalink

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.

...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.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 29 Jun 2012 #permalink

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."

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 29 Jun 2012 #permalink

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.

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?

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"!

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).

By Tim Curtin (not verified) on 30 Jun 2012 #permalink

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.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 30 Jun 2012 #permalink

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.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 30 Jun 2012 #permalink

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.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 30 Jun 2012 #permalink

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.

By Tim Curtin (not verified) on 30 Jun 2012 #permalink

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

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 30 Jun 2012 #permalink

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.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 30 Jun 2012 #permalink

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

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 30 Jun 2012 #permalink

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.

"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-a…
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.

By Robert Murphy (not verified) on 30 Jun 2012 #permalink

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.

...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...)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 30 Jun 2012 #permalink

"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=wou…

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.

By Robert Murphy (not verified) on 30 Jun 2012 #permalink

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.

By Tim Curtin (not verified) on 30 Jun 2012 #permalink

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?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 30 Jun 2012 #permalink

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.”

By Robert Murphy (not verified) on 30 Jun 2012 #permalink

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?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 30 Jun 2012 #permalink

"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?

By Robert Murphy (not verified) on 30 Jun 2012 #permalink

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.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 30 Jun 2012 #permalink

"... 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.

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.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 30 Jun 2012 #permalink

I have another term for Curtin Physics™...

...Tim-Cube™!

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 30 Jun 2012 #permalink

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.

By Robert Murphy (not verified) on 30 Jun 2012 #permalink

…Tim-Cube™!

Absolute gold!

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 30 Jun 2012 #permalink

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.

By Rattus Norvegicus (not verified) on 30 Jun 2012 #permalink

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

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

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 30 Jun 2012 #permalink

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

By Tim Curtin (not verified) on 30 Jun 2012 #permalink

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?

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.

By Rattus Norvegicus (not verified) on 30 Jun 2012 #permalink

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.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 30 Jun 2012 #permalink

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.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 30 Jun 2012 #permalink

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?

By Tim Curtin (not verified) on 30 Jun 2012 #permalink

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.

By Tim Curtin (not verified) on 01 Jul 2012 #permalink

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.

By Tim Curtin (not verified) on 01 Jul 2012 #permalink

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!

By Tim Curtin (not verified) on 01 Jul 2012 #permalink

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.

By Lloyd Flack (not verified) on 01 Jul 2012 #permalink

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

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.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 01 Jul 2012 #permalink

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?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 01 Jul 2012 #permalink

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?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 01 Jul 2012 #permalink

...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.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 01 Jul 2012 #permalink

“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.

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.

By Robert Murphy (not verified) on 01 Jul 2012 #permalink

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?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 01 Jul 2012 #permalink

"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.

By Robert Murphy (not verified) on 01 Jul 2012 #permalink

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...

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 01 Jul 2012 #permalink

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.

By Tim Curtin (not verified) on 01 Jul 2012 #permalink

"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.”

By Robert Murphy (not verified) on 01 Jul 2012 #permalink

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?

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.

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...)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 01 Jul 2012 #permalink

>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...

...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...)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 01 Jul 2012 #permalink

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.

By Lloyd Flack (not verified) on 01 Jul 2012 #permalink

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.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 01 Jul 2012 #permalink

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

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.

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.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 01 Jul 2012 #permalink

"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?

By luminous beauty (not verified) on 01 Jul 2012 #permalink

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.

"This thread is in in effect mine..."

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

By Robert Murphy (not verified) on 01 Jul 2012 #permalink

“This thread is in in effect mine…”

The narcissism in this one is of truly megalomaniac proportions.

By luminous beauty (not verified) on 01 Jul 2012 #permalink

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?

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.

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

By Tim Curtin (not verified) on 01 Jul 2012 #permalink

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.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 01 Jul 2012 #permalink

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?

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 01 Jul 2012 #permalink

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!

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 01 Jul 2012 #permalink

time to call a halt.

Whatever it takes, cretin.

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...

It's more about your incompetence, Beef.

The thread is about you, not yours.

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.

“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. :-)

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.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 02 Jul 2012 #permalink

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.

By Rattus Norvegicus (not verified) on 02 Jul 2012 #permalink

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-chall…
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_e…
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

By Mark Harrigan (not verified) on 02 Jul 2012 #permalink

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.

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.

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

Lionel A,

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

By Rattus Norvegicus (not verified) on 02 Jul 2012 #permalink

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?

It.s a common enough phallusy...

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...

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.

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')


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...]

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 03 Jul 2012 #permalink

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

Brave Sir Robin named his horse 'Science'.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 03 Jul 2012 #permalink

...nis split

It's not "Denialot", Bernard, it's "Denialeverything".

It’s not “Denialot”, Bernard, it’s “Denialeverything”.

True, Wow, but “Denialeverything” doesn't have quite the sane ring!

Hmmm... I wonder if there's a market for a musical about climate change denialism. The opportunities for bastardising ALW, Q&S, Queen, et al are endless...

If no-one has previously, I call dibs on the concept! ;-)

As Curtin has executed the Brave Sir Robin manoeuvre, perhaps we could dedicate the arse-end of this thread to exploring the choral possibilities.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 04 Jul 2012 #permalink

Bernard,

I had been, for awhile, pondering something along the lines of a Python Revival but with broader scope to encompass the machinations of the 'clever gang' represented by Lindzen, Michaels, Spencer, Christy and the 'cheer leaders' populated by Monckton, Bolt, Delingpole, Melanie Phillips etc, etc, etc. However I am not well placed to act on this initiative.

...perhaps we could dedicate the arse-end of this thread to exploring the choral possibilities.

Has not this thread's 'arse-end' departed?

Has not this thread’s ‘arse-end’ departed?

Nah, just it's arse-hole.

We can still scrawl on the gluteus maximi.

Nudge, nudge...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 05 Jul 2012 #permalink

“Denialeverything” doesn’t have quite the sane ring!

Indeed it doesn't.

Adelady, at 1:15 pm 5 July.

Re: Ode to Joy, Meep version...

All Comments (17,657)

Unbelievable!

Ianam, at 4:02 pm 5 July.

Indeed!

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 05 Jul 2012 #permalink

Tim's at it again over at WUWT, claiming that Tyndall showed N2 and O2 to be the real GHG's.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/21/some-thoughts-on-radiative-transf…
"The IPCC assertion that nitrogen and oxygen are not GHGs appears to conflict with the findings of Tyndall’s physical experiments (1861) which showed that N2 and O2 neither absorb nor radiate heat in the longwave infrared radiation (LIR) spectrum, even though they are transparent to incoming solar shortwave radiation..."

Since we know he saw the quotes from Tyndall saying that without water vapor (and by extension also CO2) the Earth would be far colder, the only conclusion that doesn't require Curtin to have mental issues is that he's a blatant liar.

By Robert Murphy (not verified) on 21 Jul 2012 #permalink

Robert that is astonishing.

that old Tim Curtin be so confused.

He still does not get the methodology of Tyndall's experiments does he?

What is more astonishing is that your comment is still up there.

BTW Watts, that is two visits to your site that don't count for much as I am not a fan. Don't like bullies for one thing.

They're still playing '2nd Law' and refusing to just accept even the basics of atmospheric physics and chemistry over at μWatts? Astonishing! ;-)

Whatever happened to that 'peer reviewed' 'paper' that proved it hasn't warmed, (even though they never said it wasn't warming)? You'd almost think they were flailing around desperately...

So Watts' minions, being proud of their adherence to scientific truth, will rise to the challenge and set Tim straight on GHGs, right?

Right?

;-)

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 21 Jul 2012 #permalink

Just when you thought that Curtin could not get any dumber here is a comment on the new Arctic Ice minimum posted at The Conversation

Appeals to "reality" need to be backed by statistical analysis. I see none in this article. What the authors need to do to substantiate their claim that ice loss in the Arctic is propelled by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions is first to explain why the intra-annual atmospheric concentration of CO2 is always lower in August-September when the ice extent is at its lowest, and always higher in January-March or April when the ice is deepest and widest.

There is no way I can do justice to describing Curtin's stupidity. Dumber than a sack of hammers, thick as 2 short planks - they just don't cut it.

Appeals to “reality” need to be backed by statistical analysis. I see none in this article. What the authors need to do to substantiate their claim that ice loss in the Arctic is propelled by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions is first to explain why the intra-annual atmospheric concentration of CO2 is always lower in August-September when the ice extent is at its lowest, and always higher in January-March or April when the ice is deepest and widest.

O.
M.
F.
D.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 27 Aug 2012 #permalink

"explain why the intra-annual atmospheric concentration of CO2 is always lower in August-September when the ice extent is at its lowest, and always higher in January-March or April when the ice is deepest and widest. "

And he needs to describe the causation you propose, the dumbass.

Correlation is not causation, is what he started on DEMANDING (despite it having been given multiple times), but now there's just a demand that some correlation is needing to be explained (which has been again). Is there any proof that this bonkers lunatic will listen to any answers to his demands?

No.

Curtin is a bloody fool if he thinks that because CO2 levels are lower at the end of NH summer that there should have been a cooling effect apparent over the period of declining CO2. This also shows that Curtin still, despire all our exhortations to educate himself, has little NO grasp of Earth's physical processes.

It just goes to show why statistics and economics say nothing about the physical processes of nature, only the deluded would think otherwise.

Curtin find yourself a book on Oceanography for starters, hint there is much more to this than the name implies. One excellent example is 'Oceanography: An Invitation to Marine Science' by Tom Garrison. Look out his lectures here:

Dr. Tom Garrison Oceanography Lecture Part 1

Another good starter for the Earth's systems and the context of global warming and climate change is Global Catastrophes: A Very Short Introduction by Bill McGuire . Check out McGuire's 'Waking the Giant: How a Changing Climate Triggers Earthquakes, Tsunamis, and Volcanoes' too.

The reason for lower CO2 levels at the end of NH summer has been explained to him before here but he is too stupid to take this in. Curtin has no capacity for critical thinking whatsoever.

PS. I failed to find that Conversation article you allude to MikeH. I have looked out the obvious 'Arctic' and 'Climate xxx' threads under 'Hot Topics' and found nothing under Environment & Energy or Science & Technology.

Thanks MikeH.

Looks like Jonti Horner has wiped the floor with Curtin. Will Curtin be silly enough to reply?

Do we have another volunteer Black Knight?

...explain why the intra-annual atmospheric concentration of CO2 is always lower in August-September when the ice extent is at its lowest, and always higher in January-March or April when the ice is deepest and widest.

Gold. Pure nu[gge]tty gold.

I commented at RealClimate a while back that trying to analyse climate science without grounding your analysis in, you know, physics and stuff, leads you to idiotic conclusions. Back then I used a different Curtin example but this is even more illustrative...

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 27 Aug 2012 #permalink

Will Curtin be silly enough to reply?

Based on past trends I'd say the answer is probably yes.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 27 Aug 2012 #permalink

BRB. I feel the precautionary need to stock up on popcorn.

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 27 Aug 2012 #permalink

Regarding Curtin's preposterous muddle-headedness about the apparent lack of short-term relationship between carbon dioxide and temperature, someone who posts on The Conversation might like to point Tim Curtin to this:

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/3/034015

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 28 Aug 2012 #permalink

Interesting Bernard,

Climate response to changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide and solar irradiance on the time scale of days to weeks

Tim should pay attention to that final sentence in the Abstract. The likes of Michaels and now Christy paying particular attention to this bit: from the abstract, my emphasis:

However, the physiological effect of increased atmospheric CO2 on plant stomata reduces plant transpiration, drying the boundary layer and decreasing precipitation

.

Looks like we can put that popcorn away, Curtin has remained quiet on that Conversation thread. Reduced to a hit-and-run merchant are we Curtin?

Curtin's not actually as stupid as the USKMS. Timmy can (only) do regressions, and as silly as he usually is in applying them, he's probably realised that any regression of Arctic sea ice points down.

Of course, the implication of his silence is that Curtin actually knows when he's wrong, which rather makes any denialist pronouncement of his all the more egregious.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 30 Aug 2012 #permalink