• Home
  • Current News
  • Incompetence & Confusion of ‘Climate Experts’ Watts & Spencer

Incompetence & Confusion of ‘Climate Experts’ Watts & Spencer

Written by Ross McLeod

I must admit I am completely confused by the apparent contradictory and unphysical claims of Dr Roy Spencer and Anthony Watts (WUWT). The source of this confusion is twofold and explained below.

  •         Is glass “opaque” to infra-red radiation as is often quoted by these two experts writing articles on the “greenhouse effect”?
  •         What does glass is “opaque” to IR even mean?

One simplistic claim that one hears with regular monotony is that because “Glass is transparent to visible light, but not to infrared light…” therefore glass enclosures “trap” IR radiation.

So I did some research on the matter. Firstly let me present some public statements from Spencer and Watts readers should verify for themselves:

“The way an actual greenhouse works is by trapping infrared radiation. Glass is transparent to visible light, but not to infrared light, as we see below.”

“Mr. Gore was attempting to demonstrate this effect in his setup, but there’s an obvious problem: he used infrared heat lamps rather than visible light lamps. Thus, it seems highly likely that the glass jars would block the incoming infrared, and convert it to heat. That being the case, the infrared radiative backscattering effect that makes up the greenhouse effect in our atmosphere couldn’t possibly be demonstrated here in the Climate 101 video.  By itself, that would be enough to declare the experiment invalid, but not only will I show the problem of the experimental setup being flawed, I’ll go to full on replication.”

opacity graphs

opacity graphs 2

  1.      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/18/replicating-al-gores-climate-101-video-experiment-shows-that-his-high-school-physics-could-never-work-as-advertised/
  2.     “A real greenhouse physically traps warm air, preventing convective air currents from carrying warm air out of the greenhouse, which would then be replaced by cooler air coming into the greenhouse.”

    “In contrast, the infrared atmospheric greenhouse effect instead slows the rate at which the atmosphere cools radiatively, not convectively.”

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/04/in-defense-of-the-greenhouse-effect/

  3.      Comments:

Anonymous says:
 August 8, 2010 at 12:39 PM

“You prevented convective cooling just like in a real greenhouse. Not much to do with radiation. Just an analogy I suppose.”

Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. says:
 August 8, 2010 at 1:24 PM

“NO. Do not confuse the two. A real greenhouse uses solar, and its glass windows are opaque to IR transfer. I’m talking about nighttime radiative cooling through an IR-transparent aperture.”

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/help-back-radiation-has-invaded-my-backyard/

Do Spencer and Watts not know what they really mean and is there any hope they will find common understanding of radiative physics? At the moment, it seems confusion reigns supreme.

Anthony Watts says:

“The way an actual greenhouse works is by trapping infrared radiation. Glass is transparent to visible light, but not to infrared light, as we see below.”

Dr Roy Spencer disagrees:

“A real greenhouse physically traps warm air …”

But Dr Roy Spencer also agrees – thus disagreeing with himself :-

“NO. Do not confuse the two. A real greenhouse uses solar, and its glass windows are opaque to IR transfer. I’m talking about nighttime radiative cooling through an IR-transparent aperture.”

So – what does the statement – “its glass windows are opaque to IR transfer” even mean?

Well let’s try to shed some light on the matter.

Firstly we need make it clear that it is a meaningless generalisation and educated people should know better than to make public statements that are incorrect.

Glass is definitely not “opaque” to all wavelengths of “IR light”

The curves show the transmittance of “soda-lime”, “Pyrex”, “UV” and “Fused Silica” glass.

Even I can see that below 4 micrometres all of the glass has a high transmittance of wavelengths that correspond to infra-red.  Soda-lime glass from the manufacturer that supplied the transmittance curve shown allows over 30% transmittance over 4 micrometres wavelengths.

Anthony Watts has so confused the belief that –

Glass is transparent to visible light, but not to infrared light ..”

to completely incorrectly conclude that –

By itself, that would be enough to declare the experiment invalid,…” –

He implies, incorrectly, it is impossible for IR to be the cause of any heating effect on the CO2 contained in the glass jars.

This is, of course, not supported by real science and is simply another misguided generalisation. Of course the IR from the “IR heat lamps” used in Al Gore’s Physics 101 can penetrate the glass bell jars and heat the CO2 inside by IR radiation absorption.

I know this is entirely possible – a real analysis says it is possible – so here goes.

Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in three narrow bands of frequencies, which are 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometres (µM).

Using Wien’s law we calculate the temperatures of λpeak for each wavelength

2.7 µM – Wien’s law λpeak is at temperature of 800.18 degrees C.

4.3 µM – Wien’s law λpeak is at temperature of 400.8 degrees C.

15 µM – Wien’s law λpeak is at temperature of -80 degrees C.

I have absolutely no doubt that the filament of an infra-red “heat” lamp is easily capable of producing the temperatures necessary to emit the 2.7 µM and 4.3 µM radiation wavelengths that CO2 strongly absorbs.  We’ll ignore the 15 µM band as unlikely for many obvious reasons.

Thus Anthony Watts’ claim – “Thus, it seems highly likely that the glass jars would block the incoming infrared” and that this “By itself, that would be enough to declare the experiment invalid” depends entirely on whether glass is “opaque” at the frequencies necessary to cause any radiation absorption heating of CO2 contained in the glass jars.

Simple perusal of the transmittance curves clearly shows that wavelengths close to 2.7 µM pass through various types of glass at levels of 50% or more – it seems only fused silica glass is “opaque” at this frequency.  Some of the 4.3  µM is transmitted significantly for the “soda-lime” glass.

I’m not implying that Anthony Watts’ analysis of Al Gore’s Physics 101 experiment did not establish there were irregularities.

I am saying however that his generalised statement about glass preventing any IR heating effect because glass blocks IR is not supported by fact. The evidence presented here indicates it is entirely possible to observe an IR heating effect of CO2 contained in a glass jar and crude generalisation statements such as –

Glass is transparent to visible light, but not to infrared light ..” – are not helpful to any public discussion as they give a false impression.

And this leads to – What does glass is “opaque” to IR even mean?

We have seen from the transmittance curves above that most types of glass absorb wavelengths above 4 – 5 µM.

But does this mean that glass “traps” infra-red radiation?

Of course not and again the proponents of this nonsense have made a gross misrepresentation of the facts. A simple search of the values for the emissivity coefficient values for glass demonstrates this radiation “trapping” ability is sheer nonsense.

The Engineering Toolbox lists the following:

Glass smooth              0.92 – 0.94

Glass, pyrex                0.85 – 0.95.

Hell, for the wavelengths where glass is “opaque” to the transmission of IR the stuff is almost a damn blackbody!

 

Comments (76)

  • Avatar

    David Cosserat

    |

    Tim,

    Re. your comment #73, ok, I should explain my position better…

    It seems to me that there are two quite separate intellectual battles going on that have been getting hopelessly intertwined:

    [b]PROBLEM 1[/b]
    What is the best way to model the phenomenon of electromagnetic radiation? As a wave? Or as a massless particle? The opposing sides debate earnestly what is going on ‘under the hood’ when a warmer object radiates energy towards a cooler object. Yet, surprisingly, supporters on either side agree on the same fundamental equation for the rate of flow of energy P by radiation from a hotter body x to a cooler body y, namely:

    P = k(Tx^4 – Ty^4)

    where Tx is the temperature of the hotter body, Ty is the temperature of the cooler body and k is a constant related to the geometry and emissivites of the two bodies.

    So their issue is clearly not a mathematical one. Instead it is a philosophical one, namely whether the individual terms of the equation, kTx^4 and kTy^4, represent (a) photon streams flowing in opposite directions, or (b) ‘radiative potentials’ facing one another off, with the larger one winning out over the smaller, resulting in a consequent real energy flow equal to the difference.

    My personal response to this long running debate is ‘get a life’.:-)

    [b]PROBLEM 2[/b]
    Given an evacuated three-nested-shell system where…

    (i) the innermost shell (e.g. the earth’s surface), at steady state temperature T1, radiates at constant power P towards an intermediate shell;

    (ii) the intermediate shell (e.g. the earth’s atmosphere containing GHGs) at steady state temperature T2 radiates the same power P towards the outermost shell;

    (iii) the outermost shell (e.g. space) acts as a constant heat reservoir at a fixed temperature T3 (~3K)

    …the question is: if we remove the intermediate shell does the temperature T1 drop?

    Now the curious thing is that, when you apply the [i]agreed[/i] equation for PROBLEM 1 to the PROBLEM 2 ‘three-nested body’ problem and calculate the temperature T1 of the powered inner shell (given values for P and T3); and then do the same for a ‘two-nested body’ problem (i.e. with the intermediate shell removed), deriving in this case a temperature T1′,it turns out that T1 is greater than T1′.

    So this demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt, using the mathematical formula agreed by both sides of the PROBLEM 1 debate, that an intermediate absorptive shell does cause the temperature of the powered source to rise.

    But fascinatingly there is a small group of diehard slayers who cannot come to terms with the obvious logical contradiction between the agreed formula and the consequent outcome with which they irrationally disagree.

    My assumption is that this is because they think it weakens the case for saying that CO2 causes no appreciable warming and gives succour to the warmists. But it does not. That question is still wide open.

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts” [b][i]”…if there is no objective mathematical way of distingushing them”[/i][/b]
    http://www.opticsinfobase.org/ol/abstract.cfm?uri=ol-38-20-4248
    http://moriond.in2p3.fr/J07/trans/saturday/heidmann.pdf
    http://spie.org/x16896.xml?ArticleID=x16896
    Three papers (the tip of the google iceberg) showing experimental confirmation of radiation pressure.[/quote]

    You only make David’s case for him, but poorly. Feynman’s lectures used his concept of pressure and photon flux only as a temporary analogy of electromagnetic flux for those understanding fluid flow where pressure times mass flow is power. The concept can help but the details require unlearning and relearning. Radiation is not a fluid.
    Measurable radiative pressure is but a tiny fraction of the possible radiative flux, determined by the difference in radiative potential. Radiative pressure is but the physical force of radiative flux interacting with that surface. It is tinesty! If there is no temperature difference there can be no flux and no pressure.
    A spacecraft with an emissive surface and a lower temperature than a high radiative potential like the Sun, the craft will have experience a pressure proportional to that absorbed solar flux. Tiny pressure. That same spacecraft wrapped in reflective super insulation will exhibit the opposing radiative of space and will receive the flux from the Sun with the same magnitude as the Sun radiating to space.
    In addition the reflective index of -1 will create an additional pressure acting in opposition to the direction of the reflected flux. The vector sum of all these radiative pressures creates the force that accelerates that craft away from the Sun. The Earth also has this small solar pressure but is so small it changes the orbital radius by an immeasurable amount.
    We know that the earth sun barycentre wobbles by much more, due to the other planets. that Solar acceleration of low mass high area spacecraft is what first detected your tiny radiation pressure. Its potential is nothing compared to the radiative pressure difference created by large opposing T^4 vectors that create the large and measurable one way thermal radiative flux that transfers “power” to/from the Earth and its atmosphere with a to/from difference also unmeasurable.
    No measurable radiative forcing at all. Your CO2 claims are but a fraudulent fake, with no science.

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]David says: [b][i]”…those who believe in photons and statistical thermodynamics… ” [/i][/b]
    First, I think “believe in” is a poor verb. But beyond that, your statement is like saying “those who believe in protons and Maxwell’s equations”! All of these are standard themes in physics that no one particularly doubts.[/quote]

    Tim,
    You cannot demonstrate a photon ever. A demonstration of an e quantum effect of a photon is easy. Accepting a photon as physical is nonsense. “Photon” is only a “concept” that is used to help understanding of the duality of electromagnetic field strength (potential) and electromagnetic flux (that which can produce both work and “an” action). You appear to have no understanding of Maxwell’s equations, or John Poynting’s work,translating
    those equations from quarternions to Euler angles and the concept of solid angle and vector arithmetic.

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts” [b][i]”the classical approach assumes … “radiative potentials””[/i][/b]
    Do you have a reference that supports this assertion? A google check of ‘radiative potential’ shows very few hits, and even fewer that seem to have anything to do with this sort of topic.[/quote]

    Tim do you have a reference that allows any rate of work (power)to be done without a potential difference (the across vector) difference in pressure, voltage, rpm, temperature, or radiative EM potential (radiance), multiplied by the associated (thru vector) Mass flow, current, torque, flux, or radiative flux (electromagnetic not thermal power transfer). BTW, the units for radiance was proposed to be Watts/steradian, bit that was given to “radiant intensity” the total radiative potential in a single direction from the whole cross sectional area of say the SUN.
    Radiant intensity a different potential decreases as the square of the distance from that Sun. Radiance on the other hand is invariant with distance from the source. It is exactly the “radiant intensity” upon a surface
    From the “projected” area at the source ..by the solid angle of the observing instrument. We measure the radiance of the Sun wit a sensor that projects a solid angle of 1 micro-steradians solid angle (1 mr x 1 mr detector)
    We observe the Sun has not a constant radiance over its 68-80 micro-steradian surface i.e. Not a black or grey body (highest at the centre). Anyone qualified to make statements of thermal radiation and the effects thereof must understand all of this in their sleep.

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    David says: [b][i]”…those who believe in photons and statistical thermodynamics… ” [/i][/b]
    First, I think “believe in” is a poor verb. But beyond that, your statement is like saying “those who believe in protons and Maxwell’s equations”! All of these are standard themes in physics that no one particularly doubts.

    [b][i]”the classical approach assumes … “radiative potentials””[/i][/b]
    Do you have a reference that supports this assertion? A google check of ‘radiative potential’ shows very few hits, and even fewer that seem to have anything to do with this sort of topic.

    [b][i]”…if there is no objective mathematical way of distingushing them”[/i][/b]
    http://www.opticsinfobase.org/ol/abstract.cfm?uri=ol-38-20-4248
    http://moriond.in2p3.fr/J07/trans/saturday/heidmann.pdf
    http://spie.org/x16896.xml?ArticleID=x16896
    Three papers (the tip of the google iceberg) showing experimental confirmation of radiation pressure.

    [b][i]”I am comfortable with being agnostic”[/i][/b]
    Keeping an open mind it important — until there is overwhelming evidence that one interpretation is correct.

  • Avatar

    David Cosserat

    |

    Tim,

    Re. your comment on “photon gas” at #52, I agree that those who believe in photons and statistical thermodynamics have no difficulty with the idea of energy flowing as a photon stream from colder to hotter body.

    But there are obviously a lot of people who are very uncomfortable with that idea because it sounds like a claim that radiation flowing from a hotter towards a cooler body must be warming it up. In contrast, the classical (pre-statistical thermodynamics) approach assumes that bodies at particular temperatures set up “radiative potentials” rather than flows of photons and these potentials offset one another with only the difference between the potentials being an actual energy flow from one (hotter) body to the other (cooler) one.

    Now that I have discovered beyond reasonable doubt that whichever mathematical approach you take it leads to exactly the same mathematical conclusion (namely that an intervening radiation-absorptive medium between a constant power source and an infinite heat sink at a lower fixed temperature slows down the rate of energy flow from the hotter source to the cooler sink) I am comfortable with being agnostic about which is the correct interpretation. Perhaps both are if there is no objective mathematical way of distingushing them. 🙂

  • Avatar

    Yelder Retep

    |

    On 28th March 2013 Anthony Watts said “ .. I loathe having to write this story because I truly dislike giving any attention to the people who are known as the “slayers” from the “Slaying the Sky Dragon” book. They now operate under the moniker of “Principia Scientific”. But, somebody has to do it because some really bad mangling of the intent of a NASA press release by the “slayers” group is getting some traction. They have completely misread the NASA study and reinterpreted it for their purpose .. ” (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/28/a-misinterpreted-claim-about-a-nasa-press-release-co2-solar-flares-and-the-thermosphere-is-making-the-rounds/).

    The object of Watts’s derision was the PSI article “New Discovery: NASA Study Proves Carbon Dioxide Cools Atmosphere” (http://www.principia-scientific.org/Current-News/new-discovery-nasa-study-proves-carbon-dioxide-cools-atmosphere.html),

    I liked Professor Robert G Brown’s response “ .. Anthony, I share your slayer pain .. ”. Having been a participant in many E-mail exchanges with the ”slayers” and others in which Dr. Brown and other respected CACC sceptics (including Dr, Roy Spencer) have tried very hard to educate them (e.g. most recently in Sept/Oct 2013 – see http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/spotlighton-greenhouse-gases-cool-earth.html) I find his reaction unsurprising.

  • Avatar

    Yelder Retep

    |

    Hi Greg,

    What you think of me or my comments is of no concern to me. My concern is to do my best to ensure that anyone contemplating getting involved with the PSI blogging group is aware of the basis for its existence and the impact that affiliation might have on their own credibility.

    I speculate that you object to the Watts and Spencer because their owners have integrity and try to be open and honest, as I do in my articles (e.g. see http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/spotlighton-principia-scientific.html). In my opinion that is not the case with the PSI blog owned by John O’Sullivan, despite his claim last June that “ .. Principia Scientific International (PSI) .. advocate openness and transparency .. ” (http://www.principia-scientific.org/more-scientists-question-whether-hiv-causes-aids.html).

    At one time the PSI blog claimed under “Why PSI Operates as a Private Association” that “ .. Our members have opted to run PSI, in the first instance, as a private association rather than a charitable foundation. This is because PSI chooses to operate with the relative freedom of any start up association that has yet to determine whether it may fulfil its long term purpose as either a business with the private profit motive or a charity. Nonetheless, as advocates of transparency and accountability in science we are proud to list biographies of a selection of our valued members: .. ”. That sentence claiming to be “advocates of transparency and accountability” was there in Nov 2012 but had been removed by April 2013. PSI had become a subsidiary of John O’Sullivan’s private company PSI Acumen Ltd, registered in March 2013 with no suggestion now of being other that any “business with the private profit motive”.

    The claim that “ .. Principia Scientific International (PSI) is a not-for-profit community interest subsidiary of PSI Acumen Ltd. .. “ would appear to be simply hot air, like much else that appears on the PSI blog pages.

    In June last year John O’Sullivan was still claiming that “ .. we do support any and all scientists who – like us – advocate openness and transparency .. ” (http://www.principia-scientific.org/more-scientists-question-whether-hiv-causes-aids.html) but do not actions speak louder than words!

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    [quote name=”Yelder Retep”]There is a well-known saying “All that glitters is not gold” and the PSI web-pages certainly do glitter![/quote]

    Peter, PSI glitters and is not gold, right, but the sites like Watts’ and Spencer’s stink like a peace of shit. Your approach to debates stinks too.

  • Avatar

    Yelder Retep

    |

    Hi Greg,

    Other than when quoting what others, such as Ross McLeod and Hans Schreuder, have said about it have I make any mention here of a vacuum? No, I thought not. Hans Screuder mentions vacuum in the cobbled collection of blog articles known as “Slaying the Sky Dragon … ”. In his Chapter 13 “The Bigger Picture” he waffles on about “ .. The vacuum of space is the best possible insulator we could wish for. A widely-held concept that space is cold is very off course. Space is not cold in the same way that we feel cold; it has no temperature of itself. It is a vacuum and a vacuum has no temperature. Only matter can have a temperature and in a vacuum, there is as good as no matter .. ”. As I mentioned to Ross McLeod in comment # 43, “ .. There are plenty preferred sources of education than “Slaying the Sky Dragon .. ”, one of which says “ .. Completely empty space would have no temperature since there are no molecules there – it would make no sense to discuss the temperature of nothingness. We wouldn’t even call it zero degrees. Technically, there must be matter present to have an associated temperature. Of course, even the emptiness of interstellar space has a few hydrogen nuclei, electrons, or neutrinos zipping through it and thus is not truly empty .. the 2.7K temperature of the CMB may be quoted as the “temperature of space”- it is perhaps the best way to characterize the energy content of empty space. Of course, 2.7K is pretty cold .. ” (www.uu.edu/dept/physics/scienceguys/2003July.cfm).

    Try reading that final sentence carefully, then have another look at what I quoted from PSI co-founder and ex-slayer Professor Johnson in comment #66, i.e. “ .. outer space has a temperature, and it is cold around 3 K. I thus don’t support the view put forward by the group of Sky Dragon Slayers to which I no longer belong, if I ever did .. ”.

    Now do you get it??

    In comment #17 David Cosserat said that “ .. PSI is a great and growing potential forum of experienced engineers and physicists .. being damaged by a few noisy armchair buffoons. They need to be silenced if PSI is to become the influential force in the world that its prestigious members deserve .. ”. Despite the claim made that PSI is a “ .. a new international science association for all scientists and engineers .. a not-for-profit community interest subsidiary of PSI Acumen Ltd .. ” (http://www.principia-scientific.org/) – see the small print at the foot of each PSI web-page) it is in reality nothin more than a blogging group owned by John O’Sullivan and run from his sofa as the subsidiary of PSI Acumen Ltd .. ” (see web-page footer),.a private company which he registered last March (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/spotlighton-psi-acumen-ltd.html).

    There is a well-known saying “All that glitters is not gold” and the PSI web-pages certainly do glitter!

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    I guess I recognize Peter The Dirty’s handwriting in #66.

    Peter, there can not be any temperature of vacuum per definition, because the notion of temperature is bound to matter. No matter – no temperature, so simple is that.

    There can be radiation in vacuum, of course, that can warm objects, but this is a different story. Radiation is not temperature and has no temperature either, per definition.

  • Avatar

    Yelder Retep

    |

    Ross McLeod, who worked as an environmental health officer, is not a scientist or even a physicist, as is clearly demonstrated in his PSI blog article and numerous comments in the blogosphere. Prior to joining the ranks of PSI blog members he posted his opinions on numerous other blogs under various names, mostly as Rosco but also as roscomac and McLeod Ross (e.g. at http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/11/13/us-fire-count-continues-to-plummet/#comment-154566 and McLeod Ross at http://blogs.crikey.com.au/rooted/2012/02/14/death-isnt-an-option-climate-change-activists-arent-waiting-for-deniers-to-die/). In the latter thread were a couple of relevant comments about Ross on 17th February 2012:
    – Peter Ormonde said “ .. love the elegant demolition of the overwhelming bulk of known and observed professional science. A few pars… who would have thought it was so simple. Nobel Prize stuff that! Makes me wonder why I haven’t heard more of your ideas. I wait with bated breath. Where’s the remote? .. ”
    – one claudedwalker said “ .. Wow, that McLeod Ross is a complete lunatic .. ”. AMEN to that!

    Like PSI founding member Hans Schreuder, Ross insists that the temperature of space is not close to 0K. Even PSI founding member Professor Claes Johnson, Co-author of “Slaying the Sky Dragon .. ”, rejects that argument. On 21st February 2012 Professor Johnson” said “ .. outer space has a temperature, and it is cold around 3 K. I thus don’t support the view put forward by the group of Sky Dragon Slayers to which I no longer belong, if I ever did .. ” (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/02/yes-virginia-the-vacuum-of-space-does-have-a-temperature/#comment-34667). Professor Johnson very wisely walked away from the PSI blogging group, just like Dr. Tim Ball, Dr. Adbussamatov, Dr. Myron Evans, Ulric Lyons and others (for details see Section 4 of http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/spotlighton-principia-scientific.html

  • Avatar

    Yelder Retep

    |

    Greg House has had numerous spats with Rosco on various blogs. On 21st Jan 2014 in a response to an insulting comment Greg said “ .. Unless Mr.Rosco is a sort of VIP here, I do not understand why this comment has not been deleted by the moderators, since it does not contain any argumentation and is a pure 100% ad hominem .. ” (comment # 8 at http://www.principia-scientific.org/tenacious-dr-ryan-and-the-battle-for-co2-sanity.html). Moderator Tom Richard pointedly ignored that comment, possibly because Greg had hit the nail smack on the head.

    If I am not mistaken then “Rosco” (who acknowledged here in comment # 6 that he knows very little in this field) is none other than PSI member Ross Cameron McLeod (http://www.principia-scientific.org/About/why-psi-is-proposed-as-a-cic.html) who managed to get his article “Is a Back Radiation Greenhouse Effect of 33 Kelvin possible?” published on the PSI blog (http://principia-scientific.org/publications/PROM/PROM-ROSS-Experiment.pdf). Last June Ross, using another of his false names “roscomac”, was promoting his article elsewhere (http://www2b.abc.net.au/tmb/Client/Message.aspx?b=114&m=180742&ps=50&dm=2).
    Getting his article published on the PSI blog tells us what many respected CACC sceptics have been saying for years about the blog (and its founding “slayers”) – they will happily publish any old pseudo-scientific nonsense.

  • Avatar

    David Cosserat

    |

    Rosco,

    I sympathise to some extent with your impassioned but way-off-beam comments because you are following the same general path of enquiry that I once followed a year or two back when I decided to examine this radiation issue in some detail, including all the claims and counterclaims of warmists and slayers.

    The mistake you are making over the background temperature of space (~3k), to which the earth’s LW radiation is sunk, is that you are forgetting that the solid angle of the Sun when viewed from the earth is very, very, very, very small indeed:

    [i]In terms of the total celestial sphere, the Sun and the Moon subtend fractional areas of 0.000546% (Sun) and 0.000531% (Moon).[/i]Wikipedia.

    And with respect to your comment about the Sun’s radiation at earth distance not being constant, this is a perfect example of what I said to you before: in the particular instance of working out the effect the Sun’s rays have at earth distance on the CMB, it is sufficiently accurate to take the day-night/seasonal average.

    Perhaps you would like to withdraw that allegation of lying before I strike you off my list.

  • Avatar

    Rosco

    |

    David says

    “But the fundamental thermodynamic physics explanation is based on the fact that the rate of radiant energy flow from a constant power source (“the earth’s surface”) through an intervening radiation-absorbing medium (“the GHGs in the atmosphere”) to a constant temperature sink (“the 3K cosmic microwave background temperature of space”) slows down as the density of the intervening radiation-absorbing medium rises (“more GHGs”). Consequently the temperature of the constant power source (“the earth’s surface”) also rises accordingly.”

    I have at least 2 objections to this statement

    1. The Earth’s surfaces are not a constant power source – the variation from day to night, from tropics to poles are huge.

    2. There is no constant temperature sink at 3K anywhere within millions of miles of the Earth. Even at Mars the solar radiation is about 589 W/sqm.

    If we believe the properties of light apply then it is likely that the solar energy will diffract around the Earth – this is evidenced during a solar eclipse where significant light reaches the parts of the Earth directly screened by the Moon.

    Thus in the shadow of the Earth or the Moon – the only significant objects within any proximity to Earth’s orbit – the shadow where the solar radiation is completely screened is insignificant and [b]there is absolutely no justification to claim there is a sink of 3K temperature within billions of kilometres of the Earth !.[/b]

    the NASA planetary fact sheets list the distance from Earth to Saturn at their closest to each other as 1,195,500,000 km apart and the solar irradiation at Jupiter as 14.9 W/sqm and its Blackbody temperature as 81.1 K – note the SB calculation for 14.9 gives 127 K.

    Such a statement is entirely false !

    Demonstrably so – as demonstrated by the problems besetting Skylab when it’s solar radiation deflection devices were damaged.

    Here is how the issue is described on Wikipedia

    [i]“The station was damaged during launch when the micrometeoroid shield separated from the workshop and tore away, taking one of two main solar panel arrays with it and jamming the other one so that it could not deploy. This deprived Skylab of most of its electrical power, and also removed protection from intense solar heating, threatening to make it unusable. The first crew was able to save it in the first in-space major repair, by deploying a replacement heat shade and freeing the jammed solar panels.”[/i]

    I saw the NASA series “when we left the Earth” and they mentioned the problems with Skylab and despite only partial damage the temperature inside when the first crew arrived was in excess of 70 degrees C – uninhabitable.

    Come on how can people simply keep claiming the space surrounding the Earth in any way resembles the CMBR ?

    It is a claim that is simply false – full stop !

    As I say in the article – Facts don’t matter to people who try to sell you this BS – they simply make up any nonsense they like, make it sound “sciency” and then lie to your face in defiance of any real facts which anyone can find easily.

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Folkerts”]David, are you familiar with the concept of a “photon gas”? Planck’s derivation of BB radiation considered the EM waves within an isothermal cavity. Basically, he found that the cavity is filled with quantized standing EM waves (ie photons). The isothermal cavity is not “empty” but filled with photons flying every direction all the time.

    These photons act like a gas; for example they exert pressure on the walls. It is a fascinating idea — you would enjoy learning more, I suspect.[/quote]

    Tim,.
    In order to learn, please, discard your notion that your photon is physical anything, or physically real. As a useful concept it is real, as anything physical it is not. Conceptually a photon is one unit of “action” never one unit of energy!. To start do a dimensional analysis of Plank’s constant (h).
    That is one unit of “act” one unit of “act” is identical ton the integral of action over time. Current science wants a “quantum” to be very small and very UN-understandable.A quantum or many quanta can be of any scale.

    For Einstein The emission of one electron from an photo cathode. from the absorption of one “Photon” with an apparent energy of 2ev.resulted in the action (of energy “work” over such time) of the act if emitting one electron of zero e

    Please consider the “difference” in:
    energy
    power
    work
    activity
    act.

    Only act is a quantum of “any” size! consider:
    a house is a quantum,of house,
    a boat is a quantum of boat,
    a Earth is a quantum of Earth,
    a Universe is a quantum of Universe.
    All have the property of activity (work) integrated over sufficient time.

    Planck’s units of (h) Joules x seconds, comes nowhere close to a definition of quantum.

    There “:is” no Photon pressure,nor Photon gas. All is a clever construction by Dr.Feynman to assist those familiar with gas laws, to get some concept of Thermal electromagnetic radiation.
    I can only stumble along making many errors, but no longer any as ludicrous as those from you Tim, 😛
    ,

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Rosco”]A vacuum is the best insulator we know.

    It reduces the rate of energy loss from 100% by radiation, conduction and convection to about 64 % of the value for air.

    Obviously that is by radiation alone.

    64 % by radiation alone is pretty amazing though.

    Source – http://www.physics.ucc.ie/staff/Didfyz%20paper.pdf%5B/quote%5D

    Rosco,
    A vacuum is the best insulator we know for conduction and convection. In a Pascalian vacuum. there is no mass to allow diffusion and no mass to allow mass transport. Our vacuum is close. Your ~64% is that high because if the tremendous radiative potential difference between 260K^4 and 7K^4. It is this
    potential difference that creates any radiative flux! The “best” current insulation is a good vacuum (pressure < 0.4 millitor) plus 30 layers of "superinsulation" (each layer
    is a sheet of 0.003″ metallized (coated) Mylar, separated by 0.015″ of Kelivar gause). the Thermal flux my “any and all means” between the two temperatures above, all error comes from the “noise”. Of the best instrumentation earthlings can devise. All that is known, is if there is “any” flux, it must be in the direction toward the lower temperature.
    Your climate alarmists, ignore any instrument error or bias. The alarmists error bars come completely from the statistical error of whatever statistical method used, picked from “The Handbook of Creative Statistics” Vol-II. Vol-I is useful! Vol-II is a cookbook of how to pick a statistical method to demonstrate whatever you wish, from any set of lousy data. There is “NO” science in any of what the alarmists claim.

  • Avatar

    richard 2014

    |

    Hello TIm, does co2 absorb at any other bandwidth, this is from Harvard book chapter 7,

    “Contrast this situation to a greenhouse gas absorbing solely at 15 mm, in the CO2 absorption band ( Figure 7-8 ). At that wavelength the atmospheric column is already opaque ( Figure 7-13 ), and injecting an additional atmospheric absorber has no significant greenhouse effect.”

  • Avatar

    David Cosserat

    |

    Rosco,

    1. You are being very unsophisticated in your argument against averages. You claim that blackbody temperatures are “meaningless numbers” because they don’t correspond to real temperatures. Well they don’t. But ask engineers who are dealing with real problems involving radiation whether blackbody temperature calculations are useful or not in their daily work. They use them all the time.

    2. You say: [i]I do know the back radiative greenhouse effect relies on radiation from a cold object causing a positive thermal effect in a warmer object and that is nonsense.[/i]

    That is indeed the “vox pop” explanation. But the fundamental thermodynamic physics explanation is based on the fact that the rate of radiant energy flow from a constant power source (“the earth’s surface”) through an intervening radiation-absorbing medium (“the GHGs in the atmosphere”) to a constant temperature sink (“the 3K cosmic microwave background temperature of space”) slows down as the density of the intervening radiation-absorbing medium rises (“more GHGs”). Consequently the temperature of the constant power source (“the earth’s surface”) also rises accordingly.

    Try explaining that to a classroom of kids, or to a President or Prime Minister, or to a scientific adviser to government, or to a Greenpeace activist.

    In short, the idea previously promoted by a few slayers (not all) – that the temperature of a powered source is independent of the temperature of the cooler absorbing body or bodies towards which it is radiating – is a busted flush.

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    “Earth radiates IR in the N band. … Other wavelengths of IR that CO2 can and might absorb, are not emitted by Earth.”

    The first half is correct — Earth does radiate in the “N band” (ie “the atmospheric window”).

    The second statement above is simply wrong. Earth radiates over a wide band of wavelengths from ~ 4 um to ~100 um (which is true whether you are talking about emissions from the surface level, or emissions from the top of hte atmosphere to space). The “N band” (ie the “atmospheric window) is a small (but important)part of that emission (from ~ 8 um to ~ 14 um). Specifically, CO2 can and does absorb near 15 um, which is certainly emitted by the earth.

  • Avatar

    richard 2014

    |

    would anyone here care to comment,

    IR Expert Speaks Out After 40 Years Of Silence

    “Listen carefully. Earth radiates IR in the N band. Carbon dioxide does not absorb IR in the N band. That’s why it’s the N band. Other wavelengths of IR that CO2 can and might absorb, are not emitted by Earth. There, one paragraph totally wipes out everything you said. The other person asked why I remained silent for 40 years, just normal proprietary information forms I signed with GE. You want to know this info, ask the engineers there. Don’t ask NASA. I laugh because everybody thinks NASA are these great scientists because they can send telescopes and other high-tech components into space on rockets. But who do you think built those components? And who do you think built the rockets. NASA knows nothing, and GE ain’t telling. Ha ha ha ha”

  • Avatar

    richard 2014

    |

    visiting physicist, been banned eh,

    take heart think of this poor guy ,

    A scientist whose work was so controversial he was ridiculed and asked to leave his research group has won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry.

    Daniel Shechtman, 70, a researcher at Technion-Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa, received the award for discovering seemingly impossible crystal structures in frozen gobbets of metal that resembled the beautiful patterns seen in Islamic mosaics.

  • Avatar

    richard 2014

    |

    “The point I make however is that Anthony Watts, Roy Spencer, Robert Brown et al do actually insist the radiation from a cold object causes a positive thermal effect in an object that has a higher temperature.”

    When i sit down on my cold lavatory seat I have never gone wow that feels warmer.

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”Rosco”]Let’s put this old argument that averages mean anything at all to bed once and for all.[/quote]

    Rosco,
    Much of what you write is undecipherable to me, many unknown variables.

    -snip- all not understandable by me-

    Here I agree completely:

    [quote name=”Rosco”] I do not claim to be certain about the inhibited cooling argument but I do know the back radiative greenhouse effect relies on radiation from a cold object causing a positive thermal effect in a warmer object and that is nonsense.

    I think you will find however that Universities do actually teach the back radiative greenhouse effect is real science as do A Watts, R Spencer and R Brown to name but a few. [/quote]

    That first sentence/para is correct. None of the claims have been nor can be observed. That is indeed non-science.

    Your second sentence/para is the crime. Let us prosecute in a court of law, all those with a PHD, knew or should have known, that they were brainwashing innocent students.

    The only defence is widespread scholarly agreement of what is not, thus indighting all that promoted such FRAUD.
    Science will never recover from this Fraud!
    A correct judicial decision, 2000 lashes with a cat of nine tails, before being thrown into the volcano, along with the innocent wife and all offsprouts

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    [quote name=”Rosco”]The Moon has a “blackbody temperature” of 270.7 Kelvin while Earth has 254.3 Kelvin.[/quote]

    You urgently need an update on this information: both numbers are false as a result of a false application of the SB equation.

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    David, are you familiar with the concept of a “photon gas”? Planck’s derivation of BB radiation considered the EM waves within an isothermal cavity. Basically, he found that the cavity is filled with quantized standing EM waves (ie photons). The isothermal cavity is not “empty” but filled with photons flying every direction all the time.

    These photons act like a gas; for example they exert pressure on the walls. It is a fascinating idea — you would enjoy learning more, I suspect.

  • Avatar

    Rosco

    |

    A vacuum is the best insulator we know.

    It reduces the rate of energy loss from 100% by radiation, conduction and convection to about 64 % of the value for air.

    Obviously that is by radiation alone.

    64 % by radiation alone is pretty amazing though.

    Source – http://www.physics.ucc.ie/staff/Didfyz%20paper.pdf

  • Avatar

    Rosco

    |

    Let’s put this old argument that averages mean anything at all to bed once and for all.

    “Many discussions about energy balances in the earth-atmosphere system refer to mean energy flows averaged over time and space.”

    Ask any cook if you get the same result from cooking at 180 C for one hour and cooking for 10 hours at minus 18 degrees C – the number of watt hours is the same !

    The Moon has a “blackbody temperature” of 270.7 Kelvin while Earth has 254.3 Kelvin. These are meaningless numbers that obfuscate the real effects the solar radiation can cause.

    The point I make however is that Anthony Watts, Roy Spencer, Robert Brown et al do actually insist the radiation from a cold object causes a positive thermal effect in an object that has a higher temperature.

    My email is roscomac@y7mail.com – send me an email and I’ll forward you emails from these people where they claim exactly that.

    They also claim the space around the Earth is “cold”- they do it all the time !

    But it simply cannot be “cold” even if it were not a vacuum. The solar constant at Mars’ orbit is capable of inducing about 319 K or 46 degrees C.

    When NASA first launched Skylab it had a device they called the solar parasol which failed to deploy properly. Parasol – “a canopy designed to protect against rain or sunlight”

    Clearly it is designed to protect against sunlight.

    The first astronauts to dock with it had to repair it because it was more than 70 degrees C inside – obviously uninhabitable. Source – NASA program series “when we left the earth”.

    I do not claim to be certain about the inhibited cooling argument but I do know the back radiative greenhouse effect relies on radiation from a cold object causing a positive thermal effect in a warmer object and that is nonsense.

    I think you will find however that Universities do actually teach the back radiative greenhouse effect is real science as do A Watts, R Spencer and R Brown to name but a few.

    Here’s one example

    http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2002Q4/211/notes_greenhouse.html

    And I don’t mind Roy Spencer – I just don’t agree with him on some things.

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”David Cosserat”]…continued from above
    -snip-
    To see how this works, you have to distinguish between radiative [i]potential[/i] and radiative [i]flow[/i]. Trenberth’s figure for radiative potential from atmosphere to surface is 333W/sqm. That is hardly insignificant compared with his 396W/sqm radiative potential from surface to atmosphere. On the other hand, if you are talking about radiative flow, that is only 63W/sqm (the difference between the two potentials). And note this is flowing upwards from ground to atmosphere, so there is no violation of the 2LT. 63W/sqm is indeed relatively insignificant (especially when you consider that of that 63Wsqm, 40W/sqm is radiated direcctly to space (the so-called ‘atmospheric window’) and the other 23W/sqm is thermalised anyway within the first kilometre or so above the surface. So radiative energy flow (as opposed to potential) simply ceases to exist.[/quote]

    David,
    Because of this post I ask to be forgiven for calling you a liar. I assumed all that claim knowledge of thermal electromagnetic radiation were aware of the difference between radiative potential and radiative flux. I was wrong! Such understanding is required to understand that there is no need for the concept of back radiation, and the acceptance that such does not exist. All objects with a temperature a potential to emit or absorb thermal flux to/from each direction and each wavelength that they have such “directional and spectral emissivity”. A surface or cross sectional area “property” needed for any “flux” to result from that “directional and spectral emissivity”. I stress this twice as there is no surface or cross sectional area has the “directional and spectral emissivity” of a black-body or grey-body’ A small aperture in a carbon cavity can come close, but needs special construction for each temperature range.
    Anyhow, your above, still in my opinion contains many misinterpretations. We may discuss those if you wish. Please remember “all” thermal radiative terms are vectors. Most are by convention, referenced to absolute zero and can only be used as vector sums of opposing potentials, unless you do indeed have a black zero Kelvin surface. Space is our only close candidate.

  • Avatar

    David Cosserat

    |

    …continued from above

    5. Finally, you comment that the [i]pissy radiation from an atmosphere …[that] has a density of only a fraction of that of water let alone soil renders all the GHG claims as simply rubbish ![/i]

    I am afraid that is not correct. Competent warmist physicists argue that the GHG effect is due to the ‘intervening absorptive medium’ slowing down the rate at which energy can flow and is NOT due to radiation ‘flowing back’ from the atmosphere towards the surface to ‘heat it up’!

    To see how this works, you have to distinguish between radiative [i]potential[/i] and radiative [i]flow[/i]. Trenberth’s figure for radiative potential from atmosphere to surface is 333W/sqm. That is hardly insignificant compared with his 396W/sqm radiative potential from surface to atmosphere. On the other hand, if you are talking about radiative flow, that is only 63W/sqm (the difference between the two potentials). And note this is flowing upwards from ground to atmosphere, so there is no violation of the 2LT. 63W/sqm is indeed relatively insignificant (especially when you consider that of that 63Wsqm, 40W/sqm is radiated direcctly to space (the so-called ‘atmospheric window’) and the other 23W/sqm is thermalised anyway within the first kilometre or so above the surface. So radiative energy flow (as opposed to potential) simply ceases to exist.

  • Avatar

    David Cosserat

    |

    Rosco,

    I hardly know where to begin responding to your #41 and #42. You must have been having a bad day. 🙂

    1. You say: [i]How does any point on a rotating planet qualify as a “constantly powered source” ??? Surely even you can tell the temperature goes up and down ?[/i]

    Many discussions about energy balances in the earth-atmosphere system refer to mean energy flows averaged over time and space. That evens out the transient changes due to night-and-day, seasonal variation, longitudinal air flows, etc. In physics and engineering we often make simplifying assumptions like that in order to proceed with a discussion. Either get with it or quit the discussion!

    2. You say you are confused by my assertion that the presence of an intervening absorptive medium between a constantly powered source and a fixed temperature sink in principle causes the source temperature to be greater than it would otherwise be. And you also ask: [i]How does the space surrounding the Earth face qualify as a fixed temperature sink? It’s a vacuum, fool, and has zero physical properties including hot or cold or any temperature at all! Please explain how that qualifies as “a fixed temperature sink” ? Again – another stupid nonsense comment made by someone who thinks they are clever ![/i]

    Gulp! My assertion was intended to encapsulate briefly the following facts: (i) the mean radiation from the earth’s surface behaves as a constant power source; (ii) the presence of trace radiative gases in the intervening atmosphere between the earth’s surface and space has the effect of increasing the surface temperature above what it would otherwise be without them; and (iii) the outgoing radiation from the TOA is transferred to a universe that behaves as a constant temperature heat bath at ~3K. That all seems very uncontroversial to me. Which of those statements do you disagree with?

    3. You say: [i]Sure the atmosphere heats up – any fool knows that. Gases have a low radiating power so this in effect retains energy that may otherwise be lost more rapidly than if radiating from a solid surface direct to a vacuum. But this is NOT adding extra “heating” to the surface – it is reducing the rate of energy loss and the Sun rising next morning is the source of the additional heating.[/i]

    Agreed. It is of course the Sun that heats the earth’s surface. And the surface temperature is indeed set by the rate at which heat is able to escape up through the atmosphere to space. And this rate is restricted because only the trace radiative gases towards the top of the atmosphere can radiate to space, where incidentally they act as coolants. This is fairly uncontroversial. So where is our disagreement?

    4. You say: “…the radiation from a colder object cannot be shown to increase the temperature of a warmer object.”

    I agree completely with you. Trouble is, warmist-inclined physicists such as Tim Folkerts, Joel Shore, and Robert Brown also agree completely with you. This is the Slayers’ straw man argument that I was complaining about.

    continued below…

  • Avatar

    Rosco

    |

    Oh and Yelder consider this statement I make

    “Without the attenuation afforded by earth’s atmosphere the Stefan-Boltzmann equation tells us this power is capable of heating an object that absorbs it to a temperature of 394 K or about 121 degrees C.”

    Then look up the maximum temperature on the Moon !

    It really isn’t fair to be engaging these guys in an argument – they don’t have any ammunition !

  • Avatar

    Rosco

    |

    Sunsettommy – no need to delete comments made by an idiot – they simply prove how stupid he is !

    He says I provide no evidence that space is a vacuum – complete idiot LOL !

    “Those of us who have never visited space and measured its temperature might prefer to consider the reasoning of science educators rather than that of bloggers like Rosco or Hans.”

    Again one of the stupidest comments only a complete idiot could possibly make – here is why.

    The Earth orbits the Sun in an oval orbit.

    The Sun continually emits powerful electromagnetic radiation across all wavelengths capable of measurement by man.

    At the distance of the Earth this radiation averages about 1367 Watts per square metre.

    Without the attenuation afforded by earth’s atmosphere the Stefan-Boltzmann equation tells us this power is capable of heating an object that absorbs it to a temperature of 394 K or about 121 degrees C.

    Doesn’t really sound like that is “cold” even if you could apply such absurd value comparisons to a vacuum !

    Perhaps you meant “HOT” !

    NASA gives the solar constant at Mars as about 589.2 Watts per square metre.

    This radiation is capable of inducing a temperature of 319 Kelvin or about 46 degrees C.

    From the Sun out to the orbit of Mars the solar radiation is capable of inducing temperatures varying from many thousands of degrees C to 46 degrees C according to the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.

    The only areas between here and Mars where you could escape the solar radiation is in the shadow of the Earth or Moon and that is a tiny fraction of the space surrounding us !

    How does that qualify as a “fixed temperature heat sink” idiot ?

    How does that qualify as “the cold of space” as all of the “experts” who post on WUWT claim ?

    Perhaps Smaug of the Hobbit fame may find it a bit chilly – LOL !

    Earth to David – your stupidity reveals who are the true “armchair buffoons” – thanks for outing yourself and the rest of the morons who cannot apply even simple logic and basic knowledge in support of their absurd proposals !

    The Earth’s radiation is not even half that of the Solar radiation at Mars – put your brain in gear before you go around demonstrating to all and sundry what a complete lack of knowledge and intelligence you actually have !

    Remember the Earth rotates in about 24 hours so most of the planet is deprived of solar radiation for an average of 12 hours – perhaps this explains wht the Earth is warmer than absurd idiotic calculations by “experts” claim

    And for your information, Yelder, henceforth know as self outed idiot, I wrote the article you’re commenting on !

    AND I’ve never read “Slaying the Sky Dragon” but probably should.

    Unfortunately we witness such displays of complete stupidity shown here by Yelder and David all too often !!!

    You don’t have a single argument that makes any sense or is supported by one single fact.

    You demonstrate the phenomenon of “intracranial space” perfectly !

  • Avatar

    Sunsettommy

    |

    [b]ADMINISTRATOR[/b]:

    Peter I will start DELETING your past comments if you continue to evade the bannings given to you.

    You are Banned once again.

  • Avatar

    Yelder Retep

    |

    In comment #6 someone using the name Rosco said of Spencer and Watts “..They are dismissive and insulting in their treatment of PSI I and yet they have absolutely no real evidence of the claims they make .. ”. In comment # 42 that same Rosco was dismissive and insulting towards David Cosserat, saying “ .. the space surrounding the Earth .. It’s a vacuum, fool, and has zero physical properties including hot or cold or any temperature at all! .. ” without providing any real evidence in support of that nonsensical claim.

    Rosco does give th eimpression of being an arrogant fool who has accepted without question what is claimed in that cobbled collection of blog articles “Slaying the Sky Dragon … ”. PSI CFO and “slayer” Hans Schreuder claimed in Chapter 13 “ .. Our atmosphere is surrounded by the vacuum of space .. space is not cold! Space has no temperature – there is not enough matter in the vacuum of space for it to have a “temperature” .. ” (http://principia-scientific.org/members/Sky_Dragon_1.pdf). Maybe Rosco’s science education all came from that book, hence his lack of knowledge. As Rosco admitted here in comment # 6 “ .. I know very little in this field .. ”. I couldn’t agree more.

    There are plenty preferred sources of education than “Slaying th eSky Dragon .. ”, one of which says “ .. Completely empty space would have no temperature since there are no molecules there – it would make no sense to discuss the temperature of nothingness. We wouldn’t even call it zero degrees. Technically, there must be matter present to have an associated temperature. Of course, even the emptiness of interstellar space has a few hydrogen nuclei, electrons, or neutrinos zipping through it and thus is not truly empty .. the 2.7K temperature of the CMB may be quoted as the “temperature of space”- it is perhaps the best way to characterize the energy content of empty space. Of course, 2.7K is pretty cold .. ” (https://www.uu.edu/dept/physics/scienceguys/2003July.cfm).

    Those of us who have never visited space and measured its temperature might prefer to consider the reasoning of science educators rather than that of bloggers like Rosco or Hans.

  • Avatar

    Rosco

    |

    I find your assertion confusing ” intervening absorptive medium between a constantly powered source and a fixed temperature sink does in principle cause the source temperature to be greater than it would otherwise be”

    I got distracted without dealing with this piece of nonsense !

    Pray tell –

    [b]How does any point on a rotating planet qualify as a “constantly powered source” ???[/b]

    Surely even you can tell the temperature goes up and down ?

    How does the space surrounding the Earth face qualify as a “a fixed temperature sink” ?

    It’s a vacuum, fool, and has zero physical properties including hot or cold or any temperature at all!

    And if you face the Sun you are subject to the solar constant radiation and at night you observe the conical “shadow” cast by the Earth in the otherwise powerful radiation “field”.

    [b]Please explain how that qualifies as “a fixed temperature sink” ?[/b]

    Again – another stupid nonsense comment made by someone who thinks they are clever !

    The Earth constantly “presents” a hemisphere to the Sun. The points of the Earth’s surfaces move in and out of this illuminated area.

    The radiation is assumed to be approximately constant at ~1367 W/sqm.

    The area of the Earth from 45 N to 45 S represents more than half the area of the globe and from say the prime meridian at noon from 45 east to 45 west and 45 N to 45 S with the Sun over the equator at least a quarter of the surface area of the Earth is always illuminated by radiation equal to or greater than 676 W/sqm using the cosine of the latitude with the albedo adjusted irraditaion level of 1367 W/sqm.

    Using the SB equation and the fact that water has an emissivity approaching unity and a huge amount of the Earth is water from the equator to 45 N and especially 45 S – we can assume that without evaporation the surface of the oceans could absorb sufficient energy to cause a temperature calculated to be of the order of 330 Kelvin – 57 degrees C.

    Compared to that the pissy radiation from an atmosphere where the overwhelming majority never approaches temperatures within 20 or 30 Kelvin of that and has a density of only a fraction of that of water let alone soil renders all the GHG claims as simply rubbish !

  • Avatar

    Rosco

    |

    #17 David Cosserat 2014-02-13 02:01

    I find you assertion confusing ” intervening absorptive medium between a constantly powered source and a fixed temperature sink does in principle cause the source temperature to be greater than it would otherwise be” and

    “In the latter group there are people today pounding out the mantra that fundamental physics says that such an increment in temperature due to radiating gases is impossible.”

    Sure the atmosphere heats up – any fool knows that. Gases have a low radiating power so this in effect retains energy that may otherwise be lost more rapidly than if radiating from a solid surface direct to a vacuum.

    But this is NOT adding extra
    “heating” to the surface – it is reducing the rate of energy loss and the Sun rising next morning is the source of the additional heating.

    The surface will heat to a temperature depending on the power of the radiation level absorbed, how much is absorbed and the ambient temperature such surface is in thermal equilibrium with absent the extra radiation.

    You can prove this yourself as I have done.

    No one says ” that fundamental physics says that such an increment in temperature due to radiating gases is impossible” – [b]typical misdirection by a person of the ilk I criticize[/b] !

    What we do say is that the radiation from a cold object cannot be shown to increase the temperature of a warmer object.

    I claim my experiment and analysis of real empirical lend support to this claim I make.

    If you can supply any relevant experimental data capable of rational scientific and mathematical analysis please advise PSI moderators or me in order that the claim can be investigated and confirmed or criticized !

  • Avatar

    Rosco

    |

    Is Yelder Retep implying that only practising scientists have intelligence and even perform interesting and relevant experiments?

    Is Yelder Retep implying that the “consensus” is invincible ? As this is the only reasonable interpretation of people who dismiss intelligent people on spurious grounds such as he does!

    I think you’ll find history shows that those who blindly follow the “consensus” position are more often than not on the wrong side of advances. Almost every advance in scientific knowledge has been made by people who were considered as inferior by the “consensus” of their time.

    Unfortunately statements such as I highlight in this article are NOT advances in knowledge !

  • Avatar

    Rosco

    |

    I guess we all agree – glass does not universally block IR and to claim it does is misleading in the extreme.

  • Avatar

    Sunsettommy

    |

    [quote name=”Yelder Retep”]The final sentence of my previous comment (#36) should more precisely have said “Another cobbled collection of old blog articles COMPILED by John O’Sullivan and Hans Schreuder and published as “Slaying the Sky Dragon 2” is available at http://www.slayingtheskydragon.com/pdf/Slaying_The_Sky_Dragon_complementary.pdf%5B/quote%5D

    [b]ADMINISTRATOR[/b]:

    You are banned once again for trolling and being off topic with your attacks.

  • Avatar

    Yelder Retep

    |

    @ David Cosserat,

    In comment #12 you referred to “ .. interactions between slayers and non-scientists .. ”, implying that the “Slayers” are scientists. The “Slayers” comprise 7 of the 8 PSI founding members who contributed to a cobbled collection of blog articles under the title “Slaying the Sky Dragon .. ” (originally there were 9 authors shown on the front cover but any article contributed by Dr. Oliver Manuel – a member of the original group of PSI founding members in 2010/1011 – was removed).. The articles in that book were written in the main by bloggers rather than practising scientists. I was closely involved with the ”slayers” prior to publication of their book and also during the discussions at that time about setting up PSI as a private company (a Community Interest Company – CIC). Relevant E-mail exchanges going back to Feb. 2010 can be seen at http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/psi-due-diligence-20102011-selected-e.html, including contributions made by Dr. Manuel.

    Of the 21 chapters in “Slaying the Sky Dragon .. ” Allan Siddons wrote 9 and Hans Schreuder wrote 4. Both have written numerous blog articles on CACC but I have unearthed no other publications of a scientific nature by either prior to their involvement in the CACC debate. Jo Olson, who wrote 1 chapter, is not a scientist but a retired civil engineer and John O’Sullivan, also author of 1 chapter, is an ex-high-school teacher of art.

    In my opinion only 2 of the authors (1 chapter each) are or have been scientists. Dr. Charles Anderson (who appears not to reject the “greenhouse effect” outright, saying “ .. “It appears that if any ‘greenhouse effect’ occurs due to CO2 in our atmosphere, that effect is very small .. ” (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/alt.global-warming/epaLLbLO1Ow/co5GTWq4FmoJ) and Dr. Martin Hertzberg. Others (2 chapters each) who might arguably be considered to be scientists are Dr. Tim Ball, a retired Professor of Geography and Dr. Claes Johnson, who said in Oct 2011 “ .. I am not a member of any group subject to group thinking, in particular not the slayers group .. ” (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/professor-judith-currys-letter-to.html).

    Another cobbled collection of old blog articles by John O’Sullivan and Hans Schreuder and published as “Slaying the Sky Dragon 2” is available at http://www.slayingtheskydragon.com/pdf/Slaying_The_Sky_Dragon_complementary.pdf.

  • Avatar

    Yelder Retep

    |

    @ David Cosserat,

    In comment #34 you said “ .. The discussion here is about two points of view .. One view supported by Anthony Watts and Roy Spencer .. The other view, supported by .. (the) ‘slayers’ .. the skeptical fight against climate alarmism is being compromised by .. a few armchair buffoons .. ”.

    Firstly, there are many many more highly respected CACC sceptics than Watts and Spencer who support (with sound science) the argument that “greenhouse” gases in the atmosphere (including CO2) prevent the escape to space of some of the outgoing radiated energy (OLR). That restricted flow of energy contributes towards the warming of parts of the global system of atmos/bio/geo/aqua.cryo-spheres, including the surface. Two diagrams which illustrate very clearly why this is so can be seen on the blog of spectrometrist Dr. Jack Barrett (http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page21.htm).

    Sound supporting scientific arguments are clearly presented elsewhere on Dr. Barrett’s blog and it is only a relatively tiny handful of CACC sceptics who reject them outright, including only one or two “slayers”.

    I wholeheartedly agree that the sceptical fight with the climate alarmists is being compromised by a few but would not refer to them as “buffoons”. A buffoon is “a stupid or foolish person who tries to be funny” (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/buffoon) but I don’t regard any of the “slayers” as stupid or foolish. Nor are they trying to be funny. They have other motives.

  • Avatar

    David Cosserat

    |

    richard at #2014,

    Hi Richard,

    You have picked up my phrase “armchair buffoons” that I used at #17 and applied it, with humour but incorrectly, against yourself. It was certainly not aimed at people like you who are obviously anxious to learn more about a subject in which you are not specialised.

    In contrast I used the term to describe people who think they know it all (but don’t) and often sarcastically impose their partial knowledge on others by attacking them personally in the blog trails rather than engaging in any kind of constructive debate.

    The discussion here is about two points of view that different groups of skeptics hold. One view supported by Anthony Watts and Roy Spencer (and many others) is that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere does indeed cause a corresponding increase in surface temperature but that the increase is so too small that it does NOT constitute an alarming situation requiring the diversion of billions of tax dollars to mitigate the effect.

    The other view, supported by a small group of people who are often collectively referred to as ‘slayers’, is that the laws of physics rule out increases in CO2 being the cause of ANY SURFACE TEMPERATURE RISE AT ALL.

    This interesting controversy between climate skeptics, which should have been carried out in a scholarly and polite manner between qualified physicists and engineers, has now resulted in acrimony, with each side accusing the other of being wicked liars and traitors to the ‘one true view’.

    I argue that until this rift is healed, the skeptical fight against climate alarmism is being compromised by, yes, a few armchair buffoons who don’t know how to behave properly.

    But you are definitely NOT one of them!

  • Avatar

    richard 2014

    |

    Hello Yelder,

    Thanks , lack of science holds me back but I get the gist though the term armchair buffoon hangs over me.

  • Avatar

    Yelder Retep

    |

    Hi Tim (Folkerts),

    I see that back in Feb. 2013 you were recommending that others should have a play with MODTRAN to see the effects of greenhouse gases on OLR (http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/02/04/david-cosserat-atmospheric-thermal-enhancement-part-i-the-great-debate-begins/comment-page-1/#comment-43143). The results of such an exercise were discussed extensively during the 2013 debate to which I linked in comment #15 covering that PSI blog article “Shock News: Greenhouse Gases COOL the Earth .. ” by Bevan Dockery. Copies of some sample plots were sent to Bevan on 17th Sept. followed by other OLR plots sent by Roger Taguchi but Bevan shied away from discussing them.

    Hi Richard 2014,

    I you really are interested in trying to understand real science used in support “greenhouse effect” you could do far worse that going to the blog of a real scientist, Dr. Jack Barrett (http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/) – see my comment #15. Jack has written an excellent introductory booklet “Global Warming: The Human Contribution” available in Kindle version for under £2 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Global-Warming-The-Human-Contribution-ebook/dp/B0083IOWPU).

  • Avatar

    richard 2014

    |

    I am not a scientist just an armchair buffoon trying to understand . Co2 absorbs Ir at certain frequencies, these are the same frequencies of IR that are traveling up and out to space, I am guessing the co2 emits these frequencies straight away, so re- emitting the same amount of energy that is already traveling upwards around the co2 would not in my eyes add anymore energy. I can only compare in my simple way a room with a heater set at a temp of 65 degrees, if i add another heater set at 65 degrees the room will not get any hotter. If i had two adjacent rooms or one room above another set ata temp of 65 degrees i could only make one room warmer ( or the one below) than the other by using a heat exchange pump.

    Or in my room, lets imagine a ballon is filled with the heat( my version of co2) rising from a heater , does that make the room any warmer even when i squeeze the ballon empty of its heat, the same temp as the rising heat is expelled , all it would do is continue rising. Well just trying to make sense of it all.

  • Avatar

    Sunsettommy

    |

    [quote name=”David Cosserat”]Re. visiting physicist #26

    Doug,

    Anthony Watts isn’t running a public institution. He is running a private blog. He has every right to ban people who he thinks are vexatious, or for any other reason.

    I happen to think that your hypothesis about downward diffusion of heat through the atmosphere due to the gravitational gradient has merit and at least requires attention. Note those words: “has merit”. That does not mean I agree or disagree with it [i]because I cannot evaluate your argument properly without reading the documents you refer to[/i]. And nor can anyone else.

    You refer repeatedly to an earlier now non-existent document on the web which PSI removed from their archives because of your thread bombing behaviour. Also you have not honoured your recent offer, which I took up just a few days ago, to send me an advance Word copy of your soon-to-be-published booklet on the matter.

    No wonder people get frustrated by your general approach and ban you from their organisations and from their websites. You are a man with a mission (that’s great!) but your communication skills are zilch.

    David[/quote]

    I just banned him…. again.

  • Avatar

    David Cosserat

    |

    Re. visiting physicist #27

    Doug,

    Your posting #27 arrived after I had posted my previous reply to your #26.

    I have read it and I rest my case.

    David

  • Avatar

    David Cosserat

    |

    Re. visiting physicist #26

    Doug,

    Anthony Watts isn’t running a public institution. He is running a private blog. He has every right to ban people who he thinks are vexatious, or for any other reason.

    I happen to think that your hypothesis about downward diffusion of heat through the atmosphere due to the gravitational gradient has merit and at least requires attention. Note those words: “has merit”. That does not mean I agree or disagree with it [i]because I cannot evaluate your argument properly without reading the documents you refer to[/i]. And nor can anyone else.

    You refer repeatedly to an earlier now non-existent document on the web which PSI removed from their archives because of your thread bombing behaviour. Also you have not honoured your recent offer, which I took up just a few days ago, to send me an advance Word copy of your soon-to-be-published booklet on the matter.

    No wonder people get frustrated by your general approach and ban you from their organisations and from their websites. You are a man with a mission (that’s great!) but your communication skills are zilch.

    David

  • Avatar

    visiting physicist

    |

    You say in the above article “I am saying however that … it is entirely possible to observe an IR heating effect of CO2 contained in a glass jar”

    And is that why, if you add water vapour or other radiating gases like carbon dioxide to the space between double glazed windows you make the insulation less effective?

    I’m sorry to have to tell you that carbon dioxide is not a source of energy in your glass jar. Only the Sun is. To heat anything above its existing temperature by radiation you need to have spontaneous radiation coming from a source that is hotter again than what you are trying to heat.

    In the troposphere, the force of gravity creates a thermal gradient, lowering the temperature above about 4Km altitude and raising it at the surface end below 4Km.

    If the air were pure non-radiating gas then the surface would be warmed by about 40 degrees. However, when radiating greenhouse gases are introduced (mostly water vapour) the gradient is reduced by about a third, so the thermal plot supports the surface at a temperature of about 27 degrees above the radiating temperature of 255K.

    This supporting temperature is a mean daily minimum at any particular location, and the daily mean temperature is about 5 or 6 degrees above that on average, due to the daily warming by the Sun. However the Sun could not achieve such temperatures but for the supporting thermal profile that slows cooling in the early pre-dawn hours.

    So this explains why it’s not carbon dioxide after all that is doing the warming – in fact it’s totally natural and mankind’s efforts to reduce carbon dioxide will do nothing but reduce the abundance of plant life.

  • Avatar

    visiting physicist

    |

    Anthony Watts censorship of authors like me who are doing nothing but showing why there is no greenhouse effect – and using valid physics to do so – is of course to protect the status quo which no doubt funds his valuable blog by keeping his like-minded commenters happy that theirs is the right “science” and we must personally attack anyone who threatens to use valid science to disprove what Watts would wish were http://www…right.

    Wow, twenty or more comments written over the last week, all originally approved after awaiting moderation – all these comments and all the many more comments relating to them – perhaps 50 comments all censored in a matter of minutes.

    Oh you are such a powerful man aren’t you just eh what, Watts?

  • Avatar

    Yelder Retep

    |

    Hi David (Cosserat),

    I have no disagreement about the concept behind the PSI blogging group, only concerns about the objectives of several of the founding and other members.

  • Avatar

    David Cosserat

    |

    Yelder (or is it Peter?),

    I am not going to indulge you by naming names.

    I think that the concept behind PSI is sound and if you have read many of their articles you will see that the general flavour is such that most could just as easily have appeared in WUWT. They are generally written by responsible and experienced people with science and/or engineering backgrounds who are clearly greatly worried by climate alarmism, as indeed am I.

    But there is a small clique of PSI blog commentators who still believe, on theoretical grounds, that the presence of radiative gases in the atmosphere has no effect whatsoever on the surface temperature. It turns out that they do not have a coherent argument to support this view but are nevertheless clearly very angry. So they spend most of their time ranting against others who (they claim) believe that heat flows from cold to hot, violating the second law of thermodynamics.

    This is where all this mockery of Watts and Spencer has originated even though neither Watts not Spencer actually hold this view. And, yes, this mockery has in turn has been reciprocated by them.

    I just think it is time to resolve this pointless spat.

  • Avatar

    David Cosserat

    |

    geran,

    From what you say in #19 above, you and I are thinking along [i]exactly[/i] the same lines.

    It is my desire to see WUWT and PSI reconciled and working more effectively together towards their common cause.

    See you around…

  • Avatar

    Yelder Retep

    |

    David (Cosserat),

    You say that ” .. PSI is a great and growing potential forum of experienced engineers and physicists .. ” but can you give a few examples, starting with those who you believe are making a significant contribution to the CACC debate?

    Once you have done that we can have a chat about the contribution that each may have made and decide where there really is incompetence and confusion, as alleged about Dr. Roy Spencer and Anthony Watts.

  • Avatar

    Yelder Retep

    |

    Correction to my previous comment ” .. there are lies coming from SOME on all sides .. “.

  • Avatar

    Yelder Retep

    |

    Hi geran,

    One of the problems with this Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change debate is that there are lies coming from those on all sides. Any lie undermines the credibility of the person who made it but also the credibility of those who support that person.

  • Avatar

    geran

    |

    I’m not liking the way this comment thread is going. I’m not happy with my first comment. Here’s my problem: Watts and Spencer are successful “generals” in the war against the false science of AGW. They have been so successful, they should be given medals.

    PSI has the right to criticize Watts and Spencer, because they have attacked PSI. But, I do not have that right. I am just a “foot solider” in the war.

    My desire is for all the major players to work together to defeat the lies. The science of the so-called GHE has changed. CO2 has increased but temps have flattened. Maybe everyone that once believed in the GHE should re-examine both the new science and the new data.

    I am signing out on this particular comment thread.

  • Avatar

    Yelder Retep

    |

    Hi Tim (Folkerts),

    The first link of mine sits nicely alongside your 6th Dec. 2012 article “Simple argument supporting a radiative greenhouse effect” (http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/12/06/tim-folkerts-simple-argument-supporting-a-radiative-greenhouse-effect/) on Roger Tattersall’s blog.

    Here’s a link to another article that you may find of interest http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/spotlighton-principia-scientific.html

  • Avatar

    David Cosserat

    |

    geran,

    You say: “They already made that leap…”

    This was in reference to my comment about PSI having reluctantly agreed that introducing an intervening absorptive medium between a constantly powered source and a fixed temperature sink does in principle cause the source temperature to be greater than it would otherwise be; and my contention that PSI had not made the leap from reluctantly accepting this position to the next obvious step in the argument, namely to concentrate all its efforts on demonstrating that the effect in the case of atmospheric GHGs intervening between the earth’s powered surface and the heat sink of space, whilst physically real, is negligible.

    Yes there are many individual PSI members who have moved on to this position but unfortunately several haven’t. In the latter group there are people today pounding out the mantra that fundamental physics says that such an increment in temperature due to radiating gases is impossible.

    The difference between saying that something is impossible for theoretical reasons and saying that something is negligible for practical reasons, is in fact the difference between the view of Watts, Spencer, Lindzen and many others on the one hand, and PSI on the other.

    In my view this is a great pity because the skeptical cause is thereby divided and weakened. PSI is a great and growing potential forum of experienced engineers and physicists. But I fear it is being damaged by a few noisy armchair buffoons. They need to be silenced if PSI is to become the influential force in the world that its prestigious members deserve.

  • Avatar

    Tim Folkerts

    |

    @ Yelder Retep

    Good links. 🙂

  • Avatar

    Yelder Retep

    |

    That’s a lot of huffing and puffing about the “greenhouse effect” but a picture paints a thousand words. For two relevant pictures see http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page21.htm

    EPNichols said on 10th Feb ” ..Simply amazing, I have never encountered anything like this in my life .. Science is being tarnished by this type of nonsense. The earth is cooled by the troposphere .. “.

    Those OLR plots and the associated explanation by Dr. Barrett should help EP to resolve any misunderstanding that he has.

    Dr. Barrett and other respected physicists debated this issue following the publication on the PSI blog of the article “Greenhouse Gases COOL the Earth – by Australian geophysicist Bevan Dockery, a member of the PSI blogging group. The exchanges can be seen at http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/spotlighton-greenhouse-gases-cool-earth.html .

  • Avatar

    geran

    |

    fricking keyboard,

    Mañana

    Be here tomorrow David for any questions you want responded to about WUWT lack of scientific method.

  • Avatar

    geran

    |

    David–There is someone requiring me to take her to dinner….

    But, your last sentence needs to be responded to:

    “Until they can make that intellectual and emotional leap into the real debate, I fear they will never have any significant influence on mainstream skeptical AGW opinion.”

    They already made the leap, bubba!

    Aujourd’hui, compadre, as in manant….

  • Avatar

    David Cosserat

    |

    geran,

    Re your comment #10.

    You say: “The physics is not easily explained. Quantum physics is complicated…”

    I don’t agree. In a long career in engineering and science I have never come across a subject where the underlying physics is so simple (once grasped). It more-or-less revolves just around the radiative transfer equation q = K(T1^4 – T2^4) which says that the radiative energy flow q from a hotter body at temperature T1 to a cooler body at temperature T2 depends on the difference between the fourth powers of their respective temperatures.

    Quantum theory only comes into it because some people just love having rambling philosophical discussions about the precise mechanisms of heat transfer that are going on ‘under the lid’ at a microscopic level. This is totally unnecessary since the discussion is actually about macroscopic heat transfer.

    As far as interactions between slayers and non-scientists are concerned, I just don’t think there can be any useful dialogue. The slayers’ main job, surely, must be to convince other scientists by scientific discourse to their point of view. This they are spectacularly failing to do for the reasons I have discussed.

  • Avatar

    David Cosserat

    |

    geran,

    Re. your comment #8…

    If as you claim Watts has refused in writing to consider evidence that is contrary to his position then certainly you must justify that claim to all of us by publishing it (unless you have an undertaking not to do so). Otherwise, people can only go on Watts’ published statements and behaviour, and on that basis I see no sign of his refusal to consider evidence but plenty of signs of his frustration at the behaviour of some slayers.

    You say “PSI …have the physics down”. Well no, actually. They are in quite a muddle (which of course does not necessarily mean they are wrong, just that they are failing to communicate coherently). They have now more-or-less agreed, as they must, that the rate of energy transfer by radiation from ground to atmosphere IS in principle moderated by the difference between downward and upward radiative potentials (see my comment immediately above to Rosco) and so, in effect, the rate of flow of energy up the atmospheric column from the ground to space IS in principle affected by the radiating GHGs in the atmosphere. But they have not followed through that logic to the point of demonstrating the magnitude of this effect (which I personally suspect is negligible). Until they can make that intellectual and emotional leap into the real debate, I fear they will never have any significant influence on mainstream skeptical AGW opinion.

  • Avatar

    geran

    |

    Addendum to above:

    The fact is that slayers are generally VERY BAD AT EXPLAINING THEIR POSITION, seeming to prefer to make personal attacks on their opponents rather than to debate calmly and clearly. That doesn’t of course make the slayers wrong. But it sure as heck makes them ineffective.

    The “Slayers” are attacked by both sides. The physics is not easily explained. Quantum physics is complicated. A TV “media” face has no concept. Many “PhD’s” have no concept. The folks that have the answers want to get paid…

  • Avatar

    David Cosserat

    |

    Hi Rosco,

    You say: The point to this article is that educated people shouldn’t make public statements which are not supported by facts.

    Wow! What an ideal world you are aiming for 🙂

    We all make mistakes. Scientific discourse ought to be a way of working through our own and others’ errors in a collaborative effort to find commonly agreed solutions. Blog trails are rife will ill-considered observations. So what? Perhaps we should find out what Watts and Spencer think now about what they said then rather than lambasting them in public about things they may well now want to correct or clarify?

    You say: Anthony Watts et al have also made some very definite statements about the “greenhouse effect” as well as the “proven science” concerning the heating effects of “down welling LWIR”. They have mocked all who try to voice any evidence that the greenhouse effect or the thermal effects of down welling LWIR have never been demonstrated.

    Well maybe. But what’s sauce for the goose… You seem to be forgetting the extreme mockery directed at Watts et al from some of the slayers.

    And on the scientific issue of the “heating effect of down welling LWIR”, it seems clear to me that each side to the debate is now simply talking past the other side without any real engagement. Responsible non-slayer skeptics like Watts and Spencer no longer claim (if they ever did) that the atmosphere’s LWIR [i]potential[/i] does anything other than offset (neutralise if you like) an equivalent amount of upward radiative [i]potential[/i] from ground to atmosphere. Since it is accepted by everyone that the upward potential is greater than the downward potential, the only actual radiative [i]flow[/i] is upwards (being the difference between the two). That is the physics. And it is also the reality.

    So the whole nonsensical dispute boils down to a practical question of whether the downward LWIR potential slows down the rate at which energy flows upwards from ground to atmosphere to a sufficient extent to raise the ground temperature measurably. Determining that one way or the other is what we should now be concentrating on rather than taking pot shots at the opposition (whichever side of the debate we are on).

  • Avatar

    geran

    |

    David,

    You wrote: “It is simply not true to say, as you claimed, that Watts has refused to consider evidence that is contrary to his position.”

    Watts refuses to accept evidence against CO2. I can forward the emails. He refuses the evidence. Don’t make claims like this again unless you want to be labelled a LIAR.

    I agree that some of PSI is rambling, but they have the basic physics down. No one is perfect.

  • Avatar

    David Cosserat

    |

    geran,

    I too am a hard line AGW skeptic. That is to say, I am extremely skeptical that man-made CO2 is having, or ever will have, any measurable effect on the climate.

    As far as I can see from their writings, Watts and Spencer and many others are also skeptical in the sense that they also don’t think CO2 has any alarming effect, and governments should not be diverting billions into useless attempts to mitigate a non-existent problem.

    The dispute hinges on the question of whether fundamental physics rules out any possibility whatsoever of CO2 being a warming agent. ‘Slayers’ say it does, Watts, Spencer and others say it doesn’t but that the practical effects are minimal and maybe un-measurable.

    It is simply not true to say, as you claimed, that Watts has refused to consider evidence that is contrary to his position. Both Watts and Spencer have been involved in furious debates over a long period with ‘slayers’ but have finally given up. I can’t say I blame them. Some slayers have written so incoherently that they have achieved the very opposite of what they intended.

    The fact is that slayers are generally VERY BAD AT EXPLAINING THEIR POSITION, seeming to prefer to make personal attacks on their opponents rather than to debate calmly and clearly. That doesn’t of course make the slayers wrong. But it sure as heck makes them ineffective.

  • Avatar

    Rosco

    |

    The point to this article is that educated people shouldn’t make public statements which are not supported by facts.

    Clearly glass does not block the more energetic wavelengths of IR that is capable of absorption by CO2 thus increasing its temperature.

    Anthony Watts’ statement about Gore’s experiment being wrong because of this is factually wrong.

    Wood noticed an effect by placing a glass plate because there is always some transmittance loss.

    The other thing is absorption and emission effectively breaks the parallel nature of the solar radiation – effectively “scattering” the “beam” thus reducing its irradiance effect. We all know that a lens concentrates (or scatters depending on the nature) parallel beams of light thus changing the properties dramatically.

    But it is impossible for something that exhibits properties similar to a theoretical blackbody – absorption and emission of all radiation that falls upon it – to also act as a trap !

    Above 4 micrometre wavelengths glass comes pretty damn close to full absorption and emission.

    Anthony Watts et al have also made some very [b]definite[/b] statements about the “greenhouse effect” as well as the “proven science” concerning the heating effects of “down welling LWIR”.

    They have mocked all who try to voice any evidence that the greenhouse effect or the thermal effects of down welling LWIR have never been demonstrated.

    They are dismissive and insulting in their treatment of PSI and yet they have absolutely no real evidence of the claims they make – not one single real demonstration of any of the effects they claim are “proven science”.

    Anthony Watts was completely wrong in this instance yet his statements are made as if they are total irrevocable truth – and they were not.

    He continually proclaims his “certain” knowledge without any supporting facts.

    I know very little in this field but I do know BS when I see it and I intend to continue to debunk as much as I can with logic, research and experiment.

  • Avatar

    geran

    |

    David Cosserat–One of the measures of a real scientist is knowing how to separate his own beliefs from the data. I freely admit I am an extreme skeptic of A(CO2-based)GW. I can not prove that CO2 does not somehow cause warming, but I have enough evidence to BELIEVE it does not. I know I cannot prove it scientifically, so it remains my BELIEF.

    Those folks that choose to refuse to examine evidence contrary to their beliefs, and yet claim their belief is science are the non-scientists.

    (By the way, you violated your own conditions when you wrote “That is not a fair comment…”, as the “data” don’t support your “belief”.)

  • Avatar

    David Cosserat

    |

    [quote name=”geran”]Watts is rabidly certain that the “green house effect” is 100% valid. He refuses to consider any evidence to the contrary.

    I doubt he will ever admit he is wrong. Belief systems die hard.[/quote]

    Geran,

    That is not a fair comment about Anthony Watts position. If you are a scientist you should know better than to make qualitative statements. It is what the alarmists do all the time saying, for example, that the world has warmed alarmingly over the last 150 years, without quantifying it at only 0.4degC on average – a miniscule rise and thus decidedly un-alarming.

    The debate that Anthony and Roy Spencer have been having with (some) slayers is whether [i]in principle[/i] CO2 in the atmosphere can cause [i]any warming at all[/i]. They say it does but that it is negligible. That casts them as main stream skeptics, not as alarmists.

    You presumably believe that CO2 causes no warming at all, [i]even in principle[/i]? That’s fine – everyone is entitled to make their own best judgement. But if you were ever found to be wrong, would you admit it?

  • Avatar

    EPNichols

    |

    Simply amazing, I have never encountered anything like this in my life. IR is not block by glass convection is blocked by glass. The air in a greenhouse is isolated as shown experimentally by Dr. Robert Wood. Science is being tarnished by this type of nonsense. The earth is cooled by the troposphere, which experimentally and theoretically demonstrable!

  • Avatar

    geran

    |

    Watts is rabidly certain that the “green house effect” is 100% valid. He refuses to consider any evidence to the contrary.

    I doubt he will ever admit he is wrong. Belief systems die hard.

Comments are closed