Thanks and Apologies

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

I have no use for people who censor and ban those who don’t agree with their scientific ideas. I’ve had my simple, on-topic, scientific comments censored over at RealClimate. And I’m banned at Tamino’s “Closed Mind” blog for asking one too many unwanted questions. I really, really didn’t like either experience at all.

Given that, what was up with my snipping opposing views on my thread called “A Matter of Some Gravity“? I did two things in that thread. I offered up a proof that no possible mechanism involving a transparent, GHG-free atmosphere could raise the temperature of a planet above its theoretical Stefan-Boltzmann temperature. I also put out a call for “elevator speeches” explaining the “gravito-thermal” theories of Nikolov and Zeller (N&Z) and Hans Jelbring. An “elevator speech” is a very condensed, very boiled-down description of how something works. It is how you would explain something if you only had the length of an elevator ride to do so.

A closeup of the fabled “Secateurs of Sorrow”, allegedly used during the 2012 “Night of the Long Scissors”.  PHOTO SOURCE

Well, actually I did three things in that thread, not two. I snipped out a whole bunch of comments. Oh, it was no surprise, although people acted like it was, because I had announced in the head post that I would do exactly that. But why would I snip comments, when I’m so opposed to censorship?

Therein lies a tale …

This all got started when Roger “Tallbloke” Tattersall, the proprietor of a skeptical climate blog called “Tallbloke’s Talkshop”, banned Joel Shore from posting at the Talkshop. Why? I’ll let Roger the Tallbloke tell it:

… you’re not posting here unless and until you apologise to Nikolov and Zeller for spreading misinformation about conservation of energy in their theory all over the blogosphere and failing to correct it.

OK, Joel Shore was banned for spreading misinformation that N&Z violated conservation of energy. Now, this was a double blow to me. First, it was a blow because the Talkshop is a skeptical site, and for a skeptical site to ban someone for “heretical” scientific beliefs, that doesn’t help things at all.

Second, I had also been going around the blogosphere and saying that the N&Z hypothesis violated conservation of energy. I had done exactly what Joel had done.

Don’t get me wrong here. Joel is not a friend of mine, nor an enemy of any kind. He and I disagree on many things, because he’s an AGW supporter and I’m a climate heretic. In addition, he doesn’t suffer fools gladly, and he can be obstinate about what he considers to be basic science. So I understand that he’s not the best houseguest, although I’m hardly one to talk. But we agree on this particular scientific question.

So, I posted a comment on the “Suggestions” thread over at the Talkshop asking Roger to rescind his fatwa on Joel. I pointed out that I had done the same thing as Joel, and thus in good conscience I would have to leave as well. I said that Joel is a physicist and as such is one of the few anthropogenic global warming (AGW) supporting scientists willing to engage on the skeptical blogs to defend the AGW position. From memory (I can’t go back to check) I said I enjoy it when Joel comments on my posts, because his science-fu is generally good. Yes, I disagree with him a lot, and yes, he can be a jerk (quite unlike myself), but he shows up on skeptical sites and will take the time to defend his science. Not many AGW scientists you can say that about.

Regardless of my importunings, Roger remained unmoved. So (at his very reasonable suggestion) he and I took it offline to an email discussion. I continued to plead my case and to ask him to recant the Orwellian Heresy. I enjoy visiting the Talkshop, Roger is a good guy, I didn’t want to have to leave.

In our discussion, I said that I doubted greatly if he could even give me a clear, concise, meaty scientific summary of N&Z’s theory, an “elevator speech” on the subject sufficient to see if it did violate conservation of energy. He refused to have anything to do with the idea, I believe partly because in his lexicon an “elevator speech” was a sales tool. I assured him that no, no sale necessary, I meant something different. All I wanted was for him to boil down his own thoughts and understandings to a clear precise few sentences explaining the theory, so we could see if N&Z did violate conservation of energy.

He refused. I could see he was unshakeable.

Hmmm … I was left with a bit of a koan. I wanted to see if I could fomally show that N&Z violated conservation of energy. I wanted to see if there was anyone out there who actually understood either the Jelbring or N&Z hypotheses and could explain them to me. And finally, I wanted to keep the issue of censorship alive, not just on WUWT, but at the Talkshop as well … and how could do I do that when I can’t comment at the Talkshop? I wanted it kept alive because banning someone when they say your pet idea violates scientific laws is a Very Bad Idea™—bad for the skeptics, bad for science, bad for progress, bad for everyone.

So I fear I set a trap for Tallbloke. Yeah, I know, I probably shouldn’t have done that, and I’ve likely blown my chance for eternal salvation, although there are those who would deny I ever had one, but I gotta confess, that’s what I did, and there you have it.

First, I thought up and I wrote up and posted a formal proof that the N&Z theory violates conservation of energy. I think it’s actually quite a clever proof.

Then I made a call for either elevator speeches, or for falsifications of my proof. I said didn’t want anything else but those two things, and I said that I would snip off-topic responses, because I wanted to keep the thread on track and on topic. I wanted to see if anyone could falsify my proof, and I wanted elevator speeches, and I wasn’t interested in diversions or declarations or anything but those two things.

So that was the background and the scenery for the trap. What did I put out as bait in my hunting of the snark?

Right at the end of the post, as kind of a throwaway bit, I mentioned that since I’d said N&Z violated conservation of energy, and Joel Shore was banned for doing the same thing, I considered myself banned at Tallbloke’s as well. And I do consider myself banned until he rescinds it. I knew he would react to that.

What else? Oh, yeah, the final touch, I was particularly proud of this one. I posted a link to the N&Z paper  and a subsequent discussion paper on WUWT. And then I talked about the Jelbring paper, but I didn’t link to it. I knew that Tallbloke had a copy of it posted up at the Talkshop, and I was hoping he would provide the link.

Then I sat back and waited and tended my fishing lines. True to form, people wanted to make all kinds of random comments. I snipped them. People wanted to post their own pet theories. I snipped them, I’d specified no pet theories. People wanted to school me on some meaningless point. I snipped them. People wanted to complain about being snipped. I snipped their complaints. Off-topic, sorry. People wanted to re-post some off-topic thing I’d snipped. I snipped it again.

Very few of the responses were what I had asked for. Shocking, I know, but getting WUWT folks to follow a request is like herding cats. Make that herding feral cats. On third thought, make that herding feral cats on PCP.

And I’d counted on that. I merrily snipped anything that was not an elevator speech or a falsification of my proof, and watched my fishing lines.

Predictably, when Roger showed up at the party, he was not a happy man. He posted a comment containing a whole mix of stuff, little of which had anything to do with either an elevator speech or a falsification of my proof, although there was a bit of science in the mix.

I happily snipped it, science and all. I believe he has it posted over at the Talkshop to prove my perfidy. In any case, at this point it’s been restored on the thread for all to read.

Of course, Roger reasonably and strongly protested the censorship. I said repost the science if you think I snipped serious stuff. He reposted the science, minus the various off-topic things he’d included before, and we discussed it.

Then, as I was hoping against hope, he noticed that there was no link to the poor Jelbring paper. I’d left Hans out in the cold. So as I had hoped, Tallbloke posted a link to where the Jelbring paper is posted at the Talkshop.

I snipped that as well, explaining that there was no way he was going to use my thread to send traffic to the Talkshop …

Well, that seriously frosted his banana. He hadn’t even thought of driving traffic to his site, he just wanted to give people a link to the paper. To be falsely accused like that put his knickers in a right twist.

So I snipped for a bit longer to keep up the charade, didn’t want to stop immediately and give away the game, then I went to bed … in the morning I stopped snipping, and let the thread go on its merry way, diversions and pet theories and all the rest.

The response was beyond my wildest hopes. Tallbloke set up a whole blog page at the Talkshop where he is faithfully chronicling my evil misdeeds of snippage. I haven’t read it ’cause I won’t go there until Joel is unbanned, but I can hardly wait to hear the description of carnage and bloodletting, starring yours truly as Willis the Merciless, ruthlessly wielding my mighty Fiskars of Doom …

In any case, I was overjoyed to hear that, it was better than I could have expected. Instead of being discussed somewhere like the “Suggestions” thread at Tallblokes Talkshop, I had a whole thread wherein people can abuse censorship in its myriad forms. Oh, they’ll be abusing me too, but as long as they are also abusing censorship I figure that is a small price to pay.

Overall? I’d rate the whole thing as pretty successful. I probably should have stopped snipping a bit earlier than I did, I underestimated the effect, so likely I overcooked the loaf a bit, but that’s better than leaving it raw. And I did manage to keep the issue alive at the Talkshop. I figured that if the Talkshop got filled with people abusing me for censorship, that the issue of censorship would be alive and well there. And not only would the issue be alive, but people at the Talkshop would be cursing censorship … whereas if the censorship issue were alive but the topic was Tallbloke’s banning of Joel Shore, people at the Talkshop would be saying that Tallbloke did the right thing to ban him. I hoped to achieve that, but I never thought I’d get my own thread. I count that as a huge win, to get people at the Talkshop to curse and discuss censorship without my going there at all.

As I’ve said before, people who think I am so overcome by my passions that I start madly snipping, or that I get so angry that I go off wildly ranting about something or someone, mistake me entirely. I am a complex and subtle man, and I’m generally playing a long game. Folks who see me as someone who unpredictably erupts in a rant underestimate me to their cost. My rants are all very carefully chosen and calculated, I have a clear, defined, and usually different purpose for each one, and my aim is to weigh and ponder each word and each tone and shading and to consider what they will do and what people will do in response. People who go ‘we’re all offended, how can you say those things, how can you snip people’ miss the point. I say and I do those things to get people interested, to rile them into telling the truth, to get them to state their own ideas, to push them to be upset and passionate about what they believe in, to give them the space and permission to be outraged themselves, and to get them to reveal to the world either the fragility or the strength of their understanding.

I don’t mind being over-the-top because my position shelters people who take other, less extreme positions. Compared to me, they look very reasonable … and folks haven’t figured out yet that those more moderate positions are quite acceptable to me and in many cases were what I was hoping for. I don’t mind being the lightning rod to make a point. I have no problem pushing and steering hard to one side, with the clear internal goal of attaining a position in the middle. I have no difficulty staking out a radical position. It allows others to take much less radical positions than I took, positions that they might not have otherwise expressed. Yes, I’m extreme, and that is deliberate.

I don’t mean that my upset or my anger are fake. They are never fake, or I could not write as I do—my passion would not be believed if it were false or contrived. I mean that I choose the time and the method of expressing that upset and anger so that I can harness it to achieve a chosen purpose or outcome.

So, I’m willing to call people out. I say hey, if you can’t explain it in an elevator speech, it you don’t understand it. I know that’s unpopular, but I take that position as a conscious choice. I’m tired of people nodding their heads about absolute scientific nonsense and saying “looks good to me”. So I insist and I nag them to take a hard look at what they are espousing.

For example, Tallbloke banned Joel Shore (and myself by extension) because Joel had the temerity to say what I say, that the N&Z theory violates conservation of energy. In response I asked TB (a number of times by now, first in private and then on my thread) to give me his elevator speech outlining the Nikolov/Zeller theory. He has not done so. I say that is evidence that he doesn’t understand the N&Z theory he is espousing. If he understood the theory and the theory was scientifically solid, he’d squash me like a bug. I’m way out on a limb here, if Tallbloke could saw the limb off he would. And I wouldn’t blame him, he’s not happy with me right now, and with reason. Since he hasn’t sawed the limb off by giving me the crushing elevator speech, he doesn’t understand the theory.

But if he doesn’t understand the N&Z theory … why is he banning Joel (and myself by extension) for saying the theory violates conservation of energy?

Like all of my actions in my posts, the pushing of people to explain their views in an elevator speech, even to the extent of snipping their posts when they didn’t do so, is a position and an action that I have taken with forethought and contemplation. And no, it doesn’t make me popular. But I’m steering to one side in order to attain the middle. I don’t expect others to call for someone to give an elevator speech, but that’s not my goal. I figure if I can reinforce the value of judging people’s understanding of a topic by whether they can explain the theory in a clear, concise manner … then who cares if I’m popular? I’m tired of vague handwaving. Boil it down to the elevator speech, then boil it again to half that size, and give us the simplest, clearest explanation possible.

In any case, the beat goes on. I’m still waiting for someone, anyone, to give us a clear, concise, scientific explanation of either the N&Z or the Jelbring hypothesis. I’m also still waiting for anyone to falsify my proof. You’re welcome to do it in this thread.

While I’m waiting, I’ve given up my persona of evil snippage, I’ve sworn off my temporary assumption of wicked ways. I’ve climbed down from the saddle and hung up my scissors with their embossed leather holster beside the gunrack near the wood stove. I’ve made my point, I won’t need them until danger threatens again. Sorry, Tallbloke, but your blow-by-blow account of how I feloniously threatened and terrified the neighborhood with my dreaded Scissors of Destiny will have to come to a premature end … they’ve served their purpose, and been put out to pasture.

To close this tangled tale, what about the thread title, thanks and apologies? Well, first my apologies to Roger “Tallbloke” Tattersall for my having played such a shabby trick on him. He is a good, honest, and decent man whose problem is that his mouth wrote a check that his science can’t cover. Roger, you have my apology, seriously meant. I just couldn’t think of another better way to keep the question alive. Please do rescind your ban on Joel.

Next, my apologies to Anthony. He and I don’t correspond a whole lot, and I didn’t warn him because I didn’t expect the amount of blowback. So I fear he got an email instalanche of people saying I’d lost my mind. Didn’t think about that, missed that one entirely, didn’t I? Mea culpa, Anthony, my bad. Folks, in the future, as I implied above, if the options are a) Willis has lost the plot totally, email Anthony immediately, or b) Willis has a plan I don’t see yet, wait a while … the answer is likely “b”. Give poor Anthony a break.

To all of the folks who screamed about being snipped, my thanks and my apologies. I did it for a couple reasons. One was to emphasize that I was serious about people giving an elevator speech. I tried to snip only what I had said I would—off-topic stuff that was neither an elevator speech nor falsification of my post. If they wanted to stand up and be counted they had to put their beliefs down clear and solid. I pushed it very hard, probably too hard for my own good, to see if anyone out there actually understood either the Jelbring or the N&Z theory. Turns out no one does, or if they do, they’re hiding their light under a bushel.

Heck, even Hans Jelbring showed up. He refused to give us a clear, concise statement of his theory, claiming that there was no way to state his theory in less than pages and pages of close-spaced text. Riiiight … if you can’t explain it clearly you don’t understand it.

The other reason I snipped was to emphasize the importance of the freedom to post that we take for granted here at WUWT. One of the issues I wanted to keep afloat was that of censorship. I wanted that fact not to be lost in the discussion, I wanted it to be one of the subjects of the thread as well … yeah, I might’ve overdone it, you’re right, but at least I dun it …

Next, my thanks. First, my thanks to people like Steven Mosher, who said he didn’t see any problems with my proof, and commented that it seemed hard for people to follow simple directions on what to post. For those like Steven who did follow my requests on what to post, to those who took a shot at falsification or elevator speeches, my thanks.

Also, for those that didn’t follow directions, you were necessary to set the scene, so thank you for playing your part.

Anthony, once again, my thanks for your magnificent blog, and for the freedom that you give me to post here without let, hindrance, or forewarning of disaster.

Finally, Roger Tallbloke, my thanks again to you. I was not my intention to harm you, but to keep alive both on this site and on your site the question of the ethics of your ban.

… and at the end, the curtain falls, the crowd departs. Ushers clean the seats, roadies pack up the trusses and the amps as the auditorium closes down, and all that is left is a proof that the N&Z theory violates conservation of energy, and a huge lack of people who understand either the Jelbring or the Nikolov and Zeller hypotheses. It’s a lovely cold, clear night here, and me and my beloved, my ex-fiancee of thirty plus years now, are going for a walk. I wish everyone the joy of living in this miraculous, marvel-filled eternity, with my thanks and my apologies.

w.

About these ads

483 thoughts on “Thanks and Apologies

  1. So you were trolling, over a matter that is nowhere near as clear-cut as you’ve decided it is, and you epect to get away with it with a “just kidding folks!” and carry on as if nothing was wrong?

    Correct me if I’m wrong but, Shore was offered the opportunity to guest-post at tallbloke’s site was he not? His comments were not removed, he was prevented from making more in order to avoid taking things off topic, so giving him a guest post where he could define the topic and letting him go at that seems like a fair solution, does it not? That is not censorship.

    You’ve tried to demonstrate something by constructing a strawman. AGAIN.

  2. Willis

    You show a photo of the ‘Fabled Secateurs of Sorrows .’

    They look brand new to me-were they bought with Big oil money? We need to know.

    However, an even bigger scandal is emerging. They are completely UNUSED. These are obviously NOT the fabled secateurs of sorrows at all as they would be completely blunt by now. Your public needs to know why you are deceiving them. Are you testing our scepticism?

    tonyb

  3. So, a trick. Nothing wrong with a trick if the objective is the clear exposition of the science when such an exposition has not been forthcoming.

    At the same time, to be a bit tribal, Tallbloke is one of the good guys. He plays at a high level and tends to be very fair indeed. So fair he gets his gear nicked by the cops.

    One of the more attractive aspects of the heretic position is that there is no “heretic” orthodoxy. We hack and chop at the science and the policy and, from time to time, disagree. Annoying representatives of orthodoxy come by to challenge from time to time and sometime they are right. Banning them does, to use a Mannism, “the cause” no good at all. Tallbloke should acknowledge that. And still feel entirely free to say, and more importantly, demonstrate that he is right and you are wrong.

    My suggestion: take a week or two off the gravity topic. The theory may very well violate the laws of physics; but it will still violate them in a couple of weeks if it does now. At the moment the “trick” and the back and forth are generating more heat than light.

  4. Scary bloke, that Willis Eschenbach, but a brilliant communicator. Many thanks for all your insights.

  5. Wow. Nefarious Plot! Dastardly Cunning! Hidden Agendas and Vested Interests!

    FWIW, the only reason I would ban anybody in a blog like this is if they cannot maintain the minimum level of fuckin’ civility and get to where the ad hominem noise outweighs the possibly constructive signal by a decibel or three. I don’t even advocate banning people who are utterly incompetent in science, math, or simple reason — even though they can be annoying. How can anyone learn if they can’t be mistaken — even obnoxiously mistaken?

    As for somebody like Joel — physicists are dangerous people to ignore or ban. Joel might make mistakes. I certainly do. But I imagine that both of us keep other people from making far worse mistakes, a lot more often by calling them on elementary errors and/or teaching them stuff they don’t know but should, to understand something. I don’t even think one can label a good scientist as “a warmist” any more than you can label them “a denier”, and all good scientists are skeptical, at least where being skeptical is called for.

    If disagreeing with Jelbring or N&Z is a sin justifying banishment, well, banish me. I just don’t understand N&Z, and when I started to read Jelbring it certainly looked like his assertions violated the laws of thermodynamics on something like the second or third page. When Willis does something like that in a blog, there is an opportunity to discuss it and for the assertion to be clarified (or for one or the other of us to learn of our conceptual or algebraic mistake). When it is there at the very beginning of a paper (and violates things proven as exercises in elementary textbooks in thermo) it makes me doubtful. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding something — I’m happy to acknowledge that I could be wrong about almost anything, or that I could be misreading something that is actually right — but in some sense the onus is on the author of a paper to state the basic physics clearly enough to be both understood and checked or agreed upon.

    N&Z are in the same boat. Anybody who asserts that an atmosphere in static thermal equilibrium has a temperature gradient and that gravity “heats” the atmosphere is going to have their work cut out for them trying to convince me that they understand thermodynamics, because “thermal equilibrium” means the opposite of “has a temperature gradient”, and a homogeneous gravitational field does not heat in the specific sense that it is not a source of entropy. It’s a macroscopically, globally conservative interaction.

    I actually think that Willis’ idea of needing an elevator speech version of this sort of effect is a very good one. Or to put it more “scientifically”, an abstract. A summary. An energy flow diagram. Lots and lots of mistakes in thermo can be avoided with an energy flow diagram. You can prove lots of nifty things (like the equivalence of various statements of the second law) with nothing but an equally nifty energy flow diagram. I’d still be perfectly happy for someone to provide a believable version of this for either J or N&Z.

    rgb

  6. Wait… herding feral cats that are on PCP, or herding feral cats while on PCP? It’s a minor quibble, I know, but… being a long-time cat owner, I’m curious. Besides, after the famous cat-herding Superbowl ad, I really have a vivid mind-picture of the process…

  7. Well done Willis. Not my favourite topic, so I didn’t comment on Jelbring or N&Z, simply because I have only a brief understanding of the theoretical background. But I know, sometimes one need to stirr up the hornest’s nest to keep rational thinking alive, as I have done with the origin of the CO2 increase, as too many still believe that it isn’t humans which cause that…

  8. Let’s hope that temperatures rise still further as the physics of climate science is discussed.

    This is because the IPCC version was based on four fundamental scientific errors in the deceptive security of the assumption that CO2 drove the World out of ice ages. However from 1997 when it was shown that CO2 followed T and CO2 climate sensitivity had to be calibrated against modern warming, the subject degenerated into systemic fraud with false hockey sticks and ‘no MWP’.

    The only way to recover is to rebuild climate science from the ground upwards with correct physics [the GCMs are fine, it's the heating terms that are fundamentally wrong].

    This even goes to the basics of thermalisation of absorbed IR energy to the N2/O2 carrier: there is no physical mechanism for that. There is also ‘back radiation’ which is to confuse ‘Prevost Exchange Energy’ for the ability to do thermodynamic work. As for N&Z paper, they reinvent lapse rate hearing: there is much more to consider.

    More fighting, less control by the fraudsters.

  9. You’re a very, very clever man, Willis. Sadly, and your intellect notwithstanding, I don’t think I’ll ever believe another word you say or write.

  10. You’re certainly a mensch, Mr Willis … this takes cahunas!

    I’ve been following these events in my non-scientist understanding (though I am educated to Masters level ) trying to grasp the ‘elevator’ explanation … many people like me need to have these explanations in order to get a wider understanding of the whole science of climate.

    All the name calling and this, “Continuing the theme of discussing issues censored and banned at WUWT, here’s an article kindly submitted by Gerry Pease on the subject of solar-barycentric motion [ ... ]” at Mr Tallblokes place is really unnecessary. I enjoy both WUWT and Talkshop equally and especially when the ‘sharp minds’ slay the dragon, but really cringe at the immature language whether it be here or at Talkshop.

    None the less, love your work!

  11. There are so many mis-statements of fact in this post I don’t know where to start, so I won’t bother.

    I’m seriously thinking of posting the email conversation Willis and I had offline as an easy and time saving rebuttal to the narrative he has woven here, though I won’t act in haste, or without thinking the consequences through first, an approach Willis would be wise to consider in future in my opinion.

    In that email chain, there are at least two ‘elevator speeches’ that I offered to Willis (neither of them satisfactory so I didn’t try on his last thread), a simple rebuttal of his ‘proof’ (Which he deleted twice before finally half-answering), some explanation of my problem with Joel plus a lot of pretty unpleasant retorts from Willis.

  12. If all this senseless bickering is going to continue, we might just as well hand the keys of the shop over to James Hansen, and tell him to do what he wants with the world economy.

    Come on, guys, really.

  13. GabrielHBay says:
    January 14, 2012 at 12:14 pm

    On the wisdom or otherwise of an “elevator speech”:

    Ok, I refreshed my memory. From the foreword of Aldous Huxley’s Brave new world: This is what was lurking in my mind:

    “The soul of wit may become the very body of untruth. However elegant and memorable, brevity can never, in the nature of things, do justice to all the facts of a complex situation. On such a theme one can be brief only by omission and simplification. Omission and sim­plification help us to understand — but help us, in many cases, to understand the wrong thing; for our compre­hension may be only of the abbreviator’s neatly formu­lated notions, not of the vast, ramifying reality from which these notions have been so arbitrarily abstracted.”

    Gabriel van den Bergh

  14. Is not responding with insults and jibes a form of censorship to discourage difficult posts? Or labelling something that is an opposing view “Troll posting” or off topic? There are many ways to control what is said besides just snipping.

  15. Well you didn’t fool me, and I can now say that I suspected it all along, which is why I didn’t post on that thread as I didn’t want to spoil the surprise.

    Of course there is one thing I would have done differently Willis, I would have typed up this post in advance (sans observed results naturally) and emailed it to Anthony as a proof, because you know some people are going to be (or perhaps act) skeptical, pardon the pun.

    Personally I am less enthralled by Joel Shore than you, I don’t think he is that bright a person to begin with. He is a true believer. He trolls a lot, sometimes incessantly and has a knack for verbalizing some very idiotic views. I remember one time he was spouting off how we should all accept the extraordinary expenditures on AGW mitigation as a kind of fire insurance. Never mind the fact that fire is a bonafide real danger here and now, and is killing someone right this very moment somewhere on our planet. That is the kind of lunacy that drives me mad, their intentional association of the dreamed up danger of a degree or two of ~average~ temperature warming, with the horrific killer of fire which has been destroying lives, materials, and lost knowledge for Millennia. If Tallbloke had banned him for being plain stoopid I wouldn’t have blinked an eye.

    This bit about violating 1st law is ridiculous for a whole different reason anyway. To presuppose that any model or real observations can capture the energy budget of a non-dead planet like the Earth is insane. I can assure everyone that if you have missing heat or surplus heat, you have simply made a mistake somewhere. More energy exiting the planet than coming in simply proves deficient observing skills and a lack of imagination. And a chunk of arrogance.

    Earth is generating its own heat by way of radioactive decay. We exist on the microscopic thin cool crust of a molten (use your Dr. Evil voice here) liquid hot magma ball. That hellacious inferno is not locked up in a neat impervious container. If it was, given geologic timescales, we would be sitting on a plasma timebomb that Algore could correctly call millions of degrees. But it’s not, the thermal buildup vents all over the place in the thousands (probably millions) of volcanoes mostly underwater. And certainly some of the heat is wicked away through the ground itself and ultimately heatsinked away in the atmosphere. Earth has both internal and external inputs to the ‘energy budget’, and the sun, while the major external input, is not the only one. Matter == Energy, and Earth is collecting matter over Geologic time.

    There is no 1st law violation, and there is no sane reason to entertain a discussion about it. So, those theories that seem to violate basic thermodynamics, and those folks that critique those theories, are just sparring over nothing in the same way two ancient Mesopotamians might have been arguing over the meaning of an eclipse or a shooting star.

  16. I have rather stubbornly resisted Jelbring’s theory on tallbloke’s site, yet he has been quite polite and patient with the pontifications of this layman, and he certainly didn’t ban me. It’s disingenuous for Eschenbach to imply that it was merely Shore’s opinon that drove tallbloke to segregate his output.

  17. What a great post, Willis! I agree with a lot of what you say, & some things I would challenge or question its wisdom! Isn’t freedom & democracy wonderful? Let’s hope we don’t need to suspend it for a few years to get this AGW crap under control! :-)

  18. The whole thing has been and interesting exercise in ‘high speed scientific debate’. And the severe pruning early in the piece I thought was a fine way to enforce ‘laser like’ focus on the topic at hand. I thought for a moment there Willis and Anthony had succeeded in dragging theoretical debate kicking and screaming into the ‘instant communications era’.

    I could see eternal fame for these pioneers, with this moment to be remembered and discussed through centuries to come.

    But in the end it was apparently as much about personalities and clashes thereof….

    The interesting debate of Willis’ ‘proof’ however, may yet elevate the whole thing.

  19. Well, this cat on PCP thinks you’re a jerk no matter what you say. Joel was offered his own thread on the talkshop which I do believe is quite the opposite of censorship. Your crusade was misguided, mean spirited and beneath the otherwise cordial atmosphere of this blog. You have done damage to Anthony Watts, and proved nothing while doing so. You should be ashamed.

  20. tallbloke says:

    I’m seriously thinking of posting the email conversation Willis and I had offline

    This is none of my business but I love the both of ya. Don’t do it unless Willis agrees Tally.

  21. I am reminded of the saying of my Auntie Ruth, who, whenever I thought I had said something particularly clever in an argument, used to say : ” Jack, you are so sharp you will cut yourself.”

    Bit of a sorry tale all round, it seems to me.

  22. Oh Willis, you are so wicked! You are going straight to hell!

    Congrats on a cool stunt. I wonder if any of my fellow warmists would be up for something like that….

  23. Gee Willis you really do think yourself a unusually clever man by luring TB into your trap eh? Your science writing makes for great reading – we would all be better off if you stay on task.

  24. Willis may or may not be right about many things, but I definitely like the way his mind works – Censorship turns us into them and I for one don’t want to be them!!

  25. Wow Willis. Never has so little been said in so many repetitious words and phrases in such a long post and the point was? And exactly how does all this help to derail the CO2 driven CAGW scam? A sad little episode best forgotten for me and others who have admired many of your contributions as well as those of Tall Bloke. Let all of us not lose sigt of the end game!

  26. Willis Eschenbach is, unfortunately, full of his own self importance. With luck and a following wind, “Tallbloke” will dismantle any structural changes on Talkshop that pander to Mr (Dr?) Eschenbach and will neutralise his incessant self promotion. I don’t know Mr (Dr?) Eschenbach’s scientific provenance but I can recognise a blatantly self serving article such as this. It is disappointing that WUWT has seen fit to give it any sort of recognition. Fortunately, the response from Tallbloke has effectively neutralised Mr (Dr?) Eschenbach’s attempts at bolstering his public persona at the expense of others

  27. “if you can’t explain it clearly you don’t understand it.”

    Or, maybe the audience dosnt understand it?
    Its not always easy to explain something so complex in a manner that thickos like me can get a handle on. ;)
    As for censorship, better to let whomever wants to spout off do so, after all better to be thought a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt.
    Only other thing id mention is that its hardly sporting to play tricks on people like politicians do, thats a poor show.

  28. Tallbloke, regardless of what Aldous might say, if you can’t explain it, you don’t understand it.

    Sure, brevity doesn’t explain the full depth and breadth of complex things as he says. But if you can’t explain it, you don’t understand it.

    Yes, as he points out, “omission and simplification” can lead us astray. But if you can’t explain it, you don’t understand it.

    And yes, as Huxley so eloquently states, an elevator speech doesn’t encompass the “vast, ramifying reality”.

    But we’re not trying to do that, we’re looking for the meat and bones, the essence of the theory, and if you can’t explain it, you don’t understand it.

    I gave you my elevator speech laying out the greenhouse effect in my previous post. I repeat it here as an example that a complex theory can be described in an elevator speech:

    The poorly-named “greenhouse effect” works as follows:

    • The surface of the earth emits energy in the form of thermal longwave radiation.

    • Some of that energy is absorbed by greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere.

    • In turn, some of that absorbed energy is radiated by the atmosphere back to the surface.

    • As a result of absorbing that energy from the atmosphere, the surface is warmer than it would be in the absence of the GHGs.

    Four sentences. Yes, it doesn’t encompass the vast ramifying reality of the greenhouse effect, there are books written on the subject, but I’m not trying to do that.

    I’m simply trying to explain the actual mechanism underlying the theory as clearly and as concisely as I can.

    So if you have an elevator speech regarding the Nikolov and Zeller theory, and how it warms things up without greenhouse gases, now’s the time to bring it out for the world to see. Here’s your chance to show us you do understand their theory. This is your opportunity to demonstrate that N&Z don’t violate conservation of energy. The stage is yours, my friend.

    Or not. Up to you.

    w.

  29. Hi Willis,
    Hypothetical mind games and bear baiting in debate belong in universities for the debating teams. It achieves nothing and makes enemies in the real world.

    Some while back you pretty much nailed the equatorial thermostat that gives us an almost unvarying heat input regardless of variables.

    I was hoping you would continue down this path and give a similar explanation to our north and south radiators.

    The temperate zone is the medium that gives us climate by modulating input and the output in divers ways, that you may have a little trouble figuring out, but I wish you would try, for free thinkers are rare.

  30. I tried to discuss science on Tallbloke’s blog.

    He accused me of dishonesty – claiming on his blog that people posting comments on Science of Doom: “..may find your posts being edited without explanation after you submit them...”

    This is inaccurate. And, of course, insulting.

    So as a result of this insult I no longer post comments (or read) Tallbloke’s blog. I assume this was the intention of Tallbloke’s false claim.

    When he later posted comment on my blog I asked: “..I wonder why tallbloke is commenting on this blog, after accusing me of dishonesty..“.

    I didn’t get a response, an apology, or a proof of his claim about said dishonesty.

    So it doesn’t surprise me to read Willis’ story.

  31. Willis
    I hope you won’t be offended, but you seem to enjoy talking about yourself rather too much IMHO. Such arrogance, combined with a tendency to play with your readers, will alienate your audience eventually and reduce the impact of what you have to say..

  32. I am reminded of Richard Feynman’s story. He and other Caltech physics professors were arguing over some esoteric point of subatomic physics and Feynman said something like “Let me go and work it up as a lecture even an undergraduate can follow.”. A couple of weeks later he came back and said “I tried but I couldn’t do it. That means we don’t understand it.”

  33. Tallbloke

    Sceptics have many enemies without the need to make more from withun our own community. Can I seriously suggest you wait 12 hours before you post anything substantive here as that will give you time for reflection.

    Can I also respectfully suggest that you should rise above this whole unedifying episode by welcomg back both Joel and by implication Willis to your blog. Both have their many foibles but I believe both are passionate, which perhaps sometimes clouds their better judgement when pursuing their respective beliefs.
    tonyb

  34. Willis, I read most of that previous thread, and found througout that your treatment of commenters was rude, arrogant, tendatious, overbearing, and, well, quite frankly, I loved every minute of it!

    However, whatever your real motive for the post, it was quite extraordinary how the same misconceptions were endlessly repeated by some individuals, and no amount of logic or reason or appeal to basic physics could dent their ignorance.

  35. I am sure both of you feel safe, in the cocoons of your righteousness, To me the juvenility is palpable — a la– mine is bigger than yours.

  36. wayne Job says:
    January 17, 2012 at 2:19 am

    Hi Willis,
    Hypothetical mind games and bear baiting in debate belong in universities for the debating teams. It achieves nothing and makes enemies in the real world.

    Some while back you pretty much nailed the equatorial thermostat that gives us an almost unvarying heat input regardless of variables.

    I was hoping you would continue down this path and give a similar explanation to our north and south radiators.

    The temperate zone is the medium that gives us climate by modulating input and the output in divers ways, that you may have a little trouble figuring out, but I wish you would try, for free thinkers are rare.

    Thanks, wayne. I discussed the north/south radiators a bit here. The world is indeed a complex place.

    w.

  37. Hi Willis,

    I think you are over-reacting. You should consider running a blog of your own, because this is ranting and not debating or deliberating. This is not what imho WUWT stands for.

    I hope you understand what I mean, because I mean it well. I enjoy reading your articles, but this is getting nasty. Keep up the good spirit and shake virtual hands with Tallbloke! He’s not the enemy.

    Unite, don’t divide!

    Kind regards,
    Scarface

  38. This has all been a pathetic waste of time. I think we have way too much influence from guest authors on WUWT and would be happier with less content. There seems to be a subtle background push to elevate AGW type views in my opinion, which would appear to go against the original concept of this fine site.

  39. Nice Willis.

    when I saw the first snip It was easy to see what you were up to.
    doubtless some will be offended at being schooled by a crystal clear object lesson.

  40. Willis,

    I have long respected you for your intelligent discussion wit and original thought that you bring to the sometimes dower subject of climate science. However on this present topic and dispute, I think you have handled it entirely wrongly.

    You may be right to challenge Tallbloke on his decision to ban Joel Shore, but the way you have gone about it does nothing but harm to you, to Tallbloke and to the sceptical climate science movement.

    Reading your text above is like reading the plot of a fantastical whodunit novel where reality is suspended and the author takes liberties with our beliefs as to what is both possible and probable in his attempts to direct the rather poorly thought out plot to emerge with a blockbuster ending. This is what I think of your version of events here. I just don’t believe them. They are fantastical. Only in a novel could this over complicated plot that you espouse possibly hope to achieve its planned outcome. I think what has really happened is that in your annoyance, you have gone off half cocked and produced your own post with all kinds of restrictions in it, which has then backfired. In your attempts to salvage the post, you have then concocted this fantastic plot, saying this is what was intended all the time.

    Whichever version of events is the truth, I think you come out of it very badly. If your account is truthful to what actually happened, that makes you a schemer of extraordinary proportions, making your actions no better than those of the ultimate schemer, as evidenced by the Climategate emails, Michael Mann. If my version is correct, that means that you have told something of a whopper, in which case your actions are no better than ultimate fantasy story teller, Michael Mann. Which ever it is, your conduct is unacceptable and is what I would expect of the alarmist faction. There is no place for manipulation and deceit on the sceptical side. It is not necessary, because when you have truth on your side, there is no need to manipulate or to lie. And there is certainly no need to air our dirty washing in public over what is a very minor dispute.

    The alarmist blogs will be having a field day.

  41. All in all, I don´t like what Willis did.
    The explanation is no understable; it doesn’t makes sense.
    Censorship is bad and regrettable, always, and by no means it can be uses to attain something supposedly better, because that is the usual excuse.
    WUWT didn´t deserve something like this, even when it is above it. But WUWT should take it as a bad precedent.
    Shame on you, Willis.

  42. Willis,
    You and Joel have been wrong in the past. You both insisted that LWIR re-emitted by CO2 has an equal effect over water and land. A simple empirical experiment showed this to be incorrect.

    You and Joel both insist that Nicolov and Zeller are wrong. I conducted an initial experiment that showed that in two identical containers with internal black target surfaces which were exposed to identical amounts of sunlight, the container with the higher air pressure heated to a greater temperature. Further to this I posted a clear description of a more thorough experiment that could be conducted cheaply. Anthony, the owner of this blogsite took the time to replicate an experiment shown by Al Gore and prove it false. You however, appear only interested “thought experiments” based physics that only apply to spherical chickens in a vacuum.

    I have no idea what the purpose of this thread is but if it is intended to recover some respect I would suggest two options.
    1. A proper apology for your behaviour (not the venal, revisionist tripe you typed above)
    2. Conduct an actual empirical experiment (maybe ask Stephen Wilde for some pointers)

  43. Willis, I agree that banning people for arguing science is a no-no. However you are creating an atmosphere here of hostility which is no good either.

    If all this scheming and baiting was supposed to produce scientific debate, you have failed.

  44. Willis: We don’t have so many high-rises here in the UK so our ‘elevator speeches’ become ‘lift chats’ – even shorter!

    So my alternative is to do a ‘Coverdale’ (from an eponymous project management course) and ask: ‘Why^7′. It tends to strip out the crap.

  45. And on the topic of Nikolov and Zeller, their paper is very bad.

    It contains assertions like:

    ..Can a handful of trace gases which amount to less than 0.5% of atmospheric mass trap enough radiant heat to cause such a huge thermal enhancement at the surface? Thermodynamics tells us that this not possible..

    While I realize that many reading this blog might agree with their concepts about what radiatively-active gases can and cannot do, there is an unsubstantiated claim here. Thermodynamics does not tell us “this is not possible”. If it did, they should provide a reference.

    In fact “this”, is where Nikolov and Zeller have demonstrated that the same average radiative flux from the surface of a planet can result in very different average temperatures – (see, for example, Kramm & Dlugi On Dodging the “Greenhouse” Bullet ) so it isn’t even about a disparity in in heat flux from the surface of the planet vs from the climate system to space. Instead it is an empty claim. You can’t find a thermodynamics textbook or paper backing up “this is not possible”.

    Then they go on to say:

    ..This is because convective cooling is many orders of magnitude more efficient that radiative cooling. These results do not change if using multi-layer models. In radiative transfer models, Ts increases with ϵ not as a result of heat trapping by greenhouse gases, but due to the lack of convective cooling, thus requiring a larger thermal gradient to export the necessary amount of heat. Modern GCMs do not solve simultaneously radiative transfer and convection..

    (They have been using an extremely simple teaching model up to this point). Their first sentence is correct. Possible their second sentence depending on what exactly they claim. Subsequent statements are incorrect. The simple but much more complex 1d radiative-convective models do correctly calculate the heat transfer from the surface and from the climate system to space. They provide flux and spectral calculations that match measurements – see Theory and Experiment – Atmospheric Radiation. GCMs do solve radiative transfer and convection, but by using a parameterized version of convection.

    More incorrect and unsubstantiated claims follow.

    They have written a paper. Not a blog article. It is customary for people writing papers to provide evidence and it’s really wonderful if the writers of the paper are at least slightly familiar with the preceding decades of research in their chosen field.

    Nikolov and Zeller show no knowledge of textbook atmospheric physics or any papers on their chosen subject.

    And they don’t understand the basics of heat transfer. Willis is more than capable of explaining why.

    Pump up a tire and it gets hot due to the pumping (work done), but after a while the temperature returns to where it was, even though the pressure is still high. Does high pressure by itself cause high temperature? No. Energy in and energy out of the system determine the temperature.

    More on this topic in Convection, Venus, Thought Experiments and Tall Rooms Full of Gas – A Discussion.

  46. Gents, its a pity to see two individuals who put time and effort into shining a little light into the murky areas of modern science wasting energy like this. As a English reader I agree with Willis on this TB, banning a commentator unless he is abusive only imitates those in science, the media and elsewhere who endeavour to control the message. This stance degrades the standing of your blog, a position earnt by decent content and the chance to air contrasting, as well as supporting opinion.

    Unfortunately I lack the intellect to intercede in the technicalities. Indeed I do not even know if you can condense some of these complex arguments along the lines Willis is suggesting. Perhaps, perhaps not, but what is clear is that falling out over what cannot be easily defined suggests a degree of uncertainty on all sides. I implore you both to find a common solution so you can continue to serve the greater cause, that of truth, something routinely excluded by certain areas of science, much of the MSM and pretty well all politicians. Those of us with less talent rely on your contributions, something that will be all the poorer if you are going to squabble and censor.

  47. Willis, dang, you could do the proverbial selling fridges to Eskimos.

    I think I can falsify your “elevator speech”. I think others have already done so, that I read and took on but it seems you did not. Namely, that non-gh gases can still catch heat by conduction and radiate that, to keep the laws of physics. Only difference with gh gases is that gh gases can absorb energy in TWO ways: conduction and absorption of radiation.

    However, I could be wrong. And I still suspect that ghg effects are there in the mix. Witness the strange “W” shape of our atmospheric temperature profile with increasing height. That middle range, to me, is likely to be where ghg effects overcome lapse rate effects.

    Trouble is, there are now about ten recent posts all about this, Jellbring, Nikolov & Zeller, Monckton, Glickstein, Brown, Coray, here and at Tallbloke’s, your last one here being nearly a thousand comments long and still rising. I’ve tried to go through them methodically but fell asleep even worse than usual at the keyboard. I shall continue to try. And Anthony says he’s had about enough of “this” (?subject ?for the moment ?heated conversations).

    All this underscores more and more what I see as a sore need to develop a form of climate skeptics’ wiki that can handle the actual science, development thereof, alternative theories, and all in language that a reasonably intelligent but not necessarily science-educated layman can understand. And of course, firing intelligent interest but basically keeping courtesy… and keeping room for the latecomers & newcomers, who may be slowest to articulate their love and truth, like Cordelia in Shakespeare’s King Lear, but may still be the most honest, the deepest, the best scientists.

    What to do with trolls and folk like Joel Shore is a serious issue. I really don’t think there is a simple answer. Therefore it will need a lot of open exploring as to the ethics of what to do.

    I’m working on an article for Tallbloke to take this further.

    but dang, you keep interrupting, Willis! fast shot cowboy, certainly! Unfamiliar to us Brits who need time to think. Yes, that goes for me too. That’s why I said nothing on the Night of the Scissors.

  48. Bruce says:
    January 17, 2012 at 1:06 am

    You’re a very, very clever man, Willis. Sadly, and your intellect notwithstanding, I don’t think I’ll ever believe another word you say or write.

    Excellent news, Bruce. Now just apply that to every other scientist, and you’ll have the makings of an excellent skeptic. Don’t believe what they, or I, or anyone says until you’ve checked it out for yourself. Do the math, look up the sources, run the numbers yourself, but under no circumstances should you believe a scientist. That’s the point and the beauty of science, it’s not based on belief.

    All the best,

    w.

  49. Phillip Bratby says:
    January 17, 2012 at 1:19 am

    Willis:

    I really recommend you go and read Tallbloke’s latest post “The Gravity of some Matter”. http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/

    Thanks, Philip, but I can’t. I’m banned there by implication, since he banned Joel Shore for saying what I also said. As a result, in good conscience I can’t go there until he rescinds the ban.

    w.

  50. Joe Born says:
    January 17, 2012 at 1:28 am

    I have rather stubbornly resisted Jelbring’s theory on tallbloke’s site, yet he has been quite polite and patient with the pontifications of this layman, and he certainly didn’t ban me. It’s disingenuous for Eschenbach to imply that it was merely Shore’s opinon that drove tallbloke to segregate his output.

    Thanks, Joe. I didn’t imply that. I quoted Tallbloke. It was his statement that Joel could not post unless and until he apologized to N&Z for saying they violated conservation of energy. Seems pretty clear to me.

    Yes, I know Joel can be a jerk. But that’s not what Roger said he banned him for.

    w.

  51. “• In turn, some of that absorbed energy is radiated by the atmosphere back to the surface.”

    Why do you think that air can can heat the ground only through GHG radiation?
    If conduction can do the same with no need for GHG-s then we are done what you asked, right ?

  52. nano pope says:
    January 17, 2012 at 1:38 am

    Well, this cat on PCP thinks you’re a jerk no matter what you say.

    You have your mind made up already. Got it.

    Joel was offered his own thread on the talkshop which I do believe is quite the opposite of censorship. Your crusade was misguided, mean spirited and beneath the otherwise cordial atmosphere of this blog. You have done damage to Anthony Watts, and proved nothing while doing so. You should be ashamed.

    Joel was offered his own thread. He was also told that “… you’re not posting here unless and until you apologise to Nikolov and Zeller for spreading misinformation about conservation of energy in their theory all over the blogosphere and failing to correct it.”

    So all he had to do was doff his cap and humbly apologize to the lairds for his honest scientific opinion, and Tallbloke would reward him with his own thread … heck of a deal there, nano.

    w.

  53. Whilst i see some reasoning here ( outside of the personal observations on a paper) I can’t quite see why this pett argument has grown. I respect Willis and Tallbloke immensely for their services to science. However I’d ban the lot of you from any blog I had just for being childish. I expect better.

  54. James Alison says:
    January 17, 2012 at 1:48 am

    Gee Willis you really do think yourself a unusually clever man by luring TB into your trap eh? Your science writing makes for great reading – we would all be better off if you stay on task.

    No, actually I don’t, James, which is why I apologized to him. As I said, it was the only plan I could come up with that would keep the issue of censorship of scientific ideas to the fore. I think it is a very important subject, particularly given the habits of the AGW supporters, and I hate to see it take root among the skeptics.

    w.

  55. A bit naughty but I do agree that an elevator speech should be able to be produced. The only flaw I think I found was the idea that non-GHG gases cannot radiate heat.

  56. RobB says:
    January 17, 2012 at 2:26 am

    Willis
    I hope you won’t be offended, but you seem to enjoy talking about yourself rather too much IMHO. Such arrogance, combined with a tendency to play with your readers, will alienate your audience eventually and reduce the impact of what you have to say..

    I’m not offended, Rob. No matter what I write, someone has a problem with it. When I started out, I tried to listen to them. Everyone seemed to think that the things I was doing would not work. I mean, I actually told the truth, and when I was angry I actually was angry. Lots of folks gave me the same speech you just gave me.

    Eventually I decided that, as the song says, “you can’t please everybody so you’ve got to please yourself.”

    Am I pleased with what I’ve done here? Not particularly, but I didn’t want to do it at all, and I think I’ve done the best I could with what I had to work with. I had no way to bring pressure on Tallbloke to lift the ban.

    w.

  57. Has this incoherent rant not been taken down yet?

    I enjoy your posts here Mr. Eschenbach, but this florid treatise is information-free and of interest only to those named in it. Private email is the venue for this sort of self-indulgent trivia where such a boring, baroque tirade would be deleted unread.

    You’ve wasted five minutes of thousands of people’s lives. World-class trolling. Kudos.

  58. Well, I got out of the elevator at floor 145 to write my first response, but it looks like it goes all the way to Mars. Good stuff, it’s a planet which is in need of hot air. Willis should pull his smartphone out before he passes the stratosphere and check out the ‘loschmidt’ thread and ‘the gravity of some matter’ thread where he can see some proper debate happening between scientists, engineers and other people and may learn somethiing about why it is that statistical mechanics might not be the right tool for the job in assessing tha ability of non-radiating atmospheres to organise themselves adiabatically as classical mechanics predicts they will. It’s a fascinating and unfinished debate which will be getting some further input in guest posts at the Talkshop from Nikolov and Zeller tonight, and a UEA physicist next week.

    Hope he took a warm coat because if Loschmidt, Jelbring Nikolov and Zeller are right, it’s going to get cold up there as he whizzes past floor 154,236 whilst still reading his diatribe out. In fact the words might solidify and drop like so many little poops all over the face of fair scientific debate.

    Is there an apology in there?

    Oh wait, I think I found it:

    “He is a good, honest, and decent man whose problem is that his mouth wrote a check that his science can’t cover.”

    Nice.

    So far, Willis has been under a self ban from the Talkshop. Now I’m telling him to stay away.

  59. Scarface says:
    January 17, 2012 at 2:43 am

    … Keep up the good spirit and shake virtual hands with Tallbloke! He’s not the enemy.

    Thanks, Scarface, but you should tell that to Tallbloke, he banned Joel and by extension myself, not the other way around.

    w.

  60. steven mosher says:
    January 17, 2012 at 2:47 am

    Nice Willis.

    when I saw the first snip It was easy to see what you were up to.
    doubtless some will be offended at being schooled by a crystal clear object lesson.

    Thanks, Mosh, I thought you might see through me.

    w.

  61. Colin Porter says:
    January 17, 2012 at 2:47 am

    Willis,

    I have long respected you for your intelligent discussion wit and original thought that you bring to the sometimes dower subject of climate science. However on this present topic and dispute, I think you have handled it entirely wrongly.

    You may be right to challenge Tallbloke on his decision to ban Joel Shore, but the way you have gone about it does nothing but harm to you, to Tallbloke and to the sceptical climate science movement.

    Reading your text above is like reading the plot of a fantastical whodunit novel where reality is suspended and the author takes liberties with our beliefs as to what is both possible and probable in his attempts to direct the rather poorly thought out plot to emerge with a blockbuster ending. This is what I think of your version of events here. I just don’t believe them. They are fantastical. Only in a novel could this over complicated plot that you espouse possibly hope to achieve its planned outcome.

    Hey, I didn’t plan the outcome, you give me way too much credit. I was surprised when Tallbloke started a whole blog page on my misdeeds. I just hoped to stir up the pot, I didn’t think it would succeed in this manner.

    However, I’m not clear about your tactics here. You are establishing the high moral ground by calling me a liar without any evidence, you “just don’t believe” me? That’s how you plan to show me the right way to act in this world? I should be like you, and tell people I’ve never met that they’re lying just because I don’t believe them?

    w.

  62. Elevator speech why the GHE doesn’t exist.

    – GHE theory states that the averaged incoming solar radiation can only heat a blackbody from 0K to 255K
    – to arrive at our current 288K the atmosphere has to warm the surface 33K by backradiation, reduced cooling etc.
    But:
    – earth isn’t a blackbody, but a “wetbody” with a base temperature of ~275K for the deep oceans (>70% of earths area).
    – all the sun has to do is warm a small top layer of the oceans to the current ~290K surface temp., a difference of only 15K
    – oeans heat atmosphere from below, no GHE needed

  63. Konrad says:
    January 17, 2012 at 2:48 am

    1. A proper apology for your behaviour (not the venal, revisionist tripe you typed above)

    Gosh, Konrad, I didn’t realize you had been appointed Apology Judge, I hope I never appear in your court, your judicial rulings seem kinda extreme. I’m sorry my apology to Tallbloke doesn’t meet your standards. It was heartfelt and sincere, and I certainly hope that Tallbloke accepts it in the good spirit in which I intended it.

    I did rather like the “venal, revisionist tripe” part of your sentence, though, it has a good meaty smack to it. It reminded me of the maoist terminology, like “running dog venal capitalist revisionists” …

    w.

  64. batheswithwhales says:
    January 17, 2012 at 2:51 am

    Willis, I agree that banning people for arguing science is a no-no. However you are creating an atmosphere here of hostility which is no good either.

    If all this scheming and baiting was supposed to produce scientific debate, you have failed.

    My friend, that very thread produced heaps of scientific debate. People were trying very hard to tear down my proof, although there was much less enthusiasm for giving an elevator speech. So I haven’t a clue what you’re on about.

    w.

  65. Allan Kiik says:
    January 17, 2012 at 3:17 am


    • In turn, some of that absorbed energy is radiated by the atmosphere back to the surface.”

    Why do you think that air can can heat the ground only through GHG radiation?
    If conduction can do the same with no need for GHG-s then we are done what you asked, right ?

    I did not say, as far as I know, that air can only heat the ground through radiation.

    w.

  66. FergalR says:
    January 17, 2012 at 3:29 am

    Has this incoherent rant not been taken down yet?

    I enjoy your posts here Mr. Eschenbach, but this florid treatise is information-free and of interest only to those named in it.

    And yet here you are, not only reading it, but commenting on it, despite not being named in it.

    Go figure …

    w.

  67. Willis,

    I did not call you a liar. I gave you the choice. Only you know what is the truth of your actions, but whichever scenario is the correct one, neither are becoming of you. Like others who have commented here, your own self importance now seems to be transcending the objective of this site, which is to advance the cause of climate scepticism in an unerringly honest and objective way.

  68. Willis Eschenbach says:
    January 17, 2012 at 2:42 am
    Thanks, wayne. I discussed the north/south radiators a bit here. The world is indeed a complex place.

    w.
    ____________________
    Radiators link (the word here) doesn’t work.

  69. I didn’t bother to read the comments. If I were Anthony, you’d be gone too. This is not your blog. If you want to troll-bait, set up your own up. The nature of blogs are such that many parallel discussions occur, inherently. Get over it, and get over yourself. I find Joel Shore arrogantly annoying (even if he is correct); you’re getting to be a close second. I, and many others here don’t have time to watch supposed adults massage their egos. Maybe its time for the whole lot of you to take a timeout.

  70. tallbloke says:
    January 17, 2012 at 3:30 am

    … Is there an apology in there?

    Oh wait, I think I found it:

    “He is a good, honest, and decent man whose problem is that his mouth wrote a check that his science can’t cover.”

    Nice.

    Seems you missed the first part. And the last part:

    Well, first my apologies to Roger “Tallbloke” Tattersall for my having played such a shabby trick on him. He is a good, honest, and decent man whose problem is that his mouth wrote a check that his science can’t cover. Roger, you have my apology, seriously meant. I just couldn’t think of another better way to keep the question alive. Please do rescind your ban on Joel.

    However, if that is not enough, truly, Roger, I apologize to you again. I didn’t like doing what I did, but I liked what you were doing even less, and I didn’t want to see it just vanish and disappear off the radar screen.

    So far, Willis has been under a self ban from the Talkshop. Now I’m telling him to stay away.

    Sigh. That’s the problem with censorship. First you ban one, then someone protests about the first ban …

    Not a problem, Tallbloke, I can stay away if you wish. But in the spirit of scientific retaliation, let me say that you are more than welcome to post on any of my threads.

    My regards to you,

    w.

  71. scienceofdoom says:
    January 17, 2012 at 2:21 am

    I tried to discuss science on Tallbloke’s blog.

    He accused me of dishonesty – claiming on his blog that people posting comments on Science of Doom: “..may find your posts being edited without explanation after you submit them…”

    This is inaccurate. And, of course, insulting.

    So as a result of this insult I no longer post comments (or read) Tallbloke’s blog. I assume this was the intention of Tallbloke’s false claim.

    When he later posted comment on my blog I asked: “..I wonder why tallbloke is commenting on this blog, after accusing me of dishonesty..“.

    I didn’t get a response, an apology, or a proof of his claim about said dishonesty.

    So it doesn’t surprise me to read Willis’ story.

    More dishonesty. As anybody who cares enough to do a trawl on SoD’s site will find, I posted a comment asking why my earlier comment had been post edited to remove the emphasis of the point I was making about the Keihl Trenberth energy budget cartoon.

    It may have been snipped or removed, I don’t know.

  72. Bruce says: (January 17, 2012 at 1:06 am) “You’re a very, very clever man, Willis. Sadly, and your intellect notwithstanding, I don’t think I’ll ever believe another word you say or write.”

    Agreed, Bruce; Willis has played a dangerous game, and whilst I am a huge admirer of the cowboy I think he may yet come to regret spooking the mob.

    He has let me (at least) down, and I feel regretful that he has. He could have done this another way, and lost no respect at all — and probably gained his goal.

  73. Censorship in science is certainly to be condemned.

    A blog owner not allowing someone to post is something else entirely. Blog owner’s rules and all that, no?

    The person not allowed to post has, after all, lots of other venues where to post, he’s not being gagged and disallowed to ever raise his voice anywhere.

    It would be good if the one – censorship – were differentiated from the other.

    As for this and the previous thread – well, good for all those who recognised that as a set-up.
    A lot of us non-physicists were actually hoping to learn something, but a thread environment where the unsuspecting must have felt like being back in primary school, being whacked for not being clever enough to get what teacher wanted, is not conducive to learning.

    Finally, this whole thing reminds me powerfully of the behaviour of certain dogs, where the one sniffs and marks, the other sniffs and marks on top of that immediately, and the first dog going back straightaway to sniff and mark over the second dog’s marks. Ad infinitum if the owner doesn’t put his foot down.

    IAW – get a grip and move on!

  74. Willis, you’ve asserted, repeatedly and stridently, that “if you can’t explain it in an elevator speech, you don’t understand it.”

    Please justify this arbitrary assertion in iambic pentameter, because after all, if you can’t justify it in iambic pentameter, it isn’t valid.

    Can we agree that it’s not what is taught that matters, but rather what is learned? I fear that much of what was learned here is that Willis is a bit of a prick. Sorry.

  75. I think that the N&Z paper was a sly introduction to adiabatic compressive heating which is as real as this planet, and a theory that I find more understandable than the GHG one. It cannot violate the 1st law of thermodynamics or the 2nd which I think the GHG theory does.

    Perhaps you are now calm enough to answer why Jupiter and Saturn both radiate more heat than they receive from the sun? Neither has any GHG’s in their atmospheres. The simplest answer is adiabatic compression.

  76. You asked for elevator explanations. I gave a rather good one. You responded by pretending to take offense in order to contrive an excuse to ignore what I said. I see no point in repeating myself to someone with his fingers stuffed in his ears. The thread was dominated by yammering idiots at that point anyway. Now you tell us the whole thing was merely some kind of ploy to provoke a reaction at another blog. I am … unimpressed.

  77. The whole thing seems a bit petty and childish. Let people post what they want and let people decide for themselves.

  78. Well I took a lot of unnecessary abuse but mostly didn’t rise to it because I want to establish the truth rather than participate in emotional grandstanding.

    In the process I formed the view that Willis wouldn’t recognise a valid elevator speech in favour of N & Z if he was hit over the head with it.

    I’m pretty sure I got pretty darn close in a step by step process but in my view he blinked at the last minute and refused to entertain the idea that even in a non GHG world the conductive energy exchange at the surface/atmosphere interface would be dynamic and not static so if one allocates numbers to that conductive energy exchange then one can see a warmer surface than that anticipated from the usual radiation only equations.

    Only if the conductive surface/atmosphere energy exchange is static does Willis’s own proposition hold. I cannot believe that it is static due to the energy already stored in the atmosphere and on the surface with plenty of the resultant kinetic energy bouncing around.

    The odd thing is that this whole kerfuffle seems bizarre to me because I have a clear recollection from my schooldays that planets with atmospheres have to be treated differently to those without. The S – B numbers are fine for a planet with no atmosphere but they fail to apply as soon as an atmosphere with any mass is present because it interferes with the radiative energy flows by interpolating non radiative means of energy transfer.

    Even in Willis’s own thread someone made the point that an atmosphere decouples the surface from space.

    Well of course it does and it makes the S – B equations invalid in the process.

  79. Some many years ago before BBC science reporting was subverted and world government was just something the Rothschild’s talked about over the port there was a BBC radio programme featuring Richard Feynman.

    At some point the BBC presenter attempted (with some skill) to provoke Feynman in to giving an ‘elevataria’ explaining quantum electro dynamics for the benefit of the Radio 4 listeners.

    As I recall Feynman did actually apologise (a first perhaps) but he said that he wouldn’t lie to us and the only way that he could explain things was by using mathematics and that it would take some time. He said that there was no easy way to explain these things without lying and if we wanted some cute analogy we could go elsewhere.

    The point that he rammed home was that QED was such a successful theory because it had been tested in so many ways and still gave correct predictions – the theory didn’t stop working when you looked at it closely.

    So Mr Watts, if the bongo man had just declined to post a QED elevator speech on this blog would he get the same snide opprobrium that you offered Mr Jelbring?

    All the Best

  80. “I did not say, as far as I know, that air can only heat the ground through radiation.”

    Good, then we can agree that even without back-radiation we can have back-heating from IR transparent atmosphere and also ground temp above S-B, exactly the same way as with back-radiation.
    Done?

  81. Willis,

    Your replies to many comments have been extremely arrogant, cocky, childish and rude. Unfortunately your recent posts and especially the way you have moderated/answered many comments is taking the quality of WUWT down.

    Anyway, it is my own choice whether to read your posts or not. After this episode I do not have to bother with your’s anymore. This last post of yours must be the worst of any posts I have read here.

  82. What is being debates here is not the scientific principles under discussion. It is the behaviour and attitude of individuals. This in itself is not a major problem, as long as individuals have insight, are prepared to see the effect of their behaviours on others, and to move on having learned lessons. However if an individual will not or cannot recognise the processes going on in themselves, or deliberately override their insight mechanisms things will only go from bad to worse. And the only ones to benefits will be the Taliban of climate science. This applies to anyone and everyone.

  83. Although I am a sceptic, I realise that Joel Shore is one of the most knowledgeable contributors to this site. Tallbloke on the other had favours what I consider to be pseudo-science – such as Claes Johnson, Nicolov and Teller, Sky Dragon nonsense etc. Maybe this is because Tallbloke lacks scientific understanding and is thus swayed by those works which are appeal to the scientific illiterate. I have no doubt that this is why Tallbloke refuses to present his ‘elevator’ speech. To do so would expose his lack of understanding.
    The problem is that this sort of nonsense does not help the sceptic cause. On the contrary, it simply reinforces the impression that sceptics range from the scientifically uninformed to the barking mad.
    As Richard Lindzen says, there are some things that all scientists will agree on. For example, they all agree that the greenhouse effect is real, whether they are sceptics or not. If someone has a new theory to disprove that, then the onus is on them to offer cogent evidence to support it, not just a rambling rant of disinformation and misunderstandings.
    The experience of the ‘ A Mater of Some Gravity’ postings was not good. The overwhelming comments on that post were what I class as uninformed. No matter how many times that Willis re-iterated that non-radiative gases in the atmosphere don’t radiate someone, without any evidence, would say that they did. Lucy Skywalker says the same thing here today. How can people learn and advance if they cannot distinguish between information and disinformation and the disinformation swamps the true information? I understand Willis’s frustration but – Willis – what you did was not right. It smacks of Tamino , Real Climate and even Tallbloke.
    Best of luck in the future Willis.

  84. Good grief Tallbloke, you can’t possibly be contemplating posting out here in the open a private e-mail discussion between two scientists. How unethical is that! Go with what the others here have said, don’t post.

    [reply] You know how it is louise, FOIA and all that. ;-) TB.

  85. Willis Eschenbach says:
    January 17, 2012 at 3:43 am
    “ It reminded me of the maoist terminology, like “running dog venal capitalist revisionists” …:

    I believe the old Pravda approved phrases would be “lick-spittle lackeys of the capitalist running dogs” or “back-sliding revisionists who will be purged”

    Sadly RT (Russia Today) is no substitute for Pravda. So someone has to keep the language alive. Try http://thepeoplescube.com/ where you will read that Laika the space dog has been beaming signals into into liberal tinfoil hats since 1957…

    Or try the experiment….

  86. Tallbloke, I agree that Willis can take a hike and we will all be better for it. He plays games and disturbs the ether with them as opposed to being someone who helps science move forward. So Willis , goodbye on your own doing. Play games with your buddy and spare us your comments. Your game is up, for all to see, you are not worthy to be a commenter at wuwt or Tallblokes site. Bill

  87. Willis sez:
    Seems you missed the first part. And the last part:

    Well, first my apologies to Roger “Tallbloke” Tattersall for my having played such a shabby trick on him. He is a good, honest, and decent man whose problem is that his mouth wrote a check that his science can’t cover. Roger, you have my apology, seriously meant.

    Candy coating round the outside of the bitter pill doesn’t do it for me. As I said on your last thread,

    “you’re all circumference and no central point.”

    You reponded that I’m “all hat and no cattle.”

    I’ll add that you’re “all mouth and no trousers.”

    Maybe when we’ve exhausted the insults we’ll get over it.

  88. My elevator speech is pretty basic, and covers Willis’ proof and my assertion:

    – First, Willis proof of the breaking of thermodynamic law isn’t compelling as he had to invent a fictitious atmosphere to achieve broken law. I could likewise prove refrigerators don’t exist by imagining a perfect insulator.

    – Second, on the N&Z theory: We know that CO2 in a closed system heats faster than CO2 in an open system… many debunks of the Al Gore video exist. Gravity “warms” the planet assuming two things: 1) there is an energy input and 2) There is an atmosphere. In a planetary system the gravitational warming happens when gravity acts as an elastic container against which the atmosphere expands.

    This doesn’t violate any laws of thermodynamics as the planet, devoid of solar input, would cool, and the N&Z proof does not show more energy in the system than is put into the system originally.

  89. You could both just say “Ni” to one another instead.
    It would save lots of bandwidth ;)
    (with apologies to those who haven’t watched Monty Python & the Holy Grail!)

  90. While this discussion on the theories of Nikolov and Zeller (N&Z) and Hans Jelbring goes on and on nobody at WUWT seem to have noticed that global sea ice is now more or less spot on the global sea ice mean from 1979 to 2006 http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
    Missing the occasional blog on Arctic and Antarctic sea ice extent.
    Current arctic sea ice anomaly -0.444
    Current Antarctic sea ice anomaly +0.424
    What is going on here? How does that fit in with the continued “stand still” of global atmospheric temperatures? Regardless of theories being bandied about promoting AGW it would seem that at least atmospheric temperatures and sea ice are not playing ball.

  91. tallbloke says:
    January 17, 2012 at 1:07 am
    In that email chain, there are at least two ‘elevator speeches’ that I offered to Willis (neither of them satisfactory so I didn’t try on his last thread), …

    Good grief man – why didn’t you “cut & paste” one or both of them in the thread?

    At least it would have given the rest of us a bit of an understanding regarding your understanding.

    Plus, I’m sure many would then no longer accept Willis’ “TB won’t give us this because he can’t” rant.

    The worst case might be that you would get disagreement over your position – but isn’t that the whole idea behind being a “skeptical” person?

    Note: I’ve been either an Administrator or Moderator on a handful of forums over the years and one thing is clear: no matter how one moderates a board/forum, someone will not be happy. Therefore, I recommend that one tell ‘em how you will moderate, moderate that way, and tell ‘em that is the way you moderated. While I didn’t particularly enjoy Willis’ sniping manner in the thread, it appears to me he followed this concept.

  92. If a non-GHG atmosphere helps to smooth a planet’s temperature through convection, wind, etc, then the radiative-balance average temperature will surely be higher (under the fourth power law) than if there are high-radiating hotspots?

  93. (Psst – in case it wasn’t obvious, my post about herding cats that are on PCP vs herding cats while on PCP was a demonstration of the point at which I lost interest. And it wasn’t just interest that I lost, there was also a measure of respect.)

  94. This “Thanks and Apologies” post is content free and only detracts from the site.

    Who cares that a couple of posters got into a big snit and someone banned someone somewhere.

  95. Dear Willis,

    FWIW:

    One read of your constraints and naturally fictitious hypothetical planet setup in your last post was all it took for me to know that fish had a hook in it, a troll. An ill advised one it now seems, and at the time fraught full with potentially sad and unintended consequences, as these things usually tend to be.

    I started my comment in said post with this:

    “I have no dog in this fight, I’m just a bystander. But you obviously do, and it seems so in a bad way. I don’t know or care who bit you on the ass, but by the timbre of your responses they struck a nerve…….”

    I attempted to shine a discrete light on your mirror by asking that you snip my post and treat it as a personal message, to which you responded with a rationalization of your self-perceived character flaws. Yes, we all have them, but flaws are still flaws, not virtues. Striving to eliminate and overcome them is noble and good. Rationalizing them is not.

    I’m afraid that the unintended consequences of taking your personal vendetta out in the open were the public lambasting and humiliation of a lot of good, well intended people innocent of your machinations, and the lowering of the bar by which others will treat you in the future. High standards are now irretrievably out the window. Onwards your megaphone might also fall on more deaf ears than you’d like. I for one certainly hope this is not the case, but Karma is a female dog.

    Worst of all in my view, you also damaged the reputation of your humble host Anthony’s site.

    All the best,

    J.

  96. “…why would I snip comments, when I’m so opposed to censorship?”

    Because you’re just smarter and better than those lowly denier masses.

    When you have 25 minutes invested in your “work,” why should you leave it open to commenters, when their objective is to try to find something wrong with it?

    You’re terribly impressed with yourself, aren’t you, willis? You fantasize that your opinions are something more than opinions. Other, lesser people have opinions. You have divine revelations, don’t you?

    “…I say hey, if you can’t explain it in an elevator speech, it you don’t understand it.”

    he says, while droning on and on and on for umpteen pathetic paragraphs.

    Willis, we’re just not that into you. You’re not an important figure, your biggest contributions are always to your own ego. You’re a boring and annoying person. There’s ONE person you need to censor. Can you figure out who it is?

  97. Unfortunately Willis you have form. I well remember your reaction to Judith Curry coming on to a sceptic blog seeking dialogue. Your reaction was extreme. Not only did you rant, you screamed insults at her. You do the sceptic cause no good at all. I rarely read any comments you make and from now on I will read absolutely none.

    All sceptics should try to be dispassionate, avoid ad homs and maintain a professional manner despite provocation. No, it’s not easy to do when you read something utterly outrageous on a blog. But please remember these blogs – particularly sceptic blogs- are read by people who matter i.e. those who will eventually stop the AGW bandwagon, by changes in policy or simply stopping the money. Lurkers far exceed contributors.

    They will not comment ever, but they are looking at the weight of evidence and will conclude that at best AGW has been grossly exaggerated. At worst lies and possibly crimes have been committed. Keeping our cool will hasten that day. The antics of WE will then be irrelevant.

  98. At first, dust-ups like this generate additional traffic.
    Later on, people start leaving in hoards, because the site is not as clean as it used to be.

    WUWT was a place where people with common sense could have a gulp of fresh air, in the poisonous, suffocating world of ignorance, corruption, and self-justification.
    With Mr. Eschehbach’s arrival, this rare feeling is gone.

  99. re:
    steven mosher says:
    Nice Willis.
    when I saw the first snip It was easy to see what you were up to.
    doubtless some will be offended at being schooled by a crystal clear object lesson.

    Or, maybe, some will be offended at being schooled about censorship by someone who holds the power to snip.
    If Willis only wanted an elevator speech on the point in question , well that is fine.
    But… he also chose to bring in the point of censorship…why?
    If Willis only wanted discussion on his science then I would have no worries.
    He did not do that.
    Willis chose to bring the point of censorship into a post he fully intended to censor.
    And it would seem he did censor (rather strongly?)
    If you dont want comments to be about your censorship…then either don’t censor comments…or don’t whinge about censorship in your posting.
    Is this nothing more than a ‘crystal clear object lesson’ on the value of censorship?

  100. “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.”
    A. Einstein

    Yup. Showing that a proposed mechanism violates conservation of energy is about as simple as it gets. It falls into the category of ‘no doubt about it’. I am a bit surprised that Willis’s rather cleaver observation, which proves a non-absorbing atmosphere can’t raise the temperature of a planetary surface, is so resisted by some.

  101. Well about that experiment of Konrads- well can we do it?
    And can we add ongoing input as to day night tempatures? Also volcanic outgassing.
    Konrad says:
    in two identical containers with internal black target surfaces which were exposed to identical amounts of sunlight, the container with the higher air pressure heated to a greater temperature.
    Scienceofdoom says:
    Pump up a tire and it gets hot due to the pumping (work done), but after a while the temperature returns to where it was, even though the pressure is still high. Does high pressure by itself cause high temperature? No. Energy in and energy out of the system determine the temperature.
    Waiting waiting waiting waiting.

  102. Willis, someday somebody is going to make you drink the hemlock. I sometimes wish your words were more gracious, but then the surgeon’s knife is not gracious, is it? Perhaps your graciousness is more private than public…and this apology only sets the stage for reconciliation.

  103. Willis and Tallbloke,

    Two weeks from now no one will be able to give an “elevator speech” on what you two are bickering about, much less will anyone remember any details. All anyone will know is that two prominent skeptics are mudwrestling over what to most of are petty ego issues and pedantic gobledeygook. You’re embarrasing us, really. No more “but, but, he…”; get your butts up off the ground, shake hands and use your mega-noggins to resolve this somehow; it ain’t rocket science, as they say.

  104. Typical of Mr Eschenbach to attack konrad and not answer the question on his experiment which appears to PROVE what N& Z’s paper shows.
    They are not the only ones saying this of course, the latest being Dr. Pierre R Latour of NASA fame.

  105. I enjoy getting banned from alarmist blogs. It reminds me that I’m on the right track.

    It also demonstrates that alarmist skin is rather thin.

  106. I’ve often tried to correct some of the more extreme fallacies that Joel supports, although it must be stated that these are common mistakes that are accepted in equal measure by some parts of the side that reach a different hypothesis on “global warming” and radiative physics generally.

    It seems that the method is galling, put-down, and persuasion as opposed to scientific argument, whether that be induction or formal proposition (given the existence of A and B, one infers the hitherto unsuspected existence of C)

    I don’t think there is much veracity from the consensus, who don’t attempt to provide the necessary calculations for the hypothesis of AGW (Such vital calculation of all relevant factors are even missing from the IPCC AR4). I wouldn’t go quite so far as to say that when crucial details of thermal properties (including the mathematics) of aerial gases are questioned in detail, the consensus employs these reactive methods of gall and browbeating, though the pointers go in that direction.

  107. Bomber_the_Cat says:
    January 17, 2012 at 4:48 am
    I suggest you go over to tallblokes forum and read some of the past threads posted there
    They are doing real cutting edge invetsigative science over there, not just regurgitating IPCC pseudoscience.

  108. So, essentially, I won on sentence length and about it being about density and therefor ought to get a gold star so I can truly shine for fifteen minutes. :p

  109. Playing games with “people”, and I put it in quotes for a reason, is a god-complex. Stop it. It only made you look as foolish as the Greek gods, described in the those wonderful books of antiquity. The “people” came out smelling like a rose, while the gods just came out smelling.

  110. This thread reads like something over at Deltoid, full of immature and thin-skinned people claiming “he did it to me first” “didn’t-did-didn’t-did….” and whining about their “rights”.

    It is the most unedifying thread I have seen on a skeptic site for several years, But no doubt Willis will turn up tomorrow and claim it was another of his fabled practical jokes; in which case, it is a colossal failure.

    Nul points.

  111. I like people who are honest and upfront in regards to science arguments even if I dont agree with them.

    People should avoid playing mind games. It really isn’t in anybodys interest . I do disagree with Tallbloke banning a commenter if they were honestly arguing their (perhaps misguided) point of view. Having said that, I think its sad that moderation on this blog was deliberately used in a mean spirited way towards Roger of all people. I would be equally disappointed if it was used in this way againt anyone including warmists I might add. Lets just stick to the science discussion and leave the mind games and emotional baggage where it belongs.

  112. Willis,
    Maybe I missed a follow up, or maybe it got snipped ;)
    I thought you disproved your own proof in the thread. First you say that there is no way that a transparent gas can warm the surface past the S-B temp. Then you claim that lapse rate is equal to -g/Cp, then you note that the potential energy of gas at the top of the atmosphere is equal the the kinetic energy of the gas at the bottom (owtte).
    Engineers like to take things to their limits to see if they break down. As you keep doubling the mass of the atmosphere, in order to keep the temperature of the surface constant, the upper atmosphere quickly must cool to degrees below zero kelvin. Note that as we gain in altitude, Cp also drops (it should be Cm). This makes the proof break down even faster as we add mass. Several people pointed this out, but I never saw your reply.

  113. I would amend the challenge to read “I say hey, if you can’t explain it in an elevator speech to someone with a similar level of understanding, it you don’t understand it.”

    An accountant could give an elevator speech to a CFO that would make perfect sense, but it would mean little to me. A football player could give a elevator speech to a coach, but it would sound like gibberish to me. That accountant might need an hour to get me up to speed on the topic he explained to an expert in 30 seconds.

    A PhD in physics will give a different elevator speech than a undergraduate physics major than a chemical engineer than a climate scientist.

  114. I am getting fed up with this crap!

    I hardly post in this blog.I also skim the blog entries here.To see if there is a shift away from the increasigly boring arguments over measly energy increase changes.That CO2 is alleged to have imposed on the vast dynamic climate system that the planet has.

    Partly because the divergent opinions are that.Divergent.They are full of noise and in the end.The skeptic herd are as confused as ever.The endless nitpicking is driving me nuts.You are now going in circles with the same crap over and over.

    The public babbling going on between Willis and Tallbloke is self defeating.You have been reduced to petty carping over how to run a blog.If you want to stop visiting Tallblokes place.Fine! But to devise a whole blog in the attempt to “stab him in the back”. I am unhappy about it.

    I Find that any post by Bob Tisdale to be so much more relevant.Than what we have been getting elsewhere.Why? BECAUSE HE FOCUSES ON THE REAL WORLD.As opposed to the nail biting blackboard arguments we have been subjected to these days.I am wondering if the skeptic community is losing sight on what is important and relevant?

    To show EMPIRICALLY that the AGW conjecture is unsupported and a failure.That is the primary mission in my opinion.To educate the layman public on the basics of our skepticism.To help them see beyond the misleading media commentary and the deliberate lies they inject.To expose the blatant attempt to the FAUX science they peddle.The Hockey Stick is a primary example..AGW believers have a habit of making them.Because the real world does NOT agree with them.Since they have a cause to support.They are going to publish the pseudoscience crap.As part of herding the layman to believing that we are doomed unless………………..

    Meanwhile a whole climate cycle is being profoundly neglected by just about everybody.The one that is most fatal to the AGW hypothesis.I am gobsmacked that none of you are aware of it.

    Well I am going to have to make a choice on how much I have to tolerate.Before I stop visiting places like this.The backstabbing.The pettiness over small details.The cries of censorship.It is all so useless to the public at large.The layman who are being fed a steady dies of distortion and lies.The barrage of half truths of the daily weather events that goes on around us.

    I try in my small way to help the layman in my forum.They are the ones we should be helping.To counter the barrage of baloney.The media and environmentalist groups spew out.The deliberate attempt to con the confused public into supporting legislation.That is so helpful to the few and useless to the many.

    I wish you people would stop this infighting and get back on track.To inform the public about what is really happening.That I believe is what is most important.

    To help the layman with clear presentations.The comments we post.Clarifying what needs to be considered.To help them keep their cool in the face of unending media cries of doom over weather events.

  115. This is a response to those that still think the adiabatic lapse rate would result in a warmer surface even without greenhouse gases present. The adiabatic lapse rate of an atmosphere is due to a sufficiently well mixed atmosphere in the presence of gravity. It has an ideal value of -g/Cp, which does not require a greenhouse gas. However, it is a GRADIENT not temperature level. There still has to be some cause of the actual level of temperature. If no greenhouse gas is present, the surface radiation in and out sets the temperature AT THE SURFACE, and conduction and convection transmit that temperature into the atmosphere. However, once the atmosphere is brought to equilibrium, it does not absorb any more heat. If it is not well enough mixed (by wind and turbulence) it will tent to isothermal. Without greenhouse effect the atmosphere will not radiate to space (radiation at thermal temperatures is the definition of greenhouse gases, and N2 and O2 are not greenhouse gases). With sufficient wind mixing (due to day/night variation in heating, and latitude differences in heating) the lapse rate may still be the adiabatic lapse rate, but that is not the issue. In no case can the surface be warmer that the no atmosphere case without greenhouse gases. The whole point of the presence of greenhouse gases is to raise the location of outgoing radiation to space up into the atmosphere, and then the adiabatic lapse rate times the average elevation of out going radiation to space is added to the temperature at the balance location of in and out radiation.

  116. I have found this whole debacle to be depressing. This is the kind of behaviour I have come to expect of Warmists, not skeptical scientists.

    My read of the exchange is that Willis has concocted a “clever” explanation of his behaviour after the fact in order to justify his bad behaviour. My guess is that he had no such intent in mind when he started all this.

  117. Ok Willis, let me take a shot at the elevator.

    Sun warms the earth’s surface, energy transfers by conduction to the gas, gas heats and radiates a percentage back to the earth which heats (same argument as used for GHG), heat transfers by conduction to the gas. Amount of heat transfer will be affected by the density of the gas. Denser gas, higher conduction.

    If this is invalid then it would seem that GHG arguments would be invalid. The only difference is that they operate by radiation instead of conduction.

  118. “Maybe when we’ve exausted the insults, we’ll get over it”
    Sounds good to me.
    I am neither a scientist nor an academic but what what it is worth, I am upset to read that the relationship between these two gentlemen has deteriorated to the extent that it appears to have.
    I think that all that can be achieved, has been achieved and that now might be a good time to move on so as not to put WUWT in a difficult (catch 22) position.

  119. Willis,

    you said this:

    “My rants are all very carefully chosen and calculated, I have a clear, defined, and usually different purpose for each one, and my aim is to weigh and ponder each word and each tone and shading and to consider what they will do and what people will do in response.”

    and you said this:

    “In other words you’ve been acting like an arrogant dickwad since you opened your mouth on the subject …”

    “You are an irritating jerkwagon..”

    You are one sick puppy, bro’, much sicker than we can help you with here.”

    “I think you are a royal prat”

    “Either way, you look like an idiot.”

    “Listen, you unpleasant person”.

    I think you really “weigh and ponder each word and each tone and shading” nicely.

    Anthony, before people start leaving in hoards, please get rid of this “irritating, arrogant, sick, idiot, unpleasant jerkwagon-dickwad-puppy-person”

  120. As they say tl;dr

    Sometimes you guys really need to take a holiday and lighten up a bit. There is nothing worse than taking yourself too seriously.

  121. The shorter the apology, the more likely it is truly an apology. An apology that comes with a long drawn out explanation is called an excuse, not an apology.

  122. This is in response to the comment about Jupiter and Saturn being warmer than they should be due to lack of greenhouse gases. Sorry but both have small but significant amounts of Ammonia and Methane, both of which are very strong greenhouse gases. There are also cloud layers of ice, and other compounds. However, the excess radiation out over input is a combination of gravitational collapse energy left over from formation and radioactive decay of the solid core (the core is rock and metal, and even though it is a small core compared to the overall diameter, it is thought to be 10 to 20 Earth masses). The planets temperatures are low enough so that energy loss is slow enough so that initial collapse energy will take many billions of years to dissipate.

  123. James of the West says:
    January 17, 2012 at 6:33 am
    I do disagree with Tallbloke banning a commenter if they were honestly arguing their (perhaps misguided) point of view.

    I have not censored anything said by Joel at my blog. All his backstage words are posted for all to see. I never Gave Joel admittance to my home on the net in the first place. He has too much previous with telling me what my motivation is on other sites for me to be prepared to entertain him, respond to him, and moderate him fairly at the same time. So I told him he couldn’t come in, and by way of compensation, offered him a guest post on the issue he had a beef about. He declined. Said he didn’t have time, and carried on posting his stuff non-stop here at WUWT.

    Anthony Watts described the N&Z threads he had to close as:

    “Shore worn”

    ‘Nuff said I think.

    Bye everyone.

  124. Here is an alternate theory which would be darned hard to prove or disprove. The heating of Earth is due to a slight change in amount of fission reverses nuclear decay in the Earth’s core- it would produce such a slight change of surface temperature that it would be near unmeasureable (very few actual land measurements and most are imprecise petroleum well- they don’t care about that precision and it difficult for anyone measure high temperature with that precision) yet it would it would add massive energy to biosphere- a uniform increase of 0.1C of all land (above and below the oceans). No breach of the Energy Conservation Law as it conserves mass-energy. There would be slight variation of exotic subatomic particles but they would be blocked by hundred of kilometres of rock and molten fluid and simply extremely diffuse.

  125. @Jeremy

    As Ray Bradbury said: “”The one important thing I have learnt over the years is the difference between taking one’s work seriously and taking oneself seriously. The first is imperative and the second disastrous.”

  126. Meltdowns like this episode tarnish credibility and risk driving some world-class contributors away from the site. I suspect this one may constitute “a bell that cannot easily un-rung”.

  127. S – B applies to a body in a vacuum.

    A body with an atmosphere is not in a vacuum.

    S – B does not apply.

    End of.

    Who the heck decided that S – B was applicable to a body with an atmosphere but no GHGs.

    If that were correct then the presence or absence of GHGs would have been in the definition and not the presence or absence of a vacuum.

    The Greenhouse Effect is and always has been primarily a consequence of mass hence the vacuum requirement for the S – B equations.If there is ANY mass in the atmosphere then there is no vaccuum.

    We’ve all been had.

  128. Willis,
    Recently, Anthony gave us a detailed post regarding the censorship and self-serving snipping that occurs at warmist sites such as SkS. Anthony stressed that he would not allow such behavior to occur at WUWT. I believe that you have overstepped your obligations as a guess author and have broken Anthony’s pledge. (At least this is how it appears to me.)

    I understand that you feel that your opinions at Tallbloke’s site has been stifled. I know that must irk you. (I do not like it when others with opinions similar to mine are muzzled.) However, if we want to have any chance to persuade others, we keep the conversation going and we must learn to express our disagreements without being disagreeable.

    BTW, I am a skeptic and have not completely made up my mind regarding the work of Jelbring or N&Z. As an aerospace engineer, I understand that the adiabatic atmospheric lapse rate is a real phenomenon. However, I do not know if it: (1) is caused directly as a result of the gravity field or (2) is a result of convective forces self-organizing due to differences in buoyancy due to relative heat content. I suspect the later might be a more correct statement of the situation.

    Best regards,
    wermet

  129. sunsettommy,

    Quote:
    “To show EMPIRICALLY that the AGW conjecture is unsupported and a failure.That is the primary mission in my opinion.To educate the layman public on the basics of our skepticism.To help them see beyond the misleading media commentary and the deliberate lies they inject.To expose the blatant attempt to the FAUX science they peddle.The Hockey Stick is a primary example..AGW believers have a habit of making them.Because the real world does NOT agree with them.Since they have a cause to support.They are going to publish the pseudoscience crap.As part of herding the layman to believing that we are doomed unless………………..”

    It shouldn’t be about “missions”. It should be about following the evidence. If you are a regular reader of this blog, you will know that many leading commentators on “your side” accept that the Greenhouse Effect, regardless of how accurate or otherwise that singular term may be, is real. Monckton said so just a couple of days back on these very pages. The key argument has shifted ground in recent years to how disruptive said effect is likely to be, which is where I may say I am at odds with Monckton for various reasons.

    I came to the climate debate purely through listening to someone I respected saying some very strange stuff about petitions, making small numbers look even smaller and so on in order to make the point that burning the fossil fuels is a completely harmless business, which indeed I thought it was. But something felt wrong, politically-motivated rather than to do with science. I felt I was not getting the full picture. So I went and followed the evidence. I’d never up until this point heard of the likes of Fourier, Tyndall, Arrhenius etc all those many tens of years ago. Now I learned about these gentlemen. I looked further in and saw the efforts of the American Petroleum Institute and the background of the Oregon Petition and other such announcements. I downloaded and read what open-source PDFs of climatology papers were available and went on to hassle climate scientists for reprints of those that were not until my hard drive was groaning under the megabytage.

    That was no “mission” to broadcast a political objective: it was my inherent curiosity to learn.

    The stuff these guys – Rog and Willis – are arguing quite bitterly over is on another plane altogether. The argument is getting so convoluted that it is getting difficult to see the wood for the trees. It’s a pity because there are all sorts of interesting things going on in climate science right now. And a lot of them have little or nothing to do with Michael Mann but with observation-based science, which happens to be my favourite type, but then in the real world I study ore-deposits, so that type of science is dear to me.

    The big question of our time is how excessive greenhouse gas emissions, manmade or natural, whether via feedback or purely natural processes, may affect all of our futures and those of our future generations. If a “mission” is required, then it surely needs to be to figure out better what might be in store for Mankind in the coming few centuries, and to do that the very best information is surely required. For that to be possible and for all of us to talk about this rationally, the politics needs to go, period.

  130. BarryW (6:52 am) – sorry, wrong again.

    “gas heats and radiates a percentage back to the earth which heats (same argument as used for GHG)”

    No it doesn’t – a GHG can radiate, a non-GHG cannot – by definition. That’s the difference between GHG and non-GHG at Earth-like temperatures.

  131. All of the “anti-censorship” comments would have a lot more meaning if Willis had not stated up front he was going to censor. At a slight modification to the original text, RTFA! Quit jumping to conclusions, READ!

    Shouting at Willis for doing what he said he was going to do doesn’t make sense. I for one am sorry that any Sceptical site has resorted to censorship. WE DON’T NEED CENSORSHIP! Snipping off topic rants, snipping ad hominum attacks, snipping rude behavior, isn’t censorship, it doesn’t impinge on the central argument. If someone thinks it does, then they need to take an elementary course in logic. As far as Willis’ snipping of science, then apologies are in order, the rest of it gets a pass in my book.

  132. Pathetic nonsense, Willis.
    Your apologies are smug, sanctimoniuos, self-serving garbage.
    You have done untold damage to WUWT.

    I’ll be sticking to MacIntire and Curry in the future

  133. Fryingham says:

    “My read of the exchange is that Willis has concocted a “clever” explanation of his behaviour after the fact in order to justify his bad behaviour. My guess is that he had no such intent in mind when he started all this.”

    Well, you can interpret all you want, and naysayers can swing from trees, but one clear fact that can not be avoided is that the issue with conservation of energy and this paper has been thrust into the cold hard light of day.

    I am a strong believer in equal treatment of equal behavior. Rules should not be relative at all. I have to admit that due to this exchange I am less supportive of Tallbloke, like my support really means anything. But I have learned a lot from reading Willis’ previous posts, so for me it’s a wash.

    Sometimes you have to take a circuitous route to get past the obstinate and make your point.

  134. So, new person who is a bit sceptical wanders into WUWT to learn more. First thing they read is this utter car crash about intellectual traps and bans.

    Then they read backslaps from the enlightened (I have a book out don’t you know) about how they saw the trap before it was sprung.

    Sickening. Weakens everyone, not just the ego’s involved.

    Anthony, get a grip.

  135. Just as a point of definition, as one who works in the industry that invented the elevator pitch, the goal is not to explain everything quickly or succinctly as possible; it is to a pitch an idea in order to get a meeting where we can explain it in full at a later time. It is a teaser—you never give your idea away for free. Now, after reading your post I have to wonder just how tall that building is in which your elevators rides because if you have to explain a joke or make an apology in 3,500+ words, it wasn’t a joke or a heartfelt apology. It was a long, long, look at your watch, justification of petulance.

  136. Willis, it’s rare that reading a blog post on the vastness of the internet makes me wish that I knew the author personally. Your mind works in admirable ways. As I say to my wife, who also “plays the long game”, I’m glad you use your powers for Good.

  137. I don’t have dog in this fight but Willis, but you were NOT banned by Tallbloke.
    You chose that yourself.
    Adults are allowed to be a juvenile as they choose, but I am very disappointed that this is here on the best climate science website.
    Poor behavior and decisions and actions Willis.

  138. I read the original post, read your directions and decided that I had no time to read the papers and write an informed opinion. not trouble whatsoever following your instructions.

    I figger that thread should have been almost empty.

    I don’t have a complaint and don’t understand the rest of the complaints.

  139. Konrad says:
    January 17, 2012 at 2:48 am

    “You both insisted that LWIR re-emitted by CO2 has an equal effect over water and land. A simple empirical experiment showed this to be incorrect.”

    “I conducted an initial experiment that showed that in two identical containers with internal black target surfaces which were exposed to identical amounts of sunlight, the container with the higher air pressure heated to a greater temperature.”

    You’re batting 500. The first is correct. The second led you to an erroneous conclusion.

    The higher temperature in the second experiment is due to the heat causing the gas to expand and because you have a fixed volume container the volume cannot increase hence the temperature must increase instead. This does not happen in gravitational confinement as the container volume is not fixed. The higher starting pressure of the gas in one container means you have better conductive coupling to the black target which can be considered a heating element. The better conductive coupling allows the denser gas to absorb more energy energy from the heating element and thus generate a greater pressure increase which in turn raises the gas temperature. In a planetary atmosphere this better coupling still happens but instead of the temperature of the gas going up from increased pressure the atmosphere simply expands in volume and the temperature does not increase.

  140. I say better to have a car crash than see junk science repeatedly dished up as anti-alarmist fodder. How do visiting fence sitters react to that?

  141. You are boring and anoying. You sound like an adolescent attempting to get even for being rejected. You need to grow up.

  142. Thanks for your posting, however it was so repetitive and verbose in your constant references to an “the elevator” speech that I feel a bit dumber having read the whole screed. You could have probably got your point across in about 15% of the space and been much clearer as a result.

    Please refer to a paperback copy of Dale Carnegie’s “How to win Friends and Influence People” to get some understanding of how “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still”. There is not going to be a “winner” in the argument between yourself and Tallbloke, therefore I look at the way you both are behaving as childish.

    Please take there types of exercises to your own personal blog as it it my personal preference that WUWT not be cluttered up with these type of sophist exercises.
    Thanks

  143. IMO one of the best things about blog discussion is that there are often many new and thought provoking contributions which can come in from left field. On the gravity thread there were a few such which I noted to return to yet they were gone – a shame and a loss.

  144. Stephen Wilde (7:21 am) says “S – B applies to a body in a vacuum”.
    Really? Where did vacuum come into this?

    I’ve asked my source for clarification on that but in the mean time your link does define c as the speed of light in a vacuum and that is an integral part of the equation.

  145. @Will[snip] [snip]enbach

    Our team is contacting your publisher to have you fired. Damn this editorial control.

    Actually, I like the idea of a directed discussion. Some people don’t want to follow directions (or can’t). So, this is what happens. I think the consequences should be that you set up a special category of directed discussion post where snipping is encouraged. If anyone has a beef, they can post to a different directed discussion. Many of the replies on WUWT have become “me too’s” and produce a long list of comments without adding anything, or possibly subtracting from things.

    Tallbloke is still waiting for Rossi’s cold fusion to warm up. I suspect he has a weakness in calculating energy balance equations. It’s not that I don’t enjoy Tallbloke’s stuff too. I think it would be nice to get a clean discussion every once in a while. So why not have a curated top-level discussion and push the snipped comments somewhere else so that they can still be viewed by people who disagree with the curation. It’s not like Anthony won’t give someone their fair shot on a different thread.

    As for the N&Z theory…. has anyone bothered to contact the people who design satellites? They have to do these heat loading calculations all the time. Don’t they have a working knowledge of exactly what people here are discussing? It’s not really real until you bring in some empriicism. I highly recommend it.

  146. What a long winded blathering piece of self promotion and faux justification for aberrant behavior. This is precisely why I don’t bother reading your madness. You had my curiosity piqued with the title. I almost made it 1/2 way through……. egos are bad enough, unjustified egos are something else.

    What’s worse, is you brought your petty self-invented squabble to WUWT.

    I haven’t bothered to read the comments above, and, I’m not going to. But, here’s a news flash. Most people don’t give a damn about how you feel about how Joel is treated by Roger. Here’s another news flash, that’s TB’s blog. He can damn well do as he pleases with it.

    Find somewhere else to play out your juvenile and petty squabbles.

    Willis, you don’t even know how to apologize properly. What’s wrong with you? Your mother over-protect?

  147. You laid a trap for a fellow skeptic … nuf said … censorship is not the issue since as we all know if you want to say something on the internet, you can, for no cost and nobody else can remove it …

    I’m sure your father said “my house, my rules” more than once, obviously that never sank in … being banned from a site is not censorship …

    You should consider getting your own site, in fact I hope that Anthony suggests you do so since I doubt you cleared this sting with him in advance and you have tarnished WUWT with this stunt …

    You just dulled a very sharp blade (your mind) by hammering away at a rock that didn’t need breaking …

  148. I didn’t pay much attention to the first post because generally the science behind AGW is a bit of a bore because I can’t always follow it and it really all comes down to whether you believe that positive feedback to CO2 will occur, despite it never having happened before in the history of the earth.

    But what I do understand quite well are biases and I really enjoy sparking them while hopefully staying above the fray. As a social experiment AGW is quite thrilling so I follow the goings on quite closely. In life I believe they are few things more difficult than allowing someone with a different opinion/belief to express himself and in the AGW debate it’s pretty apparent that the skeptical side have taken the proper tack in allowing anyone and everyone to express their views, regardless of how difficult it is to do so.

    I deal with this same issue nearly every day on my facebook page when I post AGW stuff on my facebook page. It’s damn hard to not take offense at some of the things that are said and it’s difficult to not get angry and start blocking people but at the end of the day it’s worth it when people who are just following the thread will say privately that “Person X is a real jerk and obviously doesn’t know what they’re talking about”.

    My point here is that I understand I’ll never convince those that are swayed by emotional arguments but my opponents’ tactics will persuade those that can see through the name-calling and ad hominem arguments and those are the people I’m really trying to convince. And that’s why I will never censor people or comments from my posts. The irrational AGW types do a better job of persuading those on the sidelines against their position than I can do myself.

    So I think people who are angry about Willis’ tactics are missing the point. In my eyes censorship of any kind is more detrimental to the skeptical side than proving or disproving some hypothesis that will probably be forgotten by next year. What’s important is that we always must play fair and censorship in any form detracts from that and is ultimately more detrimental than beneficial. So did Willis play a mind game here? Sure he did. Did he make his point about censorship? Well to me he did but unfortunately I fear I’m in the minority on this.

  149. @Konrad (con’t)

    I’ve admired your willingness to experiment since I read of what you did to determine whether LWIR can or cannot heat water.

    There’s a fix for your experiment about gas pressure. You’ll need to monitor the pressure inside the test chamber and increase the volume of the container so that pressure remains constant when temperature measurements are recorded. This will better simulate real atmosphere. If I’m correct you should find that there’s no difference in temperature between the gases at different starting pressures so long as the starting pressures are maintained by volume increases throughout the experiment.

  150. Willis wrote on Gravity thread: “[SNIP: please, no philosophical speculations on gravity. It's a field. To move against it takes energy. To move with it gives you energy. No one knows why. w.]”

    I thought this was a very good elevator explanation of N&Z. (I did not read the other). They just gussied it up a bit. If gravity “gives you energy” they are just posting a theory of how that energy might manifest itself. You seem to at least agree with part of the theory.

  151. From Tallbloke’s blog:

    There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding around the issue of the gravito-thermal effect as it appears in the work of scientists such as Hans Jelbring, and Nikolov & Zeller. Without trying to recapitulate their theories in detail, I thought it might be worth going through a few basics in order to dispel some of the fog some people seem to be surrounded by. I’ve thought about a few different ways of doing this, and settled on the style of a Platonic dialogue to give it some continuity, rather than a set of disconnected facts, like you might get in a Q&A, or FAQ. Some people might think I’ve got some stuff oversimplified or just plain wrong. Feel free to offer alternatives in comments below.

    ——————————————————–

    So these guys think most or all of the extra warmth there is at the surface of planets with atmospheres compared to those without is due to gravity? Are they serious?

    Deadly serious. This is a real scientific theory.

    But how can gravity cause heating of anything? It just pulls stuff together – right?

    Right, but it’s what happens to the stuff that gets pulled due to other physical laws which come into play that causes the heating, not gravity itself.

    But that means work has to be done by gravity to get anything else to happen doesn’t it? Otherwise it’s a perpetual motion machine.

    In classical mechanics terms, gravity is not a type of energy, but a force. It is constantly applied by masses on other masses. It is an intrinsic property of mass, not an energy state which can ‘get used up’. In terms of relativity theory, it is a property that mass has which causes the warping of space-time around the mass, which causes other masses to fall towards its ‘gravity well’.

    Ok, but how does ‘force’ make things like heating happen? Heating needs energy doesn’t it?

    At the microscopic level, heat arises because all matter which is at a temperature above absolute zero vibrates and moves around, knocking into other bits of matter. The energy of collisions makes the atoms and molecules vibrate and the rate they vibrate at determines their temperature. The gravitational force can cause matter to fall, gather momentum and bash into something else. As the mass falls towards another mass it is gravitationally attracted to, the gravitational potential energy it has by virtue of its altitude from the other mass diminishes, and the momentum, which is a product of its mass and velocity increases. When it hits another mass on the way down, some of that energy of momentum gets turned into heat because the collision makes the molecules vibrate more.

    But you said gravity isn’t energy. Now you are saying the mass turns gravitational potential energy into heat. What’s going on?

    Although gravity itself isn’t an energy, by virtue of its action as a force, it causes mass which is not at rest at the centre of gravity to have the potential to accelerate towards that centre of mass. That’s why we talk about mass having ‘gravitational potential energy’. The higher above the centre of gravity a mass is, the more of its total energy is locked up as gravitational potential energy. This means less of the total energy is available to be thermalised as heat in collisions.

    So is that why its cold at high altitude and warm near the surface? Ira Glickstein said it only works once, when the air is first pulled down and compresses, then the heat dissipates back to being the same temperature everywhere again.

    That’s one way of looking at it, from the point of view of the classical mechanics of the microscopic scale. Ira is right in one sense, but wrong in another. Although initial heating caused by sudden compression dissipates, the ongoing action of gravity as a force keeps the air compressed more near the surface. This means air is denser at low altitudes, and that means more molecules are having collisions more often, thermalising energy.

    But energy must be conserved to satisfy the first law of thermodynamics mustn’t it? Where does the extra energy come from?

    There is no extra energy, it is equally spread through the troposphere. If the whole of the troposphere was the same temperature as the surface it wouldn’t make it warmer. But gravity causes there to be a temperature gradient from cold high up, because more of the total energy is locked away as gravitational potential energy compared to warm at the bottom where the near surface air is hotter than the average because less of the total energy is locked away. Again, total energy remains equally distributed throughout the troposphere, as the second law of thermodynamics demands, but because of the difference in gravitational potential energy between molecules at the bottom and top, there is a thermal gradient.

    But that’s just the classical mechanics way of looking at it. What’s really happening physically? There’s convection to consider too.

    Yes, the throughput of solar energy coming in, being absorbed and turned into other kinds of energy and causing processes like convection complicates the picture. All of our ways of looking at things are just our conceptions of reality, not reality itself. Whether our conceptions are right or not is tested by making predictions and seeing if reality does what we expect it to according to theory. A good start is to see if the ideas all fit together logically and without internal contradictions or paradoxes. If that test is passed, it’s experiment time.

    OK, but how do we perform an experiment on the whole troposphere? It’s a messy place with all sorts of different energies and processes like convection going on in it.

    Good point, that’s why the science isn’t settled. But we can perform gedanken experiments to see if they can shed any light on how stuff really works. That’s a kind of thought experiment where we simplify things and test our ideas in a framework which limits the complexity of the real world. A relevant example here is the ‘model planet’ used in the theory written by Hans Jelbring. That one is properly defined and conceived in such a way as the result can be accurately computed. Rather than looking at the microscopic level that theory deals with bigger ensembles of molecules of a billion or so. That way, it can consider other processes like convection which happen in the real troposphere.

    But that theory doesn’t have any Sun and it doesn’t permit radiation to space. How can that be any use for understanding reality? And why do they talk about pressure?

    It doesn’t need those in order to reach a conclusion regarding the way gravity affects the surface temperature of any planet, whether or not it’s close to a sun. The pressure in the troposphere varies being lower at the top and higher at the bottom because of all the extra weight of the rest of the atmosphere being piled on top of it, being pulled down by gravity. That means the air is denser at the bottom too, so there are more collisions happening and more energy is thermalised as heat. Stick around, and if we’re lucky, Hans himself will take up the challenge of explaining his theory and how it relates to the real world in terms anyone can understand.

  152. I regret the breakdown in “civility”. I think everyone should give “it” a rest. Unpardonable for Willis to use Anthony’s blog for a ruse. (Fine to use it to further a scientific discussion, but if you think “everything” can be explained in elevator terms, I think you are mistaken). If you make a stipulation in a post, then it is fair game to snip when you believe your standards are not being followed. It is not fair game to enagage in pissing contests.

    I read — and feel from the vehemence and sniping partisanship of many comments, unfortunately — that passionate dislike of proponents of one “scientific” (yes, don’t all scientists have a value judgement on what is “scientific”) theory is being fobbed off on us as science. Oh, woe, this catfight is appearing too much like the Republican primary, or perhaps denominational break-ups of protestant religion. Wherever indiviualism and freedom is valued, we seem to come to this point. Everyone that I value here because you educate me about science — and you bedevil me because you disagree so vehemently on what is seems should be “basic” — please go to your corners for a rest. Then resume vigorous scientific debates.

    Willis, use your own blog for nefarious purposes, please. Keep after “your science”, however. Blogs have personal signatures. This is a most, most, most important axiom for the preservation and development of freedom.

  153. Willis and Tallbloke though I am an unimportant person in the scheme of things I feel I have a small insight here. To Tallbloke RE the banning of Joel Shore yes in my opinion Joel is an arrogant egomaniac with delusions of grandeur. he regularly says many things that expose him as being a high-priest of the church of AGW and therefore blind to the simple truth that others can see instinctively but he has made statements that sounded so stupid that I had to investigate them and when I did I learned far more on the subject than he could because I went in looking to learn in short his stupid statements caused me to learn more so I think you are doing those readers of yours a disservice by banning him as he is the best argument for finding out for yourself about scientific ideas so I would consider reinstating him not because of what Willis has done but because he can be an excellent foil to teach the truth to others with.

    To Willis I respect you although admittedly somewhat less than a week ago, you handled this very poorly this could have been done in other ways, none as easy maybe but certainly less damaging to you and Tallbloke and Anthony. On your proof that makes MY head hurt, your proof doesn’t feel right in my head, yes I am uneducated in things scientific but I have read a lot and when something feels right I have found that it is generally right, now there may be some small error or something but it will generally be right, that is one of the reasons I can’t buy into AGW because it feels wrong not because I can prove the numbers wrong although after reading this sight for a very long time I get some of the numbers. it is wrong to my conscious and sub-conscious mind and that is the feeling I get with your proof I am sorry if I lack the education needed to break it down and really see where it is wrong but I have learned to trust that feeling when something is wrong it has given me insight and on more than one occasion it has stopped me from doing or saying something stupid. I hope you and Tallbloke can get past this because you two can do much more on the same side without the petty things getting in the way, and as a learned bard once said “don’t sweat the petty things…….and don’t pet the sweaty things” George Carlin.

  154. Congratulations. You got discussions of censorship going at Tallbloke’s Talkshop.

    Now see if you can get the same discussions going at RealClimate, OpenMind, SkS, RabbitRun – pick one.

    Heck, I’d be happy to see any one of them seriously discuss the failings of a Team Paper. They can go into great detail about errors in any non-team paper – just think how much they could find inside one of their own.

  155. blackswhitewash.com says:
    January 17, 2012 at 7:37 am

    You are right, wash:

    We are getting ready for an election where the most important issue, commandeering of the world’s economy by AGW cult science, is front and center. Poor would get poorer and starve, and the elitists would prosper. One of the Republican candidates is a closet greenie who would sink us with his big-government energy solutions. And he is surging right behind the reasonable front-runner. Sitting on the love-seat with Nancy he said was a mistake. Huh? Someone pulled him into a room and said, “Newt, sit down here for a minute” and tricked him into speaking? Hardly…read his books past and current. His real knowledge is a paper-thin veneer.

    We have to get our act together to pull behind someone who can take down the socialistic eco-fascists now in power in the U.S.A.. This is serious, folks. Let’s focus down this home stretch and get Mitt or Ron as our candidate and put down these eco-maniacs as the curs they are.

    No more esoteric theory to banter and waste our time, please. Let’s get back to basics, please, as the average Joe does not get the fact that climate changes and man has little to do with it.

  156. In an attempt to help the WUWT junkies from wasting any more time on this thread, I’m involking Godwins law. I hereby categorically state that the discussion has reached a point where all further comments are of no more value than ranting Nazis.

    There. Now we can go on to the next WUWT article as no comment after this one can, by Godwins law, be worth reading.

  157. Willis, Tallbloke
    At the risk of sounding like everybody’s mother…You’re both wrong.
    Willis: whether your views on N&Z are right or wrong, you’re hurting WUWT by using it in this fight. Anthony has painfully built its reputation by sticking to the facts, avoiding personal attacks, and treating opposing views with civility. You’re devaluing that brand by using it in this way.
    Tallbloke: If you ban people like Joel Shore from commenting on your blog, isn’t it fair to have a ‘banned list’ on your home page so that readers can judge the breadth of the debate you host?
    No personal criticism of either party is intended here – Tallbloke has been under a lot of pressure of late and that makes people scratchy, and Wills has done great work here and maybe has similar pressures.
    But please, cool it, both of you.

  158. Elevator speech (“pitch” actually) to support GHG ‘back radiation’ et al which supports in a working demonstration that GHGs work to maintain that an elevated earth surface temperature is due to ‘stored flux’ (i.e., literally: “flux in transit”, nominally LWIR energy) between a source of energy (the sun), an absorbing and radiating surface (the earth) and space (a sink) due to a meta-material (the atmosphere with LWIR-active elements) surrounding the surface (or sphere in the case of the earth):

    Code up a simulation on Ansoft HFSS, a 3-D EM (Electro-Magnetic) simulation package using Finite Element Analysis techniques to investigate all things ‘EM’, and using a ‘meta-material’ (semi-reflective in its operational nature) defined ‘dielectric’ (atmosphere) embedded with CO2 and WV type ‘elements’ (EM resonant structures) and visually demonstrate the energy flux flow between a ‘source’ and a defined ‘target’ (which can also have defined albedo properties). The demonstration will show, with a meta material (e.g. an earth atmosphere) vs a vacuum an ‘increased’ amount of flux with an ‘atmosphere’ present (the meta material), and a higher flux on and near the surface surrounded by the meta material (the ‘atmosphere’).

    A better proposition, I think than the closed circuit S-Parameter (S11 reflection and S21 transmission) based analogy I think I have used in the past (surely have we EM/RF & microwave types posting on WUWT?)

    Lucy Skywalker: For all you do, please respect that you would seem to have much to learn about molecule composition and how this affects/spells out how a particular molecule interacts with, and its ability to absorb and radiate EM energy (like LWIR) on account of a molecule’s ‘electrically polarized’ and naturally vibrational nature.

    Places to start?

    Infrared spectroscopy – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_spectroscopy

    Infrared Spectroscopy – http://www.wag.caltech.edu/home/jang/genchem/infrared.htm

    Microwave spectroscopy – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotational_spectroscopy

    .

  159. I’ve grown weary of the Republican debates because they have become unseemly and unnecessary displays of wallowing in mud. And now appearing on WUWT – it’s the Willis and Roger debates.

  160. steveta_uk says:
    January 17, 2012 at 7:38 am

    “Stephen Wilde (7:21 am) says “S – B applies to a body in a vacuum”.

    “Really? Where did vacuum come into this? The word doesn’t even appear here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law

    It is at least implied in the definition of an ideal blackbody which is a 2D surface and where the S-B temperature is given precisely on that 2D surface.

  161. Let me put your very long post into an “Elevator Speech” for you:

    “I hosed a like-minded friend, and wasted a lot of people’s time over a trivial issue. Sure, censorship is bad, but I did it primarily because TallBloke disagreed with me, and wouldn’t give me the satisfaction of telling me I was right (it’s not really about Joel after all). Who is he to run his blog as he sees fit? I mean, it’s okay that I offended Tallbloke and wasted those folks’ time and all, because I said I was sorry…kind of….I mean, well, sure, I’m sorry. And all those people who claim I hurt Anthony’s blog and the reputation of WUWT? Nitwits all. I have another equally clever trap laid for them….”

    You could have said that between the lobby and the second floor.

    Willis, I like your posts, and I enjoy your writing. Didn’t care much for this at all. Raise the bar, don’t lower it, and next time you don’t get your way, move on. It’s the same advice I give my ten year old.

  162. @Willis:

    Wow. I’m not sure whether to express abject terror, or awe. :) If I ever meet you and have the opportunity, I hope to play a game chess or GO with you. I have a feeling I’d learn a lot from getting whomped! Just out of curiosity, are Sun Tzu’s “Art of War”, and Musashi’s “Go Rin No Sho” in your library? I would be amazed if they aren’t, but if not please don’t read them. I don’t want to be responsible for enhancing the effectiveness of what is apparently a Weapon of Mass Skepticism in human form. :)

    @CodeTech:

    I’ve tried to herd several cats after they got into a large bag of catnip. I’m assuming he did mean the cats were on PCP.

  163. jlc says:
    January 17, 2012 at 7:35 am
    Pathetic nonsense, Willis.
    Your apologies are smug, sanctimoniuos, self-serving garbage.
    You have done untold damage to WUWT.

    I’ll be sticking to MacIntire and Curry in the future
    ________________________________________

    I don’t know. maybe, maybe not. Sometimes I think there’s a time and place to play “hardball”

  164. I say hey, if you can’t explain it in an elevator speech, you don’t understand it.

    Some people seem to live in the penthouse of very tall buildings.

  165. Went too far didn’t we Willis. And your ego trip has probably lost you a lot of friends and put a serious dent in your credibility. In trying to cover up the error in your first post you concoct a Sherlock Holmes type story line to give the impression that you are some kind of great chess player. You may be good but not that good.

    Today Willis you dug a big hole and you know what they say about holes… when you find yourselve in one stop digging. Otherwise you will lose a lot more friends and damage the reputation of WUWT. Massage your ego somewhere else.

  166. Argh, this post and thread is just childish. I wish you all could stop the ‘sniping’, banning each other, calling each other dishonest etc, and get back to discussing science.

    I enjoy coming to these type of sites (WUWT, science of doom, Roy spencer, Air Vent, solarcycle24, and even masochistically: politics.ie) to educate myself and try to learn. About the only good thing that comes out of this thread is a link to yet another site I can go check out, tallbloke’s site (I didnt know he had one)

  167. Compare the “hissy fit” between Willis and Tallbloke…which is up front and out in the open, subject to all the “tut tuts” …with the sort of behavior the Climategate e-mails expose…the behind the back stabbings and attempts to cause harm to career and person (i.e., Ben Santer in an alley). Interesting how the Team behavior has been so easily dismissed/excused by the whitewashers as just so much “boys will be boys” par for the course., and, no doubt, by some of the very same commenters who’ve gotten all huffy here or at the Talkshop, picking sides.

    Anyway, what with the tangled web I’m thinking the world’ll be better with both of you in the clear. We need you.

  168. Welcome, author, to the banned-critic club, of which I am a proud member, having been banned two years ago from further commentary on Huffington Post pieces. It’s truly a badge of honor. There are hundreds of other outlets for our opinions, thank goodness. And if you notice that HuffPo’s reactors are mostly pro-author, there is a reason. Contrary views are squelched. Surprised?

  169. Willis, – some of us, are not born writers of either long or short stories and “Concise Writing” is – or may not be – amongst our strongest points. In my case I tend to start writing – and the comment grows, and grows –and grows until the comment is longer than the posting I am commenting on in the first place.

    I started off commenting on your last article posing 4 questions whilst in an elevator, but then – I soon found myself starting to explain each point, or question – in detail – and before I could stop myself I was out of the elevator (or lift if we were in the UK) and was dragging myself slowly up the stairs.

    Whilst “proof-reading” my effort I became aware of the enormous length of it all and I thought of your promise – “snip, snip and snip again” and – in the end I posted nothing.

    This time however you are not intent on snipping, so in return I shall try to keep it brief:

    You said N&Z violated conservation of energy – and if you said so I can only agree as I am not familiar with N&Z. – Why pick on them though, as I am sure you are familiar with “Kiehl & Trenberth’s Energy Flow Chart” (1997) – Those guys tell us that 168 W/m² of energy are entering the surface and that 24 + 78 + 390 W/m² are leaving – and that does not seem to me to be much like energy- conservation as I doubt very much that the “Atmosphere and the Surface” had a conference where the air promised the earth – to return the energy as soon as possible.

    You call yourself a “Heretic” when it comes to this man made warming and climate stuff. – Well, I get to be called a “Disbeliever” (Ira Glickstein) and I realize that I have never told anyone, whilst in an elevator, why I am such a disbelieving individual. So now I will;

    1) There is no “Empirical Proof” that CO2 is a GHG

    2) Joseph Fourier is reputed to be “The father of The Greenhouse theory” – Nothing could be further from the truth as he was researching the behaviour of the heat content of the ground at various depths. He did suspect the Earth to be warmer than it otherwise would be without an atmosphere enriched with water vapour and clouds. – If you Google in Fourier 1824 as translated by Burgess 1837 you can read all about it.

    3) John Tyndall is said to be the one who proved CO2 to be a GHG through his 1859 experiment on irradiative heat absorption by gases. As far as Tyndall’s experiment goes, it may just as well have proved that CO2 was blocking the path of, or perhaps even reflecting, the signal from the (the experiment’s) right hand heat source. – Remember Tyndall did not know radiation to be an “Electro-magnetic” signal. – His kind of light-radiation from the Sun moved through a space that was filled with a mass-less constituency called “The Æther” which supported the vibrating waves or radiation and – as for non luminous radiation from molecules here on Earth, – who knows – maybe he thought air would do well as a substitute for ”The Æther”.

    4) Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism, published in 1865, which predicted the existence of electromagnetic waves moving at the speed of light, and – that light itself was indeed such a wave was later verified by Heinrich Hertz (1857-1894). – Who knows the exact date of confirmation?

    Tyndall’s experiments on “Heat-absorption by various gases” however took place in the late 1850s and was written up, or published, – as we can read it today – in 1861 —- when Herr Hertz was only 4 years old.

  170. O, beware, my lord, of jealousy;
    It is the green-ey’d monster, which doth mock
    The meat it feeds on.

    The root of this squabble should be obvious to all. Willis is miffed that Roger got to be the first skeptic hauled in on suspicion of the big climategate email hack and go on the telly.

  171. Oh for heaven’s sake.

    Yes, perhaps he went to far. He stated he did. For every person on here who is freaking out, getting all snide, condescending, mad, pissed off, and holier than thou, GET OVER IT. He apologized. Now, if you are willing in other posts to accept his science, his logic, his reasoning, and rationale for things as being sincere, perhaps you might want to accept his apology as sincere. If there is a single person here who posts often (or even occasionally), and has never posted or started threads on this or other sites that they later regretted, I’d like to meet you and shake your hand, because you must be the perfect blogger.

    For those looking for an apology, you got one. Perhaps it wasn’t worded in the way you want, or wasn’t sniveling and grovelling the way you feel it should have been, or didn’t address where you personally feel offended, but deal with it. At least he had the cojones to say, this is what I did, this is why I did it, and this is the part I’m apologizing for, and as for the rest of it, I’m glad I did it.

    I’d far rather have that than a fake apology simply to appease people who had their sensibilities offended by something he said or did.

  172. That was not all as brief as promised and maybe even a bit “off topic” but then I would rather reserve my critical points for “catastrophical warmists” than sceptics who may or may not upset me. – By the way, nobody in this GW discussion has, so far, upset me – not yet.

  173. Here are a few sentences that could be part of an elevator speech.

    1- If the Earth was half as dense, would its surface be cooler or the same? I think the adiabatic lapse rate would be halved, but the atmosphere would go twice has high. So the temperature would be the same at its surface.

    2- If the Earth lost all of its heat at a specific altitude, its gray body temperature would be defined at this altitude and the adiabatic lapse rate would define its temperature at the ground.

    3- A planet cannot be cooler than if it radiated all of its heat at the ground. It cannot be warmer than if it radiated all of its heat from the top of its atmosphere.

    4- If we choose a particular frequency of emission of heat. We can divide the “heat thickness” of the atmosphere in 3 cases(by “heat thickness”, I mean absorption of photons to heat):
    4a- The atmosphere is nearly transparent to this frequency. Most of the emission at this frequency comes from the ground. Doubling the optical thickness would not change the average height of emission. If 99.9% of emissions come from the ground, a doubling of thickness would lead to 99.8% of emissions from the ground. This is nearly the same and the change of temperature would be small.
    4b- The atmosphere absorbs about 50% of emission at this frequency. In a simple atmosphere, half of emissions come from the ground, and half come in average from the middle of the atmosphere. Doubling the thickness would mean only 25% of emissions come from the ground and 75% come from the middle of the atmosphere. This is a considerable change in the height of emissions and it would lead to a change of temperature.
    4c- The atmosphere absorbs nearly all of emissions at this frequency. This “heat thickness” is certainly responsible for a warmer temperature at the surface. But, doubling the thickness would move the height of emissions from nearly the top of the atmosphere to even more to the top. In the end the average height of emissions would not change by a lot and temperature at the surface would not change either.

    5- We often read that the temperature of the surface is proportional to the log of the concentration of a greenhouse gas. It cannot be totally true because the real function is floored by the ground and roofed by the top of the atmosphere.

    6- The most dangerous gases to monitor would be gases that participate to an absorption of around 50% of the heat emitted by the ground.

    7- Water vapor probably participates to a 50% absorption at least at some latitudes.

    8- Ozone might participates to a 50% absorption but it is not well mixed vertically.

    Conclusion- In simple words, the Earth and its atmosphere have to be warm enough to glow as much energy as it receives. If the atmosphere absorbs a lot of heat, emissions at a lower altitude will simply heat the higher altitude. And the higher altitude will need to get warmer to glow enough heat to space.

  174. Chris B says:
    January 17, 2012 at 8:33 am

    “This means air is denser at low altitudes, and that means more molecules are having collisions more often, thermalising energy.”

    The diatribe goes off the rails with the above statement. Temperature is a mode of motion. Density is not. In fact the title of the seminal work in this area of theoretical and experimental physics is John Tyndall’s 1859 work “Heat: A Mode of Motion”. It’s free on google books in its entirety. No one here will be harmed by reading it and a great many would benefit.

  175. I knew I didn’t want to read anymore after the “thereby hangs a tale.” bit. I should have trusted my instincts.

  176. Bomber_the_Cat, I think this comment from anna v answers you. However, I do concede it’s possible this effect is too small magnitude to counter Willis’ argument totally.

    Still, I am now taking the gravity-heat theses more and more seriously, as I find confirmation in the behaviour of other gas planets that also don’t follow S-B, as well as observations under my nose like Jericho several degrees warmer than Jerusalem.

    Sadly, too much length, sharpshooting and belittling here is exhausting – like WP. I now strongly suspect Willis’ science to be mistaken, for all that it may be orthodox. But I would rather sharpen my understanding amongst more like-minded folk for a bit, and simply dip back here to ensure I grasp the key challenges that need answers. I also await the responses of Jellbring and N&Z.

    However, Willis, I still love your thesis of the climate governor in the tropical thunderstorm scenario.

  177. If . . .
    it takes 3,500 words to explain a “trap”
    and . . .
    Einstein is correct that “If you can’t explain it simply you don’t understand it well enough.”
    does it follow . . .
    that Willis doesn’t truly understand his “trap” and might have trapped himself?

  178. I have been a follower of Tall bloke for a while, and I would say I generally read more of him than Willis. But I agree with Willis that he has stepped over the line in deciding to ban someone based on their ideas. Sorry Roger but there is no real defense. All you are doing now is showing intolerence. Your making it worse.

    Perhaps you missed the fact the the skeptical community is sick to death of people declaring the correct answer and trying to stop people who disagree from commenting. I think you missed the point entirely. Let them have their say, your not the gatekeeper of the “correct” any more than Mann. We can all see you over-reacted and just don’t want to admit it. But how far will you go to avoid admitting the obvious?

    If you won’t prove your the better man in the fight……then your not.

  179. We are still ‘being had’, but not as you may think. This is a long game.
    WUWT is a science blog, seeking truth, come what may.

    When an article of belief has been portrayed as science and then serially proven wrong, yet remains as ‘the truth’ to many, the question becomes: why do the belief and dogma persist?
    Might we need to know more of ourselves in order to break through to the truth/whole truth of the matter?
    Facts are not truth. Facts are mere facets of the shining diamond of truth.
    Game on.

  180. I have to say I am losing track completely now. There are posts pro-Willis and post pro-Rog; there are posts that challenge the very Greenhouse Effect itself, this despite Monckton clearing it up for you all just the other day. Who am I to believe any more on here? It seems like a random mosh-pit, a scattergun mess. I think I’ll just go and listen to Motorhead instead! That usually does the job!

  181. Re: Lucy Skywalker 1/17 3:03 am on the need for a wiki.

    There will be occasional posts on WUWT where the issue put forth requires commenters to be focused and brief. In those posts, the moderators will have to wield the scissors mercilessly. These types of posts do have value in that they can have higher value than others in the archive. They are more distilled and refined than the average thread.

    When blogs find the need for such a focused topic, then to relieve the heat and pressure, blogs should create a parallel post for wider discussion that is much less moderated where comments unpruned and side-bar issues have a home.

    Take Lucy’s suggestion of a wiki. The moderation workload of that endevor makes me shudder. The ability for one commenter to edit the work of another will cause a “Mater of Gravity” dust-up to go nuclear. But let’s learn from the wiki model… there is the “article”, heavily edited and moderated, and there is the “discussion” which is less moderated and allows elaboration and minority opinions.

    So I suggest WUWT make it a policy that if the author of a post states that the comment thread will be closely moderated to stay on topic, then there should be a companion post to act as a safety-valve for parallel (if not off-track) discussions.

  182. O H Dahlsveen says:
    January 17, 2012 at 9:16 am

    Actually Tyndall was well aware that what he was studying was electromagnetic radiation. They just didn’t call it short and long wave EMR back then they called it luminous and calorific waves respectively. EMR’s wave-particle duality was yet to be discovered at that time which I believe came along when Einstein explained the photoelectric effect shortly after the turn of the century.

  183. A plea to Willis and Anthony – please can we have another new thread which summarizes the progress made so far in the first two?

    I read Willis’s first article and the early comments, especially on conduction and convection, but have not read the rest, so what I write below may already have been covered. I am dismayed about the snippage which occurred, except to say there over 600 comments there when I read it. The reason for my dismay is that I fear Willis may have thrown out some babies with the bathwater, and lost some useful scientific reasoning – I have no way of telling.

    So my position is that I do not know the details of the N&Z or Jelbring papers, so I cannot provide an exact “elevator speech”, but I do have some ideas on the physics which I believe are pertinent. It has to do with what is wrong about Willis’s:

    NOTE 1: Here’s the thing about a planet with a transparent atmosphere. There is only one object that can radiate to space, the surface. As a result, it is constrained to emit the exact amount of radiation it absorbs. So there are no gravity/atmospheric phenomena that can change that.

    When you say “transparent”, you mean that the type of atmospheric molecules let the vast majority of black body spectrum wavelengths pass through. Fair enough.

    But now consider conduction (ignore convection for the moment). The atmosphere will heat up by conduction at the ground layer. And it would carry on heating up if it could not get rid of some of that heat. Even though the gas is assumed not to radiate at standard IR wavelengths, it must radiate at some other wavelengths. (Perhaps someone can tell me what they would be for nitrogen for example.) Now, when it is radiating thus, it is a greenhouse gas against its own emissions!

    So some of its radiation gets trapped and bounced around, which reduces the atmoshpere’s overall radiation effectiveness, so it will heat up.

    That’s my “elevator speech” against your NOTE 1.

    There is the question of which level of the atmosphere will be the hottest. It should be at an intermediate level. The molecules very high up can radiate with small probability of interception by higher ones, and the molecules close to the ground can radiate to the ground which can then re-radiate transparently through the atmosphere. In the middle layers export of heat is harder.

    Therefore there will be an inversion layer, and below that layer presumably there will be relatively little convection (above it is a different matter). I’m still not sure whether the ground temperature will actually differ from the lowest level air temperature.

    Willis, when you’ve digested that, another “Apology and Thanks” will be dandy…

    Rich.

  184. willis has a beautiful mind. it was part of his plan. just ask parcher.
    diagnostic stuff, willis.
    what terrifying impotence provokes desperately deluded fantasies of being puppet master?
    i’m leaving this behind with a sneer, there being no tenderness in my heart for the psychotic.

  185. It’s not clear what was the point of this ‘game’, but surely it was not Science advancement.

    Just one comment on “if you can’t explain it in an elevator speech, you don’t understand it”: even if you understand it and you are able to present it concisely, that does not render it magically true. Formal/numerical proofs usually take a lot more than 3 lines of text.

  186. I prescribe 20 Hail Marys and 20 Our Fathers for Willis to avoid smoking a turd in purgatory over this one.

  187. Tallbloke
    If you wanted to ban Shore because he is a jerk, then say that, don’t demand something about his views on a scientific paper.

    Second, people like shore and lazyteenager are better selling points for your science views than anything else. The blind devotion they show is educational to the masses, and underscores the religious nature of the AGW.

    To clarify, there is nothing wrong with banning someone because they constantly attack you with personal slurs, but to demand they change their views on a scientific paper before you will allow them to post again is just fundamentally wrong. Period.

    Willis

    I agree with tallbloke that your appology was pretty week when wrapped in a another attack. You should do better than that. You could have wrote this story without being nearly as rude to tallbloke.

  188. The entire ‘gravito-thermal’ thing can be rephrased as being pressure-driven as opposed to gravity-driven. Gravity does, of course, drive pressure. But it makes the entire argument seem more coherent IMNSHO.

  189. “Stephen Wilde says:
    January 17, 2012 at 8:22 am

    Stephen Wilde (7:21 am) says “S – B applies to a body in a vacuum”.
    Really? Where did vacuum come into this?

    I’ve asked my source for clarification on that but in the mean time your link does define c as the speed of light in a vacuum and that is an integral part of the equation.”

    I am somewhat sceptical about a vacuum. If a vacuum exists then it is devoid of matter, therefore devoid of energy, and therefore has to be absolute zero……

  190. Bomber_the_Cat and Stevea_UK

    Name a gas that does not radiate. Picking an example from a post above which mentioned N2 and O2, imagine a planet and atmosphere consisting entirely of Oxygen. Heat it with a sun at some arbitrary distance for long enough for it to be in thermal equibrium. Is the temperature going to infinite? Sunlight arrive at all sorts of frequencies; some will be ignored. The atmosphere will get hot and it will radiate energy. It will not increase in temperature until it reaches the temperature of the sun, will it? On the contrary, it will stabilise at some lower temperature.

    If you accept the argument that Oxygen cannot give off radiation until the temperature is so high that theradiating surface of Willis’ planet will overcome the insulating effect of the atmosphere, then you have also accepted that a non-GHG atmosphere warms the surface. The empirical test of two spheres with different pressures of non-GHG gas around them shows an increase in temperature with increasing pressure. Did I understand that experiment correctly?

    Stevea_UK bothered to look up some information on absorption and radiation and is now asking good questions. Bomber_the_Cat you can do the same.

    Many contributors are getting the main points about this exercise: The S-B number helps you calculate the radiative component of heat transfer. If there is a vacuum, it is all the heat transfer. If there is an atmosphere of any kind, not all heat is transferred from the surface at the bottom of the atmosphere by IR radiation because all gases radiate, even it they do not absorb IR which is only a portion (an effective one) of total transfer energy.

    Oxygen was given as an example of a non-GHG. Yet O2 absorbs IR at 1270 nm:

    http://www.protein.bio.msu.ru/biokhimiya/contents/v68/pdf/bcm_0963.pdf

    “The data clearly show that the photooxygenation of the traps is a result of their reaction with singlet oxygen [O2] that is formed due to [IR] laser excitation of oxygen molecules.”

    Huh. A non-GHG absorbing sunlight. And in the IR band too. I wonder what frequencies Oxygen can radiate at…

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989apphl..55.2707y

    “New emission spectra have been observed from chemically produced excited oxygen. Evidence that the observed visible emission is due to oxygen dimer transitions is presented. Experimental results suggest that the observed oxygen dimer is stable O4 molecule rather than the usually observed Van der Waals-type dimolecular complex. The present system is discussed from the viewpoint of a new laser operating in the visible. The possibility of a similar oxygen-dimer laser operating in the near-infrared is also discussed.”

    Huh. An Oxygen laser that emits IR. I presume everyone has heard of Harvard.

    I have not yet seen described a way to construct a no-GHG non-radiating atmosphere. Thus my question. What gas does not radiate at all at any wavelength or temperature? After we find one we can think about elevator talks.

  191. Stubborn disorders not off topic?

    Deep brain stimulation, from:
    WSJ: JANUARY 17, 2012. Wiring the Brain, Literally, to Treat Stubborn Disorders

    “The procedure starts with a surgeon drilling two holes in the patient’s skull.”

    “After two years of DBS, 92% reported significant relief from their major depression or bipolar disorder and more than half were in remission, with no manic side effects.”

    [I've always suspected that. ~dbs, mod.☺]

  192. Archonix says:
    January 17, 2012 at 12:29 am

    So you were trolling, over a matter that is nowhere near as clear-cut as you’ve decided it is, and you epect to get away with it with a “just kidding folks!” and carry on as if nothing was wrong?

    Nope, I wasn’t trolling. I was fishing, for a specific purpose, which was to have the issue of censiorship remain alive. And if I wanted to “get away with it” as you speciously claim … don’t you think I would have simply kept my mouth shut? I’m here taking responsibility for my actions, even though they weren’t pretty.

    Correct me if I’m wrong …

    OK. You’re wrong.

    w.

  193. Willis:

    Personally, the problem I found with your gravity thread, was that by the time I reached the end of the thread of comments, it was no longer clear what the starting conditions were (a common problem with me). It is easy to lose track of the thread’s purpose, and well… it is ONLY a conversation! The playing of mind games, was not helpful, nor demonstrative, in my opinion. Some loss of trust cannot be recovered completely. I abandoned the thread as I realized it was becoming non-productive.

    Giving your “experiment” some sort of morality, does not justify it. Several of our best contributors now have a degree of animosity towards each other and this thread may not normalize it. The end does not justify the means, in this case. I may be wrong and we all really needed a good shaking. Who knows? GK

  194. Jay Currie says:
    January 17, 2012 at 12:43 am

    So, a trick. Nothing wrong with a trick if the objective is the clear exposition of the science when such an exposition has not been forthcoming.

    At the same time, to be a bit tribal, Tallbloke is one of the good guys.

    That’s what I thought too. But it turns out he’s quite willing to ban people for their scientific beliefs. I, like you, was fooled.

    w.

  195. Colin Porter says:
    January 17, 2012 at 3:53 am

    Willis,

    I did not call you a liar. I gave you the choice.

    Porter, Porter, who is Porter? That was last night, I don’t remember, what did you say? Oh, right. You were the charming gentleman who accused me of bad behavior, yet modelled the desired gentility by calling me a liar. I responded to you here. Now you say you didn’t call me a liar.

    Here’s what you said, Colin, emphasis mine..

    This is what I think of your version of events here. I just don’t believe them. They are fantastical. Only in a novel could this over complicated plot that you espouse possibly hope to achieve its planned outcome. I think what has really happened is that in your annoyance, you have gone off half cocked and produced your own post with all kinds of restrictions in it, which has then backfired. In your attempts to salvage the post, you have then concocted this fantastic plot, saying this is what was intended all the time.

    So yes, Colin, you most certainly called me a liar, and more than once.

    And now you’ve lied about it.

    I suppose there is a certain irony in that.

    w.

  196. Paul Coppin says:

    I find Joel Shore arrogantly annoying (even if he is correct)…

    PaulID says:

    in my opinion Joel is an arrogant egomaniac with delusions of grandeur…

    I have always found the statements of people on WUWT that I am arrogant to be oddly ironic. What we have here are many (certainly not all) people who don’t have the strong physics / mathematics background necessary to evaluate the scientific arguments. Furthermore, almost all of the people here have never read a textbook on climate science and many have not even read many scientific papers in the field. Nonetheless, they seem to think that they understand climate science better than the scientists in the field.

    So, what such people are in essence saying is: “I am so freakin’ brilliant that, despite my lack of background, I am able to understand this field much better than the scientists working in the field and am able to critically evaluate their work.”

    On the other hand, you have me who does have the strong physics /mathematics background. However, I have still not assumed that this automatically qualifies me to make pronouncements on climate science but rather have gone well beyond that by reading textbooks and many papers in the field. Furthermore, most of what I say are not statements of why scientists in the field are wrong but in fact just explaining what they have concluded and why I think they are right.

    So, I am essentially saying: “Although I have a strong physics / mathematics background, I still need to do additional hard work to understand this particular field…and, for the most part, I still think that the scientists in the field understand climate science better than I do.”

    In what sort of bizarro-world is my attitude arrogant and the other attitude not arrogant!?!

  197. @Willis:

    I thought you were banning and snipping based on lack of cooperation in the discussions you were having, not scientific belief. Isn’t that really what’s going on?

  198. Roger Carr says:
    January 17, 2012 at 4:14 am

    Bruce says: (January 17, 2012 at 1:06 am)

    “You’re a very, very clever man, Willis. Sadly, and your intellect notwithstanding, I don’t think I’ll ever believe another word you say or write.”

    Agreed, Bruce; Willis has played a dangerous game, and whilst I am a huge admirer of the cowboy I think he may yet come to regret spooking the mob.

    He has let me (at least) down, and I feel regretful that he has. He could have done this another way, and lost no respect at all — and probably gained his goal.

    Thanks, Roger. I regret that you feel let down. I did what I did to try to defend scientific honest and openness. We can’t have openness when opposing opinions are censored. I see this as a very, very important issue in the development of scientific discussion on the blogs.

    Now, it’s easy for you to sit back and say “he could have done this another way”. But that’s monday morning quarterbacking. Perhaps … perhaps Tallbloke would have been amenable to a public discussion of the issues. No, wait, I tried that. Or perhaps a private discussion would have changed the outcome. No, I tried that too.

    I saw no better way to keep the issue alive. And I have been open and honest about what I did and why. I wanted to force Tallblokes hand, I wanted to pressure him to take a stand to make him declare his principles and his beliefs.

    I was so successful in that, that he has banned me as well as Joel. However, he still has not set out his own beliefs about N&Z.

    And yes, as you point out, I may take a hit for doing it in this way … but I knew that going in and I decided the price was worth paying. This is an issue I think is very important.

    Finally, remember, I could have not talked about this, I could have stayed quite and avoided people giving me all this grief for what I did. Instead, I have honestly described what I did and why.

    w.

  199. John Marshall says:
    January 17, 2012 at 4:29 am

    I think that the N&Z paper was a sly introduction to adiabatic compressive heating which is as real as this planet, and a theory that I find more understandable than the GHG one.

    Then you’ll excuse me if I invite you to give us your elevator speech about it. Like all the others, so far you stand behind N&Z 100%, except when you need to actually say what it is you are standing behind.

    w.

  200. Well I read through your entire post above Willis, all umpteen pages of it. In fact I lost track of how many pages I had to read through.
    So I must conclude that if your elevator thesis is correct, then you just don’t understand it.

    A perpetually recurring problem at WUWT (no fault of Anthony’s) is people writing stuff or citing stuff; wiki for example, and then NOT citing the complete message, that they pointed to or excerpted form, so they then go on and misuse that wiki or whatever reference and try to explain something when they clearly didn’t understand what they cited, since they “edited” it in ways to make it nonsensical.

    A brief statement is fine, so long as it is complete.

    Was it not Einstein who said:- “Scientific theories should be as simple as possible; but no simpler.”

    That is the problem with your “elevator speech” Willis; it is often “simpler” than necessary per Einstein’s dictum.

  201. Willis Eschenbach says:
    January 17, 2012 at 10:15 am

    Jay Currie says:
    January 17, 2012 at 12:43 am

    So, a trick. Nothing wrong with a trick if the objective is the clear exposition of the science when such an exposition has not been forthcoming.

    At the same time, to be a bit tribal, Tallbloke is one of the good guys.

    That’s what I thought too. …….
    ====================================================
    So, let me get this straight. TB does something on his own blog which you don’t agree with. Then you take the disagreement to another blog and use deception to try to make a point. Now, you further your self-promotion with being the arbiter of “good and bad” because Roger won’t conform to your sense of good or bad? On his own blog!

    Freaking delusional idiot. Other than generally pissing people off, being very divisive, ostracizing friends, and exposing your boorish megalomania, what did you hope to accomplish by all of this?

  202. Willis Eschenbach says:
    January 17, 2012 at 10:15 am
    “That’s what I thought too. But it turns out he’s quite willing to ban people for their scientific beliefs. I, like you, was fooled.

    w.
    __________________________
    That is an incorrect assessment, in my view.
    According to TB, ‘people’ were banned for their actions, not for their scientific beliefs, or expressions of same.

    I will not take my toys and go home. Others have taken a different tack.

  203. Allan Kiik says:
    January 17, 2012 at 4:45 am

    “I did not say, as far as I know, that air can only heat the ground through radiation.”

    Good, then we can agree that even without back-radiation we can have back-heating from IR transparent atmosphere and also ground temp above S-B, exactly the same way as with back-radiation.
    Done?

    Thanks, Allan. Not in my “many suns” thought experiment we can’t agree. In that thought experiment is no way for the atmosphere to get warmer than the surface. As a result, the atmosphere cannot “back-heat” the surface at all.

    w.

  204. “The entire ‘gravito-thermal’ thing can be rephrased as being pressure-driven as opposed to gravity-driven. Gravity does, of course, drive pressure. But it makes the entire argument seem more coherent IMNSHO.”

    Similarly I’m coming to the view that calling it the gravitational greenhouse effect is not appropriate because gravity is only an indirect cause in that it simply redistributes mass so that other processes then step in to create the warmer surface.

    I currently favour the phrase ‘conductive greenhouse effect’ because it arises from surface conduction into the denser air of the lower atmosphere.

    Once in the form of kinetic energy in the atmosphere it stays around longer than if it were radiated straight out to space again by the surface and so equilibrium temperature rises depending on density at the surface.

    There is still a parallel radiative greenhouse effect but since the conductive version involves all mass in the atmosphere it would be vastly more powerful.

  205. Speaking as someone who has been around the block a few times on the internet. I’ve blogged, I’ve moderated major message boards (in the earlier days), I’ve moderated IRC chats with game developers, I’ve done quite a bit. I know what it’s like to have your own space and the power to police that space.

    Let me stop right here and say that I tend to like Tallbloke. I think his site is valuable. I think he’s right more often than he’s wrong, but that is not to say that he is never wrong.

    It is very easy, almost imperceptibly easy, for someone with their own space, and power to control the message in that space, to fail to separate their own bias from their moderation power. It happens to everyone, it happened to me once when I didn’t even have a dog in the fight.

    To anyone bashing Willis’ actions, you need to stop. You need to stop and think hard. Willis was doing what the other side of this blogosphere refuses to do, he was policing his own.

    WE MUST WELCOME THOSE WHO WOULD POLICE THEIR OWN.

  206. A. C. Osborn says:
    January 17, 2012 at 6:17 am

    Typical of Mr Eschenbach to attack konrad and not answer the question on his experiment which appears to PROVE what N& Z’s paper shows.
    They are not the only ones saying this of course, the latest being Dr. Pierre R Latour of NASA fame.

    I discussed Konrad’s experiment with him at some length on another thread when it was first reported. It has some serious problems that he and I discussed at the time, but he seems to have forgotten them and claims it was a success.

    Now, you have jumped onto his claim and are using it to beat me over the head as if it were real, claiming I haven’t answered Konrad’s question … which I answered, in detail, last week.

    You really should either do your homework or ask before accusing me, A. C., you don’t know the back story at all.

    w.

  207. Pamela Gray says:
    January 17, 2012 at 6:31 am

    Playing games with “people”, and I put it in quotes for a reason, is a god-complex. Stop it. It only made you look as foolish as the Greek gods, described in the those wonderful books of antiquity. The “people” came out smelling like a rose, while the gods just came out smelling.

    Thanks, Pamela. I’m not playing games in the slightest, I’m fighting for what I see as an important scientific principle.

    w.

  208. BarryW says:
    January 17, 2012 at 6:52 am

    Ok Willis, let me take a shot at the elevator.

    Sun warms the earth’s surface, energy transfers by conduction to the gas, gas heats and radiates a percentage back to the earth …

    Let me stop you there. AFAIK, N&Z’s theory (for which I am assuming you are making the elevator speech) says it works without GHGs in the atmosphere, and as a result, it can’t radiate.

    w.

  209. wermet says:
    January 17, 2012 at 7:24 am

    Willis,
    Recently, Anthony gave us a detailed post regarding the censorship and self-serving snipping that occurs at warmist sites such as SkS. Anthony stressed that he would not allow such behavior to occur at WUWT. I believe that you have overstepped your obligations as a guess author and have broken Anthony’s pledge. (At least this is how it appears to me.)

    wermet, I said before I started snipping what I would snip, and that is what I did snip (with the exception of a bit of Tallbloke’s science which he reposted). I snipped things that were not what I had specifically and clearly requested, elevator speeches and falsifications of my proof.

    Telling people you will snip off-topic posts and then snipping them is “censorship” in any shape or form.

    w.

  210. From the several posts and related threads I conclude that:

    a) Many wished, for whatever reason, that what they were reading something different

    b) Many wanted to discuss something other than the specified topic

    c) A few were convinced that they had refuted the proposition but were being ignored

    d) There has been no concise statement of N&Z or J

    e) The proposition stands

    Doug

  211. Willis Eschenbach says:
    January 17, 2012 at 11:02 am

    Let me stop you there. AFAIK, N&Z’s theory (for which I am assuming you are making the elevator speech) says it works without GHGs in the atmosphere, and as a result, it can’t radiate.

    I don’t buy this. This is the one part of your argument that doesn’t make sense to me Willis.
    1) Yes, any gas can transfer energy via conduction. It does not have to be a GHG to do this.
    2) Yes, any gas, being matter, having received energy via conduction, will emit in IR as ALL MATTER EMITS IR (as you stated).

    Hence, a non-GHG, once warmed by conduction, can and should emit IR.

  212. wsbriggs says:
    January 17, 2012 at 7:35 am

    All of the “anti-censorship” comments would have a lot more meaning if Willis had not stated up front he was going to censor. At a slight modification to the original text, RTFA! Quit jumping to conclusions, READ!

    Shouting at Willis for doing what he said he was going to do doesn’t make sense.

    Thanks, ws. That was the craziest part, it was like I’d never said anything about snipping off-topic comments.

    w.

  213. Matthew W says:
    January 17, 2012 at 7:53 am

    I don’t have dog in this fight but Willis, but you were NOT banned by Tallbloke.
    You chose that yourself.

    I did what Joel did, why should I not pay the price?

    However, if you truly thought that was an important issue, rather than a handy stick to beat me with, Tallbloke has now rectified the issue, he’s banned me.

    w.

  214. Willis Eschenbach says:
    January 17, 2012 at 10:49 am
    “no way for the atmosphere to get warmer than the surface. As a result, the atmosphere cannot “back-heat” the surface at all.
    ___________________________________
    Now you’re down with citing 2nd laws and such… shameless.

  215. Eric Anderson says:
    January 17, 2012 at 9:10 am

    Willis, the other thing you need to apologize for is writing such long posts.

    Yeah, you’re right, that was OTT. My apologies, I’ll stick to elevators in future.

    w.

  216. David Porter says:
    January 17, 2012 at 9:10 am

    Went too far didn’t we Willis.

    I didn’t. Did you?

    (When someone patronizingly says “didn’t we” when there is no “we”, you can be damn sure that they are not on your side, and thus the “we” is a lie …
    w.

  217. “I am a complex and subtle man”

    Anybody who would write something like that has got a problem. How could you not know any better?

  218. To Joel Shore if you are NOT arrogant show me one place on this blog where you have admitted error simply with an I was wrong sorry and no further defense of your position if you can then I will revise my opinion to mostly arrogant. I have never seen you admit an error ever, now admittedly I don’t go to other places on the web looking for your name (I simply find you far too annoying to do that plus that would be far too creepy for me to do) but on this blog I don’t recall you ever having done that, again if you point out any instance of this the I will revise but I am not in the slightest bit worried about this.

  219. Andrejs Vanags says:
    January 17, 2012 at 9:11 am

    Argh, this post and thread is just childish.

    I love people who come in here, one at a time, to tell me that the post is too long / boring / childish / trivial whatever.

    If so, quit when you get ten words in and go read something interesting. What you are doing is like me going to a blog, reading a long post on how to darn socks, and then complaining that the author covered things of no interest to me, she went into too much detail about the yarn used.

    If you don’t like it, STOP READING! But don’t come and complain about it. You’re in charge of your eyes. I wrote it as best I could. You bitching that you don’t like it?

    That’s what’s childish. If you don’t like it, skip it. Is that so tough?

    w.

  220. rgb

    you said; ” I’d still be perfectly happy for someone to provide a believable version of this for either J or N&Z.”
    ———-

    I don’t know enough about physics but I have a question;

    Why should conservation of energy necessarily be violated by this hypothesis / theory ?

    The lower half warms, the upper half cools, total energy remains unchanged.

    Duke is a well funded University, why not carry out a larger scale version of the Loschmidt experiment in the Duke physics department.

  221. O H Dahlsveen says:
    January 17, 2012 at 9:16 am
    … You said N&Z violated conservation of energy – and if you said so I can only agree as I am not familiar with N&Z. – Why pick on them though, as I am sure you are familiar with “Kiehl & Trenberth’s Energy Flow Chart” (1997) – Those guys tell us that 168 W/m² of energy are entering the surface and that 24 + 78 + 390 W/m² are leaving,

    Not sure where you got that info, but K&T say that about 500 W/m2 are entering the surface and of course, the same amount are leaving.

    w.

  222. I’m not equipped to argue with anyone’s serious science but I try to understand the tough stuff if I can. I come here to touch base and to learn more about the facts and fantasies of the climate debate. But it seems to me that in-fighting of this type is, as we’d call it in the UK, corridor culture, odium academicum, just like university departments’ internal feuds and arguments and power struggles, awfully like reading some of the emails from FOIA. And it’s also an elaborate troll, well-meant perhaps, I’m no judge, but a troll nevertheless.
    Have we won then? Is AGW and all it implies in political, social and economic terms, resoundingly thrashed and discredited? Will we all now get our cheques from Big Oil (I’ve been waiting a long time)? Sorry, but it seems there’s a danger of becoming too inturned and complacent about the real threats.

  223. Die Zauberflotist says:
    January 17, 2012 at 9:19 am

    … The root of this squabble should be obvious to all. Willis is miffed that Roger got to be the first skeptic hauled in on suspicion of the big climategate email hack and go on the telly.

    Spat my coffee on that one, I did …

    Thanks, I needed that.

    w.

  224. I believe your “victory” here will neither be worth the personal costs nor produce the results you were attempting to achieve. Not everyone is even 1/100 as brilliant as you in these matter, but many were doing their best to sort it out between the competing theories. The question that will be in my mind the next time, “Is he jerking us around again?”

  225. See – owe to Rich says:
    January 17, 2012 at 9:45 am

    A plea to Willis and Anthony – please can we have another new thread which summarizes the progress made so far in the first two?

    I don’t know if my heart could take another one …

    … I do have some ideas on the physics which I believe are pertinent. It has to do with what is wrong about Willis’s:

    NOTE 1: Here’s the thing about a planet with a transparent atmosphere. There is only one object that can radiate to space, the surface. As a result, it is constrained to emit the exact amount of radiation it absorbs. So there are no gravity/atmospheric phenomena that can change that.

    When you say “transparent”, you mean that the type of atmospheric molecules let the vast majority of black body spectrum wavelengths pass through. Fair enough.

    But now consider conduction (ignore convection for the moment). The atmosphere will heat up by conduction at the ground layer. And it would carry on heating up if it could not get rid of some of that heat. Even though the gas is assumed not to radiate at standard IR wavelengths, it must radiate at some other wavelengths.

    There’s a couple of problems with that, Rich. First, things don’t “carry on heating up”. They can only heat up until they are as hot as whatever is warming them, and they stop. So the atmosphere can never get warmer than the surface, because heat doesn’t flow uphill.

    Second, gases do radiate at some wavelengths. But some, like argon, only do so at very high energies, like when they are zapped by an electric arc. Beyond that, they may not radiate at all, and in particular diatomic gases like O2 and N2 do not radiate any more than a minuscule, microscopic amount at earth temperatures.

    w.

  226. tmtisfree says:
    January 17, 2012 at 9:48 am

    It’s not clear what was the point of this ‘game’, but surely it was not Science advancement.

    The point was to keep alive the important scientific issue of openness and lack of censorship. That may not be important to you, and that’s OK. Claiming it was not important in some larger sense, however, that’s just your theory.

    w.

  227. I am afraid the whole thing has pretty much put me off coming back to this site, which is a pity, because it has been one of my favourites for the last couple of years, and I have huge respect for Anthony Watts and what he has made this site as a whole.

    Willis- you may be right, but your methods are obnoxious, and, to be quite frank, I think that your approach has done nothing positive (apart from seemingly to have made you feel incredibly smug).

    I am sure that, with a different approach, things could have been resolved, even if it was only a matter of formally agreeing to disagree, and remaining friendly and respectful to one another.

    As it is, you have just manufactured what is an ugly and scrap over a minor side issue, that is likely to distract from the main point, and spawned a general nastiness of which Joe Romm would be proud (In fact, if he is aware of this, I am sure he and his cronies are taking great delight in this- something you, and any others would do well to ponder before posting and inflaming things further).

    A couple of quotes spring to mind- one an old Chinese proverb – “If you fight evil with evil, then evil will always triumph.”

    The other is from an old TV series “Kessler” (it was a spin off from “Secret Army” a drama that was spoofed in “Allo, Allo”). Kessler at the end tried to justify his actions in the SS, saying that “The end justified the means” to which the other person replied “no, the end is the means.”

    What actually has been achieved? Does it make things better or worse?

  228. Brandon C says:
    January 17, 2012 at 9:53 am

    … Willis

    I agree with tallbloke that your appology was pretty week when wrapped in a another attack. You should do better than that. You could have wrote this story without being nearly as rude to tallbloke.

    Man, you guys are unrelenting, nothing is good enough for you. When Tallbloke said that above, I apologized to him again. I think that should be sufficient, given he has not apologized for banning me.

    w.

  229. APACHEWHOKNOWS says:
    January 17, 2012 at 10:09 am

    Who made this long winded excuse monger king of unneeded confessions.

    (Man with a crown enters stage right. He appears downtrodden.)

    KING: Dang, Apache, I don’t know who made me king either, but if I find them I’ll express my unhappiness. This being king is not what it’s cracked up to be in the movies. Everyone wants me to do things their way, but they all seem to want different ways. I tried do to it right, but when I get it wrong, even my kingly apologies don’t satisfy people … guess I’ll just go off and see if I can cure some scrofula … if I really was the king like they say, I’d show’em, I wouldn’t put up with this abuse. If I’m king, how come I can’t hang anybody? I think they should …

    (KING exits stage left, mumbling to himself)

    w.

  230. Willis Eschenbach says:
    January 17, 2012 at 11:16 am

    David Porter says:
    January 17, 2012 at 9:10 am

    Went too far didn’t we Willis.

    I didn’t. Did you?

    (When someone patronizingly says “didn’t we” when there is no “we”, you can be damn sure that they are not on your side, and thus the “we” is a lie …
    w.”

    Sad Willis, but “we” were on the same side untill your massive ego got in the way. By the end of this post you just might, hopefully, see the flaw that is Willis Eschenbach.

  231. Willis,

    If you can be looked at by the number of comments you attract…

    you are doing something very right… very impressive.

    Keep on postin’.

  232. G. Karst says:
    January 17, 2012 at 10:13 am

    Willis:

    Personally, the problem I found with your gravity thread, was that by the time I reached the end of the thread of comments, it was no longer clear what the starting conditions were (a common problem with me). It is easy to lose track of the thread’s purpose, and well… it is ONLY a conversation! The playing of mind games, was not helpful, nor demonstrative, in my opinion. Some loss of trust cannot be recovered completely. I abandoned the thread as I realized it was becoming non-productive.

    I know that there is a cost, G. And I decided to do it anyway. It’s a very important issue to me.

    Giving your “experiment” some sort of morality, does not justify it.

    I fear that I don’t know what that means. The only experiment I did was my thought experiment, and I don’t see the “morality”. Perhaps you could clarify that.

    Several of our best contributors now have a degree of animosity towards each other and this thread may not normalize it. The end does not justify the means, in this case. I may be wrong and we all really needed a good shaking. Who knows? GK

    If we cannot stand a strong disagreement between ourselves, the game is lost in any case. Yes, I took extreme measures. I would have played it differently if I had seen a way to do so.

    However, I do think that the reaction of some of the crowd has been extreme. I said that I was going to snip people, and I did so. Now everyone wants to act like their civil rights were violated.

    Would I do it again if I could go back? If it had been less successful, likely not. But since it got a whole raft of folks over at Tallblokes screaming about how terrible censorship is, and since it has been so successful in keeping the issues alive (witness this thread), I might say yes.

    I went into this knowing full well that there could be some personal cost. I knew that at a minimum it would give my enemies lots of ammunition. But I still did it, because I think the issue is important, and I am a man who will fight for what he thinks is important.

    w.

  233. JDN says:
    January 17, 2012 at 10:39 am

    @Willis:

    I thought you were banning and snipping based on lack of cooperation in the discussions you were having, not scientific belief. Isn’t that really what’s going on?

    I did not snip, or I attempted not to snip, responses that were on-topic. However, to the poster who wrote it, whatever one snips is unalloyed gold and goes straight to the heart of the topic … which is among the many reasons why I don’t do it except to make a point. Mosher saw through my actions immediately, as would anyone who had stopped to think about my oft-stated position on censorship.

    w.

  234. George E. Smith; says:
    January 17, 2012 at 10:46 am

    … A brief statement is fine, so long as it is complete.

    Was it not Einstein who said:- “Scientific theories should be as simple as possible; but no simpler.”

    That is the problem with your “elevator speech” Willis; it is often “simpler” than necessary per Einstein’s dictum.

    George, my elevator speech has four sentences in it. Perhaps that is too simple. But what in the basic idea remains unexplained? I thought it struck the right balance between detail and general concepts.

    So … how would you change my elevator speech? Or let me ask a more focused question—what are the crucial elements that you think I left out in my short description of the greenhouse effect?

    w.

  235. James Sexton says:
    January 17, 2012 at 10:49 am

    … Other than generally pissing people off, being very divisive, ostracizing friends, and exposing your boorish megalomania, what did you hope to accomplish by all of this?

    Actually, the only instruction from my secret masters that remains unfulfilled was to raise the blood pressure of some guy I never met named “James”, I wish they’d give me more details when they send me out on these missions … oh, wait, uh-oh …

    w.

  236. Go, w, go. You good thing, go!
    Ignore the negatives.
    You call out those un-physical. Sorry, TB, but they gloat.

  237. Luther Wu says:
    January 17, 2012 at 10:49 am

    Willis Eschenbach says:
    January 17, 2012 at 10:15 am

    “That’s what I thought too. But it turns out he’s quite willing to ban people for their scientific beliefs. I, like you, was fooled.”

    w.

    __________________________
    That is an incorrect assessment, in my view.
    According to TB, ‘people’ were banned for their actions, not for their scientific beliefs, or expressions of same.

    I know that TB would love for you to believe that … but it doesn’t fit with the facts. According to TB’s web site, what he told Joel was, and I quote exactly, “… you’re not posting here unless and until you apologise to Nikolov and Zeller for spreading misinformation about conservation of energy in their theory all over the blogosphere and failing to correct it.”

    So, who are you going to believe? TB, or your own lying eyes? You’ll have to find me the part in there about Joel’s actions, because I see nothing about that, just about his scientific beliefs.

    w.

  238. Lucy Skywalker says:
    January 17, 2012 at 9:32 am

    Hi Lucy. I must ask you why in any way do you think that the referenced comment from Anna V answers anything that I said?
    The only interesting thing to me is that somehow it impressed you. Why, is it because of the blinding with science factor or its general incomprehensibility which seems to impress people like Tallbloke? It is difficult to reconcile the relevance of Argon in electrical discharges to anything that I may have said..
    But this is the problem, so many people who can’t understand but wish to disbelieve anyway latch on to nonsense, like rats swimming to a sinking ship.
    I do not believe that it so difficult to at least get up to speed by understanding the basic mechanics of greenhouse warming. It isn’t hard. Then, if you see flaws, you are much better placed to oppose the theory; rather like a military commander studying the enemy tactics. But if you attack from a position of complete ignorance, then you simply play into the hands of your enemies. As I have said, most comments here are uninformed, they may be in the majority but science is not an opinion poll. Spreading ignorance and disinformation only weakens the sceptic position because any trained scientist immediately sees it for what it is – pseudo-scientific nonsense.
    You suggest a form of climate sceptics ‘wiki’. At first sight this sounds like a plausible idea, but whose ideas would it encompass? The anti-science opinions as I see them of Tallbloke and Claes Johnson? Who would decide this? The weakness in the claims that global warming will lead to catastrophe do not lie in the well established laws of physics. It is futile to attack those, as so many do, from a position of absolute ignorance.
    If you wish to learn Lucy, then take the opportunity to listen to Joel Shore. You don’t have to agree with him, as I don’t, but I learn from him.

  239. Jeremy says:
    January 17, 2012 at 10:51 am

    … To anyone bashing Willis’ actions, you need to stop. You need to stop and think hard. Willis was doing what the other side of this blogosphere refuses to do, he was policing his own.

    WE MUST WELCOME THOSE WHO WOULD POLICE THEIR OWN.

    Thank you, Jeremy. As someone who has often excoriated the AGW side for not policing their own, it is incumbent on me to act rather than just sit back and watch things happen. I’m sorry that people didn’t like my tactics, but this is realpolitik, I can only use what I have at hand.

    w.

  240. Willis Eschenbach says:
    January 17, 2012 at 12:12 pm

    James Sexton says:
    January 17, 2012 at 10:49 am

    … Other than generally pissing people off, being very divisive, ostracizing friends, and exposing your boorish megalomania, what did you hope to accomplish by all of this?

    Actually, the only instruction from my secret masters that remains unfulfilled was to raise the blood pressure of some guy I never met named “James”, ….. …
    ==============================================================
    lol, Willis, don’t sell yourself short now! Your BP raising antics weren’t confined to only people named “James”, whom you’ve never met.

  241. Willis’s post is an important post – regardless of what anyone thinks of him or Tallbloke or AGM or Skepticism… The important thing is that those engaged in Scientific enquiry are allowed to disagree. How much disagreement is allowed is up to the owner of the blog hosting the argument.

    If people are sanctioned for bad reasons then it should be ok to say so.

    If arguments don’t fit reality then it should be ok to say so. In the end it is down to the individual blogger and their commenters.

    Willis may not have gone about this in a way that everyone likes – but what he has brought up is a very important and basic aspect of scientific enquiry.

    It is important that people are allowed to draw lines – and at the same time give leeway for when the problem is in argued scientifically. We have to be careful not to be ruled by peer pressure, or too much ego on any side of an argument. There is a need for a certain freedom to disagree if an argument cannot be decisively proven.

  242. Machiavellian. If people didn’t think off topic, outside the square, science would never progress.

    I was banned at Greenpeace’s old forum, despite being very careful and sticking to the rules, in the face of much abuse (against the forum rules) and utter nonsense from extreme alarmists. I found it laughable rather than it making me angry.

  243. “The other reason I snipped was to emphasize the importance of the freedom to post that we take for granted here at WUWT.”

    Hmmm. If you say so. This whole long-winded article sounds like it could have been written by RealClimate to rationalize what they do.

  244. Jeremy says:
    January 17, 2012 at 10:51 am

    … To anyone bashing Willis’ actions, you need to stop. You need to stop and think hard. Willis was doing what the other side of this blogosphere refuses to do, he was policing his own.
    =============================================================
    No, he wasn’t. He was trying to set himself up to be the arbiter of right and wrong on someone else’ blog. Tell me, which is worse?

    The good news is, we can tell Wiki not to worry about going dark, we’ll just send Willis to the feds and now we won’t have to worry about SOPA, Willis, “king of unneeded confessions”, defender of the Joel, has it covered. pphhtttt.

  245. Replicant says:
    January 17, 2012 at 6:54 am

    Willis,

    you said this:

    “My rants are all very carefully chosen and calculated, I have a clear, defined, and usually different purpose for each one, and my aim is to weigh and ponder each word and each tone and shading and to consider what they will do and what people will do in response.”

    and you said this:

    “In other words you’ve been acting like an arrogant dickwad since you opened your mouth on the subject …”

    “You are an irritating jerkwagon..”

    You are one sick puppy, bro’, much sicker than we can help you with here.”

    “I think you are a royal prat”

    “Either way, you look like an idiot.”

    “Listen, you unpleasant person”.

    I think you really “weigh and ponder each word and each tone and shading” nicely.

    Thanks for the compliment, replicant, I thought so too, especially “royal prat”, he was one.

    Look, my friend, if someone is acting like a royal prat, it may be your habit to say they are a marvelous person, or to say nothing at all. I’m not made that way. If someone is acting like a jerkwagon, you are welcome to go all California on them and ask them to share their feelings. Me, I just point out that they’re being a jerkwagon.

    I prefer my method, because with your method you’re thinking the guy is a jerkwagon, but you’re not saying it, you’re patting his tummy and discussing his insecurities instead. So everyone is left wondering just how you do feel about the jerkwagon. Whereas with me, there’s no question. I don’t dissemble and say things I don’t mean about someone to be politically or socially correct. People may not like my opinions, but they know what they are, and they know they don’t change with public perceptions or focus groups.

    Finally, everyone seems to think this is some kind of popularity contest or something. I’m not running for High School Class President, I’m not doing this to puff myself up in people’s expectations. If I were I would not have laid my motives and actions bare as above, it’s not a pretty picture.

    But while I care about what people think of me, I’m not doing what I do based on how I will be perceived. I’m doing it to accomplish something, and I am well aware that people don’t like to see the sausage made.

    All the best,

    w.

  246. I have to say that I hope Mr. Watts does not allow Willis the freedom to pull a stunt like this again. Well, I don’t have to say it, but I’m going to.

  247. James Sexton says:
    January 17, 2012 at 12:40 pm

    Jeremy says:
    January 17, 2012 at 10:51 am

    … To anyone bashing Willis’ actions, you need to stop. You need to stop and think hard. Willis was doing what the other side of this blogosphere refuses to do, he was policing his own.

    =============================================================
    No, he wasn’t. He was trying to set himself up to be the arbiter of right and wrong on someone else’ blog. Tell me, which is worse?

    Censorship is worse, in any of its forms. The right and wrong of my actions is insignificant compared to that. Censorship and its cousins, lack of transparency and hiding data and refusing to answer questions, is how climate science got into the horrible shape it is in. Two-thirds of the american public things climate scientists are cooking the books.

    That is a tragedy for science, James, and it has occurred because mainstream climate scientists have refused to clean up their own backyards and police up their own garbage.

    And that is what is worse, much worse than anything I could even contemplate doing.

    w.

  248. Now Folks, this is what comment section on this, climate realist blog, should look like. I try to be fair and read all the comments, but lately so meny sounded the same, and sorry, I started to skip some of the comments. As much as I hate any kind of censorship, I hate cheer leading comment section even more.

    Willis, thank you for pouring some fresh water into this stale water pond comment section.
    Taras.

  249. James Sexton says:
    January 17, 2012 at 12:40 pm

    No, he wasn’t. He was trying to set himself up to be the arbiter of right and wrong on someone else’ blog. Tell me, which is worse?

    The good news is, we can tell Wiki not to worry about going dark, we’ll just send Willis to the feds and now we won’t have to worry about SOPA, Willis, “king of unneeded confessions”, defender of the Joel, has it covered. pphhtttt.

    How many regular visitors to Realclimate might say the same thing about our cries of censorship over there? I think you need to stop and think about just how bad censorship is. Willis saw a problem in biased moderation made manifest and he tried to convince a blog operator of the effect it was having; he tried to do that in their blog, he tried to do it privately. That had no effect, so he very carefully lured that same blog operator into the exact same situation. Why this has still had no effect on Tallbloke’s perspective on the matter can only be explained by personal pride (which is understandable once someone has achieved even a pinch of internet fame, btw). However, it has no place in science.

    I like Tallbloke, I like Willis. As arrogant as Willis’ actions might be, they were more principled than Tallblokes and I would actually be proud of them had I myself orchestrated them.

  250. PaulID says:

    To Joel Shore if you are NOT arrogant show me one place on this blog where you have admitted error simply with an I was wrong sorry and no further defense of your position if you can then I will revise my opinion to mostly arrogant. I have never seen you admit an error ever, now admittedly I don’t go to other places on the web looking for your name (I simply find you far too annoying to do that plus that would be far too creepy for me to do) but on this blog I don’t recall you ever having done that, again if you point out any instance of this the I will revise but I am not in the slightest bit worried about this.

    In these posts, I admit that not only was I wrong but sort of wrong twice. (I.e., I went from right to wrong and then back to right.)

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/29/unified-theory-of-climate/#comment-855376

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/29/unified-theory-of-climate/#comment-855376

    However, I would also say that your measure of arrogance is again strange. By your reasoning, you would conclude that someone who bombastically proclaims something and then later has to admit he was wrong would have a small arrogance quotient but someone who was careful to not state things unless he was quite confident that they were correct (and thus rarely had to admit he was wrong) would have a large arrogance quotient.

  251. Willis Eschenbach says:
    January 17, 2012 at 11:58 am

    I went into this knowing full well that there could be some personal cost. I knew that at a minimum it would give my enemies lots of ammunition. But I still did it, because I think the issue is important, and I am a man who will fight for what he thinks is important.

    That is the very definition of Courage. From true Character springs true Courage. From true Courage springs true Honor. No apology is necessary when Character, Courage, and Honor are in phase. Only you can answer the question “Why do I not feel honorable?” and therefore proffer apology.

    Now that I have pontificated… How about we all take lessons learned, and start with new clean sheets of paper, with no bans or watermarks, of any kind? As I keep saying to Lord Monckton… “Get back to work!” GK

  252. I must add to the list of people who did not find what Willis did as unreasonable, but rather completely within the bounds of a normal debate, especially scientific. Metal sharpening metal is no soft event.

    I do regret how personal this is getting, but censorship is a personal matter.

    -Willis is right that if one cannot distill the essence of a theory into distinct points, that theory is not well defined nor understood. Willis is right that censorship should not be done due to disagreements on theory, no matter what those disagreements are. The rational debate is part of the heart of science.

    -Willis did not ask anyone to do anything unreasonable, and since he explicitly stated he wanted falsifications of his proof and/or similar proofs made for N-Z, he was within his bounds to snip to keep things on topic. Very simple instructions. And I read a lot in that thread that had no barring on the matter! He was the instigator and moderator of the debate.

    -I do agree however that Willis may have gone too far, beyond his laid out parameters, and likely snipped things he shouldn’t have (in the spirit of his post) and didn’t snip things he should have (in the spirit of his post).

    None the less, the facts remain: 1) a clear set of instructions were given, all one had to do was follow them, and there is no right to complain of snipping in the event of failure to do so; 2) all well defined and understood theories can be condensed into a point-by-point (bullet point) construction to cover the core principles that define it, here being called an “elevator speech”; 3) Censorship is wrong, but clearly defined rules of debate, when enforced -are not censorship-; and my personal 4) accusations of violations of thermaldynamics and the conservation of energy are a serious, serious charge for any theory to be challenged with and must be met directly with concise and clear scientific reasoning. Failure to do so is a failure of the theory itself.

    However, an elevator speech does not give room for full discourse, and I think people are used to that and were looking for that on this matter. In that way, WUWT, and the internet in general, may not be the best forum for attempted such a debate style.

    Now, I did think of an elevator speech, and I did thing of ways to defend N-Z and to disprove Willis’s proof, and I know I did not post them as I had not fully reasoned through them.

    Always, I hope people stop bashing Willis. What he did was completely reasonable and within the rights of debate and the rational mind. In fact, I think you are being too hard on yourself, Willis, in describing what you did as a “trap”! On the one hand, sure, but on the other hand you did not do anything underhanded, but were forthright and in the open. The only exception perhaps was not linking to that one paper, but a minor detail that is!

    Please everyone, look at the issues at hand directly.

  253. Willis, I’d like to thank you for a number of reasons:
    1. Being relentlessly logical and scientific. Compared to the ravings of a number of commentators it is a relief to read your comments.
    2. Being so clear and detailed in your descriptions of mechanisms and pushing others to do so also. I followed Nikolov suggestion (from the last thread) and re-read his article to try and extract the “elevator speech” he claimed was there. Once again I found rambling story with no beginning or end.
    3. The enormous effort you have put into reading and responding to comments. Without your comments I would have given up on this thread quite quickly. I can only take a limited amount of raving before I run away.
    4. Straightening out my misconception regarding Isothermal vs an Isentropic atmospheres. It was obvious once you pointed out the gravitational effect.
    5. Providing a venue for the ravers to show their true colours.
    5. For being so damn entertaining to read!!

    Keep it up!
    Peter Spear

  254. “”””” llis Eschenbach says:

    January 17, 2012 at 12:09 pm

    George E. Smith; says:
    January 17, 2012 at 10:46 am

    … A brief statement is fine, so long as it is complete. “””””

    Just yanking your chain there Willis; seems everybody does it.

    Well it was your explanation of why you were explaining and apologising, whose length I noted.

    Cheers Mate !

  255. jae says:
    January 17, 2012 at 12:59 pm
    Can someone give us the elevator speech for general relativity?

    Wherever the second derivative of position w.r.t. time is zero or vanishingly small, you can neglect general relativity.

  256. What a disgusting display of arrogance. WUWT used to be good. Really now, we are “proving” scientific theories by elevator speeches? Bring back science.

  257. “A very childish episode! Just my opinion so snip away! Now, can we get back to what the site des best?”

    Agree. But surely this shows that the luke warmers and their GHG backradiation pseudo science is on the way so they revert to this.

    The tide is turning. The slayers book started the ball rolling and it will not be stopped.

  258. Actually, I can’t think of a direct way to defend N-Z, as I don’t know their theory well enough. However, I can think of additional mechanisms for any transparent atmosphere (meaning mono-atomic, as any atomic bonds can absorb IR and store it as kinetic energy by jumping the quantum energy level of the bond vibrations/bendings/stretchings) to keep a planet at a higher temperature than S-B would indicate. This also has to do with the fact that equilibrium constants are not the same as kinetic rates.

    1) Radiant energy absorbed by a rotating planetary body must be lost to space to maintain a thermal equilibrium, but does not get immediately radiated away.

    2) The surface of a planet can lose energy both by radiating it, as well as transferring it kinetically to an atmosphere by conduction/convection. These events will occur at different time scales and percentages of the total energy.

    3) The surface of a rotating planet rotates independently of the atmosphere.

    4) Not all sides of the planet are heated at once, as the sun is a point source of light.

    5) Atmosphere storing kinetic heat energy can move from an area of the surface currently being heated by solar radiation to a cooling area of the surface not directly being irradiated.

    6) Kinetic energy from the transparent atmosphere, which cannot itself radiate, can then be returned by the same process to the surface or other object which can radiate energy to be lost to space. But this “storage” allows the atmosphere to hold a higher “temperature” in the form of kinetic motion that will have it’s own equilibrium constant separate from the radiating constant of the surface–and instead will be driven by principles of the atmosphere and how much energy it must be storing before it begins equalizing kinetic uptake from areas of sunlight to kinetic release at areas of night.

    7) There in, a transparent atmosphere can be heated and maintain a temperature well above that of the surface of a planet, while maintaining conservation of energy and thermal equilibrium through the -rates- of energy transfer. This could in theory hold a planet’s -air-surface temperature- above the SB constant. If the sun stopped shining, all this stored energy would eventually return to the surface and be radiated to space.

    Day to day examples of this are the facts that when it’s 80 degrees F outside, the ground itself is not 80 degrees. When it’s a chilly 16 degrees, the ground itself is not 16 degrees. It takes a great deal of -time- for temperature changes to occur due to kinetic rates of reactions between surface and atmosphere. This also would set up a thermal gradient by altitude above the surface (not elevation), as kinetic energy will flow slowly upwards but also flow downwards, and this gradient will be maintained and never reach homogeneity. In a sense, kinetic energy acts the same way as downwelling IR, but is a property of all gasses, and matter.

    I suppose all this is testable to a degree, and could in theory be done in a vacuum setting.

  259. To follow up on my earlier comment (12:33 pm), when I saw what happened in the original post I just assumed that somebody was having an extra cranky day, and moved on. Lots of very brilliant people are cranky, and they all have off days in the PR department. Everybody has such days. C’est la vie. Thus I think that this rationalization, however valid, just prolonged that bad day and wasn’t really necessary.

    That said, all that snipping doesn’t look good no matter what the grand plan was.

    So Willis, onward and upward. But don’t run with scissors!!!

  260. Oh, haha, forgot to add that this idea of mine also explains weather patterns (that I know of, such as wind and high pressure/low pressure areas), but it does not need to look at gravity. Atmospheric density will play a roll (i.e. mountains are colder than sea level!), as a denser atmosphere can store more kinetic energy and thus have a higher temperature. Gravity just holds everything in place and makes sure that the energy is eventually returned to the surface for radiation (or molecules from the atmosphere are lost to space, which does happen to a small degree to our Earth).

    Still, gravity does not HEAT anything. So, actually, my little proposal for explaining an atmosphere keeping a planet’s temperature above S-B (scaling with density!) would be an alternate to N-Z that neither excludes nor supports it; but also does not utilize it at all.

  261. Lou says:
    January 17, 2012 at 1:41 pm
    What a disgusting display of arrogance. WUWT used to be good. Really now, we are “proving” scientific theories by elevator speeches? Bring back science.

    No.

    Willis *DIS*proved a theory with an elevator speech. If you can shoot holes in Willis’ elevator speech that *DIS*proves a theory, congratulations.

    As an anecdote. Every science professor I’ve ever dealt with told me the same thing. If you cannot explain what you know, or what you think you know, in a fairly short but accurate way, you don’t understand it. That doesn’t mean you’re wrong, but it does mean you don’t understand what you’re talking about. Because you can’t explain it, you don’t understand it. You could be correct, amazingly, and still not understand what you’re talking about. But if you don’t know what you’re talking about, and someone else does and says “hey what you’re saying here is violating a fundamental law of physics.”, what sense does it make to ban the person who clearly knows what is going on from commenting on you blog?

    Yes, how Willis went about it is somewhat arrogant. So what? I’ll take arrogant and principled before I’ll accept bias-enforced ignorance.

  262. Ged says:

    1) Radiant energy absorbed by a rotating planetary body must be lost to space to maintain a thermal equilibrium, but does not get immediately radiated away.

    True…But, where is the extra 150 W/m^2 coming from that is consistently over hundreds of years being emitted by the Earth? [And, of course, this is all hypothetical anyway because we know that the Earth is not in fact emitting 390 W/m^2 as seen from space.]

    2) The surface of a planet can lose energy both by radiating it, as well as transferring it kinetically to an atmosphere by conduction/convection. These events will occur at different time scales and percentages of the total energy.

    That is irrelevant. The problem is that the amount being radiated from the surface is already significantly greater than the total amount being absorbed by the surface + atmosphere. Conduction and convection won’t change this fact.

    3) The surface of a rotating planet rotates independently of the atmosphere.

    4) Not all sides of the planet are heated at once, as the sun is a point source of light.

    5) Atmosphere storing kinetic heat energy can move from an area of the surface currently being heated by solar radiation to a cooling area of the surface not directly being irradiated.

    Not relevant…We are talking about the total energy balance, not the local energy balance. I.e., the Earth is receiving 240 W/m^2 * (its surface area) and its surface is radiating about 240 W/m^2 * (its surface area).

    6) Kinetic energy from the transparent atmosphere, which cannot itself radiate, can then be returned by the same process to the surface or other object which can radiate energy to be lost to space. But this “storage” allows the atmosphere to hold a higher “temperature” in the form of kinetic motion that will have it’s own equilibrium constant separate from the radiating constant of the surface–and instead will be driven by principles of the atmosphere and how much energy it must be storing before it begins equalizing kinetic uptake from areas of sunlight to kinetic release at areas of night.

    7) There in, a transparent atmosphere can be heated and maintain a temperature well above that of the surface of a planet, while maintaining conservation of energy and thermal equilibrium through the -rates- of energy transfer. This could in theory hold a planet’s -air-surface temperature- above the SB constant. If the sun stopped shining, all this stored energy would eventually return to the surface and be radiated to space.

    The problem isn’t with the temperature of the atmosphere but the temperature of the Earth’s surface…i.e., we know that the surface temperature is such that it is radiating much more than it is receiving from the sun.

    I also think there are problems with your picture: If the atmosphere were heated to a higher temperature than the Earth’s surface by the surface alone, that would violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. It might be possible if the atmosphere absorbs some sunlight (in other parts of the spectrum than where the terrestrial radiation occurs), but again, the problem is one of the planet’s surface being too hot…not the atmosphere.

  263. Willis Eschenbach says:
    January 17, 2012 at 12:49 pm

    in response to James Sexton says: January 17, 2012 at 12:40 pm

    “Censorship is worse,……..”
    ===================================================================
    No, Willis, it isn’t. You’re trying to uphold a liberty by denying a liberty. And I’m saddened that you and people like you don’t understand this. It wasn’t your call to make. Worse, knowing you have have posting and snipping privileges here, doesn’t just smell of gobsmacking hypocrisy, it is gobsmacking hypocrisy.

    You know full well that people get snipped and banned here. If you’re going to rise against censorship then you must rise against WUWT.

    But, it wasn’t censorship you were rising against. Else, you would have long ago given up on this site. What you were rising against was a censorship of a perspective you were keen to uphold. There’s a huge difference between the two.

    Voltaire said, “I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it.” But, you’re not engaged in that sort of action. You’re defending the right privilege (in this particular case) of a person with whom you do agree. How noble.

    The very thought that you think you should be able to tell Roger what does and doesn’t go on at his blog tells me that whatever you’re trying to accomplish isn’t remotely related liberty or free flow of ideas and thoughts.

    And, just so we are all clear here, there are times when Anthony has banned or placed people in “time out” in the past, when I thought he hadn’t ought to have done so. But, it isn’t my blog, it is his. It was his decision to make, and no one else. I found that I could respect those decisions if not fully agree. There have also been times in which I was in entire agreement.

    Censorship comes in various forms, Willis, attempting to mandate content on other people’s blog is one of them.

  264. So now the once “excellent weblog Watts Up With That” (Roger Pielke Sr.) suddenly has morphed into a site where role-play and deception games are being played, and where you cannot trust any longer that words are written to mean what they say. The last couple of days this site’s quality has been degrading by the hour.

    Please stop this Anthony Watts.

  265. I seem to be in the extreme minority here. I’m not pissed off at or offended by Willis. I always read Willis’ pieces and this gravity thought experiment article is not the first one where he stated he would snip comments that were off topic. I generally don’t enjoy “thought experiments”. Had I not seen the slew of snipping in the comments I would have lost interest. I spent a good chunk of my weekend reading through all the comments and was thoroughly entertained. Let’s face it, the topic was rather dull, but the comments were a riot.

    To be honest, I read through the N&Z article and it made no sense to me. At the time I attributed this to having taken advanced college physics well over 30 years ago and having not used integral calculus in over 25 years (this stuff comes up very infrequently in a clinic setting). But I read what Dr. Roy Spencer wrote on the N&Z article at his site and that actually made sense to me.

    I am a bit shocked to read some of these comments. A couple even came from someone I regard as one of a handful of my “hero commenters”. Willis has contributed a wealth of articles to WUWT that are most often met with lavish praise. Perhaps, as he says, this thought experiment article was something of a prank to illustrate a larger point. So what? It seems many of you who were snipped, insulted or (worse yet) duped now have your knickers firmly in a twist. Well…though I have never met him, I like Willis. I admire Willis. I’d like to sit down and drink and play guitar with Willis. The rest of you are faced with a dichotomous choice – either get over it or stay mad forever.

  266. Willis,

    After reading your comments in this thread, it apppears to me that you still don’t get it that it wasn’t merely your snipping in your previous post that turned off the readers. IMO, it was your Gavinesque-tone and demeanor as the self-moderator that was is such stark contrast to what we are accoustomed to seeing here at WUWT. IMO, you should have apologized to Anthony and his followers for misusing his blog as a guest author in your attempt to lure vistors into playing a rather silly mind game. I suggest that if you want to do this again, use your own blog.

    I’m glad that I chose to use the stairs …

  267. James Sexton says:
    January 17, 2012 at 2:12 pm

    No, Willis, it isn’t. You’re trying to uphold a liberty by denying a liberty. And I’m saddened that you and people like you don’t understand this.

    Willis hasn’t banned Tallbloke from posting at WUWT as Tallbloke has now (allegedly) banned Willis. Exactly who is denying who liberty? Willis went nuts on the censorship scissors specifically to show another blog moderator the effect of his actions.

    You know full well that people get snipped and banned here. If you’re going to rise against censorship then you must rise against WUWT.

    So lets discuss and compare exactly who was banned on each blog and compare the justifications. In Tallbloke’s own words:

    … you’re not posting here unless and until you apologise to Nikolov and Zeller for spreading misinformation about conservation of energy in their theory all over the blogosphere and failing to correct it.

    ^^^ So that right there is essentially a pre-emptive ban on someone else’s expression because of their explicitly expressed opinion elsewhere. Has Anthony ever pre-emptively banned anyone because of what they’ve posted elsewhere on the internet? I can’t think of an example. If you can, then perhaps it is fair to compare the bans here at WUWT to the ban on Joel.

    But, it wasn’t censorship you were rising against. Else, you would have long ago given up on this site. What you were rising against was a censorship of a perspective you were keen to uphold. There’s a huge difference between the two.

    Wrong again. Tallbloke banned someone specifically because of their behavior ELSEWHERE on the internet, NOT on Tallblokes site (as Tallbloke himself stated).

    The very thought that you think you should be able to tell Roger what does and doesn’t go on at his blog tells me that whatever you’re trying to accomplish isn’t remotely related liberty or free flow of ideas and thoughts.

    As a skeptic site, Tallbloke’s actions reflect on all skeptics. If skeptics are not allowed to police other skeptics for not allowing skepticism on their blogs, whence cometh reason?

    Censorship comes in various forms, Willis, attempting to mandate content on other people’s blog is one of them.

    I find your perspective entirely skewed in this matter. You seem to think that Willis was arrogantly attempting to force content onto Tallbloke’s website. In fact, Tallbloke himself banned dissenting opinion on his website not because of behavior, not because of off-topic posting, not because of spamming, not because of blog-pimping, not because of content that was inappropriate or inaccurate. Tallbloke banned someone because he thought that their expressed opinion elsewhere on the internet was wrong. That is precisely what Realclimate does, that is censorship. Banning someone because they misbehave in comments is one thing (which Anthony and any sane message board moderator would do), banning someone because you don’t like what they say, that’s censorship.

  268. Mr Eschenbach says

    The point was to keep alive the important scientific issue of openness and lack of censorship. That may not be important to you, and that’s OK. Claiming it was not important in some larger sense, however, that’s just your theory.

    One can discuss if “openness and lack of censorship” is a real scientific issue versus an epistemological one. Whatever it is, the “game” you played has not improved the issue in the slightest despite your “point to keep it alive” (fighting censorship by self-censorship, really? A self-defeating Jesus-like syndrome instead).

    Also, I did not claimed it was not important, that’s just your invention. Putting words in my mouth is worse than censorship in fact. According to your logic, someone will now have to write a post somewhere to complain about you misrepresenting me and my view, then play with the readers’ nerves by deleting madly to finally write another post telling how smart he is.

    What about a little humility?

  269. “Can someone give us the elevator speech for general relativity?”

    Sure.

    1. Gravity looks just like acceleration to all the laws of physics.
    2. Stitching patches of ‘accelerating’ spacetime together to look like an inward-pointing gravitational field works like stitching shaped pieces of fabric together to form a curved sheet.
    3. So the effects of gravity look exactly the same as matter moving in curved spacetime with no gravity.
    4. We know mass acts as a source to gravity. We don’t know why.
    5. We can treat mass as a source to curvature instead, and get an equation that works.

    I could go on, and obviously there are many details and implications I’ve skipped, but Willis is correct that the fundamental principle of any scientific theory ought to be able to be reducible to simple, clear, intuitive explanations. (Not necessarily such a short list, but maybe a long sequence of such short lists.) Not being able to do so is a danger-sign of uncritical acceptance of unexamined assumptions. It’s all intuitively comprehensible.

  270. A reply to a comment much earlier that goes to the heart of something important

    “push to elevate AGW type views in my opinion, which would appear to go against the original concept of this fine site”

    Strange. I would have thought the ‘push’ should always be to elevate the most accurate views. As the old saying goes, ‘Each person is entitled to their own opinion. But they are not entitled to their own facts’. And when I am looking for the person with the most accurate opinion, I will always go with the person who has the most facts. Which 99.99% of the time means the mainstream scientists and only incredibly rarely some armchair ‘expert’ pontificating on a blog – whether posting OR commenting. Surely that is what this site is meant to be about?

    Unless the title ‘Watts Up With That?’ is meant to be just rhetorical.

  271. dlb says: “Willis, I think you should have condensed this post into an elevator speech.”

    Agree. It was a mistake to play tricks but a much worse mistake to make a long speech about them. There were some interesting scientific issues raised in the last post and comments but none in this. IMO apologies should be short, sincere, to the point and devoid of self-justification.

  272. Mr. Eschenbach, you state several times that you are fighting for what you think is important. That is great, hopefully all do it. The question is: Why did you decide to fight in the way you did?
    There is way too much emotion, personalisation and impatience. You were emotional about the papers before the censoring issue came up. Tallbloke obviously got emotional too, hence the censoring – which I strictly oppose and criticize.

    Results:
    1) The science is anything but settled – the holes in the concepts are huge. The “greenhouse” concept seems to neglect the energy generated in our planet, is oversimplified, ignores the spherical aspects, etc. I really wonder, how much we understand at all! I am sure I must be missing something here, it is just too unbelievable.
    2) Frustration and (unnecessary) alienation – how many questions remained unasked, because of the heated (to say the least) responses.
    3) Much time and energy (mental as well as electrical) spent to achieve – ?

    Last not least: I sincerely hope WUWT returns to a reasoned, calm and civil discussion – we all have to endure enough unpleasant stuff in papers & magazines. WUWT made a very much appriciated difference!

  273. Willis,
    I am a layman, as are the vast majority that visit WUWT. I have, in the past, supremely enjoyed your witty prose and wonderful word-smithing skills in ‘rightly dividing the truth’ for us with less than PHD diplomas hanging over our desks.

    Most, I assume, agree with your general point that censorship should be anathema to science. Most would also agree that open debate over theories, etc. should be just that… open. But your openly manipulating people and prose in order to publicly ‘prove’ TB’s position wrong and yours right, both in regards to the censoring/banning of a particular individual and over a specific contentious theory, has tainted your authority and believability. You may not really care about that… but that, to me, is a terrible and wasteful shame and will limit your positive impact into the future with the ‘fence-sitters’ or those newly inquisitive to global warming skepticism.

    Having many times been the ‘victim’ of such manipulative acts in the past, and having learned how and exercised the same sort of mind-game manipulations over others (no PhD or Einsteinian intelligence required!), I recognized a couple of very obvious things: manipulation/mind games/thought experiments at the expense of others are ultimately more destructive than constructive, regardless of the ends in mind, and reveal more about my or others character/maturity than the ‘truths’ I am attempting to prove or disseminate.

    Some three decades ago I committed myself to NEVER knowingly play these ‘games’ with anyone again. I recognized it was disrespectful and arrogant, and ultimately counter-productive to actually helping others ‘see’ the truth or my ‘view’. Now, if I can(non-employment situations!), I disassociate myself from those that knowingly and regularly practice such techniques. I like being able to at least minimally trust others in my life. Manipulators I do not trust, no matter how gifted, knowledgeable, authoritative, impressive or friendly they appear. Manipulators are everywhere, but that does not mean I should join their ranks or invite them into my thoughts.

    Willis, your skillful prose is needed. Your commitment to standing on the truth, digging out the facts, keeping other scientist’s toes to the fire is commendable. But your use of manipulation to that ends is only destructive and divisive, especially among the ‘laity’. You have proven nothing by it. Simply making your points… that you disagreed with TB’s censorship/ban and disagreed with his position on this particular theory was enough. I, as well as others, noted that. We respected that. Personally, I, and possibly many others, desire to trust you again. You broke our trust. That may or may not concern you. For the sake of the ‘rest of us’, I hope it does.

    Desiring your best,
    Ric G

  274. Maybe Anthony can bring back the….

    Thumbs up /\ or Thumbs down \/ ….

    Just for this one thread… now wouldn’t that be fun ??!!

    Please kiss (wherever you like) and move on….

  275. I strongly doubt somebody will notice my comment this deep but anyway – this article actually made me to read the N&Z paper and understand its main points. And my conclusion is there is no breaking of energy conservation laws in it. You want elevator speech? Here it is:

    – atmosphere acts as thermal insulator between surface and vacuum
    – surface acts as important convertor of incoming irradiation to IR
    – change in atmospheric (surface) pressure is proportional to atmospheric mass
    – increase in atmospheric mass (and whole pressure/mass height profile) changes the properties of the atmosphere as insulator in favor of better insulation near surface level which results in increased surface atmospheric temperature

    In fact, I am pretty convinced it is true. The only thing I am really not sure about is the magnitude of the effect compared to other effects.

  276. Some of replies here are way to hard on Willis. He had his eye on the big picture, and that was bringing a stop to the absurdity of censorship. I applaud him for the effort.

  277. Willis, as you’ve reposted your elevator speech here and as the other thread has become unwieldy and I’m not sure you’re looking at it any more, I post mine here too:

    Willis says: Let me give you an example to show what I mean. Here’s an elevator speech about the greenhouse effect:

    The poorly-named “greenhouse effect” works as follows:

    • The surface of the earth emits energy in the form of thermal longwave radiation.

    • Some of that energy is absorbed by greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere.

    • In turn, some of that absorbed energy is radiated by the atmosphere back to the surface.

    • As a result of absorbing that energy from the atmosphere, the surface is warmer than it would be in the absence of the GHGs.

    OK, that’s my elevator speech about why the Earth is not a block of ice. Note that it is not just saying what is happening. It is saying how it is happening as well.

    ===
    Dear Willis,

    An elevator speech for you

    First build elevator

    Press button to call elevator

    Enter

    Choose level on which to exit by pressing corresponding button

    Take a ride

    When elevator stops and doors open on chosen floor, exit

    And take your stupid greenhouse effect design with you.

    The problem with your elevator speech is that the design you’re describing is a house built on a hole in shifting sand because you’re using concepts based on figures which have been deliberately manipulated to lead the unwary through a labyrinth of ever more nonsensical physical properties and processes to believe the design you’ve described as if it is fact, but which relates not in any part to the real physical world around us, it is a description of a fictional effect in a fictional world. You’ve been had. That you believe it doesn’t mean we should follow you in your delusion, but we should call you on it even at the risk of being at the receiving end of your sharp though sometimes witty tongue, because you produce no proof to back up that design. You produce no proof because there is none, because the greenhouse effect you give was designed purely to confuse, to con, not to enlighten us about the real physical world around us. Prove it. Show us your working out.

    Here’s why you won’t be able to, and why no one else claiming this greenhouse effect represents the real physics of the world around us has EVER given any proof of the basic premise of your design or any of its parts, it begins with the figures you use of Earth’s temperatures as Latour summarised here:

    GHG Theory 33C Effect Whatchamacallit

    Pierre R Latour, PhD, Houston, January 15, 2012

    “GHG Theory was invented to explain a so-called 33C atmospheric greenhouse gas global warming effect. In 1981 James Hanson, stated the average thermal T at Earth’s surface is 15C (ok) and Earth radiates to space at -18C (ok). Then he declared the difference 15 – (-18) = 33C (arithmetic ok) is the famous greenhouse gas effect. This is not ok because there is no physics to connect these two dissimilar numbers. The 33C are whatchamacallits. This greenhouse gas effect does not exist.”

    Note that well, there is no physics ever given to explain the 33°C difference between these two temperatures. You will not find it because it doesn’t exist and so you and your ilk can never produce it when asked, no matter how many times you and your ilk pushing this junk science fiction have been requested to produce it. Show us the hypothesis!

    The whatchamacallits are sleights of hand. Watch carefully to see how Hansen fools you.

    The figures Latour OK’s are bog standard industry figures, but there’s one missing. It’s importance in this con will be seen once the descriptions of what each relates to is known and the missing re-instated, as follows:

    Earth with atmosphere as we have it now: 15°C
    Earth without any atmosphere at all: -18°C
    Earth with atmosphere but with no water: 67°C

    As I’m sure you spotted immediately on reading this, Hansen has taken out the Water Cycle from these standard figures. The main greenhouse gas water vapour through the water cycle reduces the temperature of the Earth with our atmosphere by 52°C from the temperature the Earth would be without it, so bringing it down to the 15°C.

    There is no Water Cycle in the AGW Science Fiction Incs KT97 and ilk’s energy budget.

    And thus, no way can Hansen find any real world physics to account for the 33°C increase from -18°C to 15°C, except by making absurd claims about the properties of carbon dioxide and mangling real physics processes.

    From this, from this sleight of hand and from this alone, we have it pushed down our throats that there is some woolly blanket affect of ‘greenhouse gas warming’ by a huge 33°C created by a trace gas, essential for all life and now called a poison, back-radiating to warm the surface, or, trapping heat in the atmosphere stopping heat escaping, and, the threat of worse to come, because the con says the heat will build up further as this trace gas carbon dioxide accumulates – properties and processes impossible for the real gas carbon dioxide which is anyway not 99.96% of the atmosphere. Gosh, such a supermolecule to raise the Earth’s temperature 33°C and make an insulating blanket out of nothing.

    Instead of an explanation and proof we get obfuscation and ad homs for daring to question the fictional fisics because there never is any actual hypothesis produced capable of explaining how this extraordinary greenhouse effect is possible, instead the sleight of hand avoids producing it by misdirection, by insisting it is all based on ‘already proven well-known science’, but never fetches it.

    Whatever mangling of physical properties and processes can be brought into the mix to support this unsubstantiated claimed ‘greenhouse effect’ suffices for AGWCon’s common purpose – to confuse the real world physics so that people like you can give it credibility by claiming it real, because you’ve never properly investigated it yourself, have you? Or maybe you have, and all you are is like minded with the con artists promoting it and only pretending to sceptic leanings, we’ve recently had such a pretend skeptic exposed. So which are you Willis? Too full of yourself to properly investigate or in the pay of big oil and the bwankers…?

    Without the Water Cycle the Earth would be 67°C, water vapour is the main greenhouse gas, it cools the Earth, think deserts. Carbon Dioxide is fully coupled to the Water Cycle. THEREFORE, GREENHOUSE GASES COOL THE EARTH.

    You’re pushing the opposite moronic claim and because you have no physics to show for your preferred version you use the idiotic claims about properties and processes which have been deliberately created to back up this sleight of hand, such as back-radiation heating the surface, regardless how many times it’s been explained by applied scientists that such a thing can’t happen because it leads to perpetual motion. That you can no longer appreciate the difference between Heat and Light, if you ever did, because the physics of radiation has been so thoroughly mangled, is just one effect of the contrived fisics this con comes up with to back it up which believers are encouraged to mindlessly repeat. That carbon dioxide can accumulate in the atmosphere defying gravity another example, and that achieved by eliminating gravity as the AGWCon had eliminated the Water Cycle, here simply by calling the non-condensable gases of our atmosphere the imaginary ideal..

    Real Carbon dioxide is fully part of the Water Cycle, all pure clean rain is carbonic acid, therefore, carbon dioxide is fully part of the COOLING role of the main greenhouse gas water vapour, a real world physics process driven by the Sun.

    Let me put that all together, my elevator speech:

    Earth’s Real Greenhouse Effect

    Earth with atmosphere as we have it now: 15°C
    Earth without any atmosphere at all: -18°C
    Earth with atmosphere but with no water: 67°C

    The Water Cycle cools the Earth by 52°C from the temperature it would be of 67°C without water.

    Water vapour is the main greenhouse gas, it COOLS the Earth, think deserts.

    Carbon Dioxide is fully coupled to the Water Cycle.

    Real Carbon dioxide is fully part of the Water Cycle, all pure clean rain is carbonic acid, therefore, carbon dioxide is fully part of the COOLING role of the main greenhouse gas water vapour, a real world physics process driven by the Sun.

    THEREFORE, GREENHOUSE GASES COOL THE EARTH.

    So come on Willis – give us what Hansen has not given us – the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis –

    show us the physics of carbon dioxide accounting for the massive 33°C rise in the difference between -18°C and 15°C.

    Latour: “This is not ok because there is no physics to connect these two dissimilar numbers. The 33C are whatchamacallits. This greenhouse gas effect does not exist.”

    whatchamacallits = non sequiturs.

    Concise Oxford Dictionary (COD) non sequitur n. Conclusion that does not logically follow from the premises. [L, = it does not follow]

    The resulting claim of the greenhouse effect is conveniently described in the entry preceding:

    nonsense Absurd or meaningless words or ideas,

    Best effort now Willis, show it’s a working hypothesis and not a whatchamacallit.

    Myrrh

  278. I’d just like to point out that censorship, in the vile sense, can only be done by government. Free people can sell books (barring disagreeable ones), host blogs that have rules (blocking people who disobey the rules), etc. “Fairness” in this matter, as in all matters, is in the contract.

  279. Jeremy says:
    January 17, 2012 at 2:27 pm

    James Sexton says:
    January 17, 2012 at 2:12 pm
    ===============================
    Jeremy, you’re missing the point. And I’m not sure I can express this any better. But, yes, Willis is attempting to coerce TB (Roger) into accepting who and what Willis wants to see on Roger’s blog.

    You say,

    “So lets discuss and compare exactly who was banned on each blog and compare the justifications….”

    No, let’s not. There is no codification of what does and doesn’t happen on a skeptical blog. Nor, should there be, either written or understood. Further, you state,

    “…not because of behavior, not because of off-topic posting, not because of spamming, not because of blog-pimping, not because of content that was inappropriate or inaccurate. Tallbloke banned someone because he thought that their expressed opinion elsewhere on the internet was wrong.”

    So, the argument is, banning is okay as long as it rises to some abstract level some skeptics arbitrarily see fit. And, apparently Willis and others have deemed Roger unfit to make this discernment himself. Because Roger cannot run his blog properly, deception, and other forms of censorship and coercion are deemed acceptable. Because, Roger cannot come the the same reasonable conclusion we have.

    “Let us do evil, that good may come?” ——–Paul

    Do you now not see how this method is illogical and circular. How it repeats the imagined offense of Roger? He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you.—–Friedrich Nietzsche

    I disagree with Roger’s decision. <—— (See how easy that was?) But, it is Roger's blog to do as he sees fit. I disagree more with the response to Roger’s decision. Reflecting? If TB is a reflection upon skeptics, how much more so is the content of WUWT?

    James

  280. Well then many of you may well cast the first stone, but as far as I’m concerned Willis has no equal on the climate blogosphere and I’ll be waiting eagerly for his next post.
    I also love and admire Tallbloke even though he is the Height of Nonsense :)

    I say this even though Willis frustrated the hell out of me at the Moon/Mistress and the Gravity thread.
    Hmmm let me see who I’d rather be in a trench with, Willis and Tallbloke or the self appointed untainted judges of character permeating this thread…….gee hard choice no? /sarc off

  281. Kasua, a dense atmoshere has more in common with a heat sink than an insulator. All a non greenhouse atmosphere is doing is taking energy from the surface by conduction during the day and returning it to the surface at night. It would tend to make days cooler and nights warmer on such a planet. In no way would its average temperature be above the blackbody figure for this planet.

  282. Wouldn’t straightforwardness have been *easier*, not to mention less destructive?

    I don’t answer polls, I don’t answer the phone when I don’t know who’s calling, and I sure as shooting don’t have time for bloggers playing games with their audience.

  283. A very unedidying episode, for which only a lame excuse is offered up.

    Let’s hope that the tarnished reputation is confined to the author, and does not more generally impact upon Anthony and his otherwise excellent site.

  284. Einstein, when asked by the hostess of a party he was antending to “explain to her guests in a few words his Theory of Relativity”, told the following story:

    He said he was reminded of a walk he one day had with his blind friend. The day was hot and he turned to the blind friend and said, “I wish I had a glass of milk.”

    “Glass,” replied the blind friend, “I know what that is. But what do you mean by milk?”
    “Why, milk is a white fluid,” explained Einstein.
    “Now fluid, I know what that is,” said the blind man. “but what is white ? ”
    ” Oh, white is the color of a swan’s feathers.”
    ” Feathers, now I know what they are, but what is a swan ? ”
    “A swan is a bird with a crooked neck.”
    ” Neck, I know what that is, but what do you mean by crooked ? ”

    At this point Einstein said he lost his patience. He seized his blind friend’s arm and pulled it straight. “There, now your arm is straight,” he said. Then he bent the blind friend’s arm at the elbow. “Now it is crooked.”

    “Ah,” said the blind friend. “Now I know what milk is.”

    And Einstein sat down.

    This is the value of an elevator speech. Mostly used by sales men and politicians. Just because you can give one doesn’t mean you understand it.

    JC

  285. [Rex says:
    January 17, 2012 at 1:17 pm

    What on earth is an “elevator speech” ??]

    ——————-
    A short preferably half page standard paper or less description of something.

    The idea with science is that if you can’t explain what you are talking about in a very short time you probably don’t grasp what is going on. The exposition doesn’t include all the details of the theory or process just the basic description in as simple terms as possible. The long multipage paper or article is where you get into the details of the theory or process.

  286. Myrrh says:
    January 17, 2012 at 3:19 pm
    ========================================
    damn…………….marry me!

  287. Cheers for a demonstration of capital P “Pragmatism” Willis, but I’ve already had my fill of that sort of thing from the likes of Phil Jones and Michael Mann (et al). Sorry, but AFAIC this article is far from being WUWT’s finest moments.

    “Subjective morality” not withstanding, did the ends really justify the means ?

    regarDS

  288. [Lou says:
    January 17, 2012 at 1:41 pm

    What a disgusting display of arrogance. WUWT used to be good. Really now, we are “proving” scientific theories by elevator speeches? Bring back science.]
    —————————
    Now that is a false claim.

    No one is asking for scientific theories to be proved by elevator speeches. That is not at all what is being asked.

    What is being asked is for a brief easy to follow explanation of a very complex theory. See that is the problem the theory is so very complex that it is pretty much impossible for people to follow. So in this case a simple easy to follow description of what the theory states is being asked for. Not to “Prove” it but instead to make it possible to see if some claims about it make sense or not.

  289. So Willis churned up the climate skeptic pond, found a lot of junk that was tossed in on the theory that such stuff “naturally” belonged there as it was climate skepticism, and when asking why the individual bits were in there, couldn’t find answers that didn’t reduce, in the light of scientific truth, to “Because… it’s not CAGW, it’s skepticism.”

    Well, this is pretty much the only science site I frequent, and that’s not changing anytime soon. People are wailing this pond is now fouled, perhaps permanently, kick out the muckraker so we can get back to our perfect waters suitable for navel gazing. Bull muffins. The pond is cleaner, junk has been dredged out and pulled out into the light for proper disposal, the muck will settle down in time. The pond will look as good as it did before, but without the garbage rotting away that can contaminate the water and destroy the beauty of the pond later.

    When I hear about beautiful lakes with crystal clear water that you can see through straight to the bottom, I remember the acid rain controversy and pictures of acidified lakes where all the microorganisms, and everything larger, had died off. True Beauty ain’t always pretty, indeed there’s shockingly little that’s sparkling shiny pretty that has real utilitarian value worth possessing, so the whining here looks meaningless to me. But enough commentary about why The Bachelor will never work…

    After reviewing the 2003 Hans Jelbring paper, it sums up to me as this:

    1) His “thought model Earth” simplifies to a layer of ideal gases (dry, no water) constrained between two perfect insulators separated by distance D. Wrapping it around a sphere is superfluous, it can be the gases trapped between infinite parallel planes. He lists three “thought experiments” of one, two, and three atmospheric masses. For infinite planes, just say there’s a certain mass contained in a column formed by projecting perpendicularly a fixed area between the planes, and the other two cases are twice and thrice that amount of mass.

    2). Apply gravity, drawing the gas molecules towards one plane, designated surface A, with the other plane being surface S.

    3) The gases will gravitationally compress, with greatest density at A. Here is where the greatest temperature will be, the drop-off in temperature as you go away from A is described by the dry adiabatic lapse rate, which is -g/cp, “g” being constant force of gravity and “cp” is the heat capacity of your mix of gases, so g/cp simplifies to a constant rate, standard SI units of K/m. So here, if the temperature of the gases on the surface of A is T, the temperature at height d will be T-d(g/cp).

    4) The temperature difference between A and S will be D(g/cp). Simple math, the temperature drop is distance from A times g/cp, the total difference will be the total distance times g/cp. In all three thought experiments, the mass doesn’t matter, the density doesn’t matter, in all cases the temperature difference is D(g/cp), which will be true by definition.

    5) Label that temperature difference GE (greenhouse effect), note GHG’s (greenhouse gases) were not involved (radiative properties of gases not involved nor needed), declare victory against GHG theory. Calculations involving numbers are left as an exercise for the reader.

    I get stuck at 3, trying to think through how an adiabatic lapse rate, referring to a parcel of air moving through an atmosphere and what it’s temperature would be, yields a temperature difference with height as measured in free air, as presented by the paper. So far, for small pressure changes for small amounts over great distances, the difference seems less than a rounding error (I could expand on this hangup later).

    4 is also tough due to the notations used, as Jelbring specified a minimum pressure of 0.1 bar, basically 1/10 of a standard atmosphere. That defines D in strange ways, as by limiting how rarefied the atmosphere can be at S you are limiting the distance from A as an additional constraint not mentioned in the thought model. Also the different atmospheric masses should yield different values for D, although by the presentation one could assume D is the same value for all cases.

    Although step 5 is tough to figure out as well.

  290. To Joel Shore consider my opinion revised and as far as arrogance the attitude that you are never or very seldom wrong shows it well regardless of what you might think humility is something you and many warmists could use more of it is arrogance that is killing climate science right now the inability to admit that you might be not only a little wrong but in the case of Mann and others 180 degrees off of right.

  291. You’ve heard of cargo cult science.

    This thread is soap opera science.

    Like most soap operas it’s important to those who’ve become emotionally vested in the characters and for everyone else it’s just stupid. You know who you are.

  292. WUWT is normally the third site I visit after I get home. Sadly, since this the second time Willis has been allowed to indulge his oversized ego recently on this site, I will look elsewhere for Counter AGW info. WUWT now seems to stand for Willis’s Underwhelming Worthless Tripe.

    Drop me a line when the site goes back to it’s main purpose

  293. As we pull close to 340 comments and counting…..

    Is there a requirement that everyone must enjoy every thread here?

    Is what has transpired here a bit out of the ordinary, yes.

    For me, the key question remains, can the N and Z advocates produce an elevator speech that can hold up to scrutiny?

  294. .Willis,

    Your “apology” is actually only a form of bragging. You seem to feel you are quite clever, and can pull strings and turn your fellow man into puppets. You are the high IQ puppet master, so much smarter than everyone else, I suppose.

    Unfortunately, a day will come when you’ll rue this behavior, and wonder how you could have been such a driveling nitwit. You’re flattering sense of self-worth will do one of those remarkable nose-dives which makes being joyously manic seem nothing short of insanity.

    People are not puppets. Manipulation is bad policy, even when dealing with a foe. With an ally it is shameful.

    When the police come in and take your computers you may have an idea of what Tallbloke is dealing with, and why he may chose to draw certain lines in the sand.

    In the meantime, you seem to have no clue what we are up against. So feel free to continue to justify your bad behavior with lame excuses. However, in my humble opinion, your esoteric, pinky-raised, lar-de-dar straining over intellectual gnats is ignoring a massive beam in your own eye.

  295. First time poster, long time reader. This is embarrassing. You acted like a child and being forthright about it on a blog makes it no less silly.

  296. Jim Carson says:
    January 17, 2012 at 3:09 pm

    Ged Sed:
    …gravity does not HEAT anything.

    Gravity heats IO.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Io_(moon)

    No. IO is heated by friction. The energy source is angular momentum. Gravity is just a connection, like a string or a drive belt, that transfers energy from one place and form to another. In this case it’s angular momentum of the planet Jupiter which is coupled by gravity to IO which causes friction within the moon which then becomes heat.

    Try again.

  297. Ric G says:
    January 17, 2012 at 2:45 pm

    Absolutely the best reply here ( that I have read – haven’t read them all )
    Willis please read again what Ric G says

    Cheers
    POV

  298. I am utterly staggered by how many people seem to miss the point in all of this. It is wrong of Roger to ban someone for stating what they believe. Flat out simple as that. It is worse still that he seems to have not even allowed initial entry to the person because of posts in other forums (Or have I misunderstood this?). He should be inviting Joel to post the “misconceptions” on his own blog where he has the power to easily dispel them if they are so incorrect, this is the point in these blog sites!

    Roger’s justification is that he believes allowing Joel to comment disrupts the quiet that he wants to continue working on some tough concepts and problems. Am I the only one who finds this disturbingly close to “why should I give you my data when you only want to find things wrong with it?”. It is wrong to deny access to someone purely because you disagree with what they say, or can’t be bothered arguing with them (which seems to be the other justification that has been put forward). I stress again, if Joel is such an idiot, give him your forum to expound his idiocy so that all can see and make up their own minds, or do you expect your readers to just trust you when you say he has nothing to add? If he is being abusive or violating forum rules then snip these violations. The fact that you can not be bothered to moderate your own blog is not justification for denying someone access without a mea culpa.

    Furthermore, I am sick of this talk of “sides”. That AGW exponents are the “enemy”. There are no sides! Someone believing something different to you does not have to make them part of an opposing faction, you may just have a disagreement. The only enemy is people who hide the truth or censor dissent. If Roger is one of these people, then sadly he is the enemy. See how he has now banned Willis as well for disagreeing with him on something, yet did not ban him initially for doing the same thing that Joel was banned for. Double standards as well as censorship, two things I abhor.

    This is truly a sad affair between two people who’s work I respect. Ultimately I don’t wholly agree with Willis or with Roger, and I owe no allegiance to either. So I make up my mind based on the evidence I see not which “team” I’m on. And the evidence tells me that one more (or two as it seems now) silenced voice is just one more source of information and expression lost.

    Willis has already apologised and welcomed Roger to his “house”. Roger has responded by banning Willis from his. This appears to me to put the ball back in Rogers court. I can understand why Roger feels pretty put out by this whole deal but would say that discussion and transperancy are the only ways to furthering understanding.

    In closing, I reccomend everyone take a step back and look at how this would appear to a completely impartial newcomer. I think they would see, when you break it down, that someone has been silenced for dissenting and then a second person silenced for standing up for the first. No matter what you think of the people and the tactics, surely this is wrong.

  299. oldgamer56 says:
    January 17, 2012 at 5:10 pm

    “WUWT is normally the third site I visit after I get home. Sadly, since this the second time Willis has been allowed to indulge his oversized ego recently on this site, I will look elsewhere for Counter AGW info. WUWT now seems to stand for Willis’s Underwhelming Worthless Tripe.
    Drop me a line when the site goes back to it’s main purpose”

    When you read “Guest Post by Willis Eschanbach” at the top of an article then don’t read it. I know that’s easier said than done. It’s like trying to walk past a train wreck without looking. But in principle the choice IS yours so you’re not really entitled to complain about it.

  300. “He and I disagree on many things, because he’s an AGW supporter and I’m a climate heretic.”

    I definitely prefer the term “climate heretic” to “climate skeptic”, since the former emphasizes the religious/unfalsifiable nature of the CAGW belief.

  301. Kasuha says:
    January 17, 2012 at 2:51 pm

    “- atmosphere acts as thermal insulator between surface and vacuum”

    An insulator must impede the flow of energy for it to work. An atmosphere transparent at all relevant wavelengths does not impede the flow. That’s an elevator door speech by the way because it can be told in the time it takes an elevator door to open or close.

  302. I am a lay person, and I was very disappointed over what took place. I have seen some comments regarding the extremely arrogant Joel Shore.

    The man was invited to write a blog post and he refused. Tallbloke did the same with another person who as “trolling” and who had an opinion that was different. That person wrote a post and yes many of us picked the post to pieces, including yours truly, because Malthus was wrong!!

    I am disappointed because as a non-scientist I was not getting to grips with these new theories, and it would have been more illuminating if Willis had taken the time to read the papers and then comment upon them, pointing out where the theory appeared to be wrong, in his view and then coming up with something that was more edifying.

    As it stands right now I am getting more out of the Talkshop than what has been produced by Essenbach on this site… and to be honest that is a real shame.

    Essenbach will do better when he decides to teach in a simple way so that lurkers like myself are learning something.

    We know that climate science per the IPCC reports is bs. What we want is better explanations that can help us to understand why we know that this stuff is just plain B.S!!

    Also as a blog owner, I have the right to moderate comments, and to trash comments that I feel are the work of the trolls. I did that today because I realise that people will try to leave a misleading comment. In the case of someone like Joel Shore who tends to monopolize a thread, I contend that it is the right of a blog owner to tell the person he or she is under moderation due to the trolling nature of the comments. If the comments lead people away from the subject then that is a specific type of trolling. It ruins threads.

  303. I don’t know whether anyone else has commented on this, Willis, but, respectfully, these elevator summary statements …

    • In turn, some of that absorbed energy is radiated by the atmosphere back to the surface.

    “• As a result of absorbing that energy from the atmosphere, the surface is warmer than it would be in the absence of the GHGs.,”

    … are not correct.

    The greenhouse warming at the surface is due the fact that the mean free path of the upwelling IR radiation has become very much less than the depth of the troposphere. The result is that, e.g., surface-emitted 15 micron IR radiation is reabsorbed by CO2 (or water) many times before it escapes into space.

    The reabsorbed radiant energy can be converted into kinetic energy, which is efficiently transmitted among air molecules by collision. As a result of the low mean free path of re-radiated IR, the kinetic energy air molecules remains high. That’s the same as saying that the air remains warm.

    Eventually, of course, the greenhouse energy — inter-converting between kinetic and radiant energy — escapes to space in radiant form. The conversion and storage of radiant energy as kinetic energy just means that an atmosphere with GHG molecules must get warm (kinetically energetic) before it finally loses energy at the same rate that new energy (from the sun) impinges the atmosphere (the so-called in/out energetic equilibrium).

    But down-welling re-emitted radiant energy from energetic GHGs does not warm the surface like radiation from an infrared lamp. The surface is warm because the long mean free path of long-wave IR radiation, due to GHGs, produces air molecules with higher average kinetic energy.

    So, the elevator summary might say,
    • Due to its long mean free path, some of that absorbed energy is, in turn, re-radiated back into the atmospheric gases

    ‘• As a result of re-absorbing that energy the atmosphere is warmer than it would be in the absence of the GHGs.

  304. “Never try to teach a pig to sing, it wastes your time and annoys the pig.” -unknown

    Precisely how this fits here I am not sure, but it’s what came to mind as I read all of this.

  305. Willis,

    I just submitted our Reply Part 1 to comments on our GH paper. The reply is already posted at the Talkshop, see:

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/01/17/nikolov-and-zeller-reply-to-comments-on-the-utc-part-1/

    and Anthony will soon post it here as well. You will get your desired 5 bullets (‘elevator speech’ points) in our Reply Part 2. But in order to understand them you need to have a ‘walk-on-the-beach’ speech first. So, be patient …

    On the question whether our the N&Z theory violates the laws of Thermo – NO, it does NOT! Increasing a system’s kinetic energy (internal temperature) as a result of increased pressure is in complete agreement with thermodynamics. What violates the first Law of Thermo is the current GH theory, which allows kinetic energy to be created as a function of changing gaseous composition. They do that magic in climate models through decoupling of radiative transfer from convection .. So, it would wise for you to stop making claims about a concept that, upon your own admission, you do not understand … :-)

    Read our first reply and start thinking!

  306. Is it too late to broker peace between the parties?

    Tallbloke – Would you rescind the ban on Joel from your site if Joel agreed to phrase his opinions differently (and others who share the opinion of the theory if they behave accordingly)?

    What I mean is, rather than saying “this theory breaks the second law of thermodynamics”, adding “it is my opinion/belief/feeling/understanding” allows more room for disagreement without antagonism.

    Saying “I disagree” is a whole lot better an approach than “you are wrong.”

    Joel- would you be amenable to that type of approach where robust debate was possible without (even accidental) nastiness?

    Willis- (sorry, at a loss here, I don’t see much prospect of a reconciliation between you and Tallbloke, though I wish you would both try). I have to ask- given the divisions and infighting and the loss of respect you have caused for both you and Tallbloke. Was it really worth it?

    I must admit that this thread is something I would have expected from the more rabid AGW promoting sites. It is like the passage in Animal farm where the animals look through the window and realise that they can’t see any difference between the pigs and the people.

  307. Willis, I followed your earlier post “A Matter of Some Gravity” and every comment through about 750 or so as you you laid the scissors to rest. I wasn’t aware of your diabolical plan, I just wanted to get the gist of the non-GHG physics as isolated within itself. There was good discussion and I feel that your point with regards to that was good. The question that I was looking for an answer to was ‘is there any radiation of some form involved with conduction between the molecules of the non-GHG’?

    I congratulate you for keeping the discussion on topic as to the clear parameters that you set from the start. Seems many wanted to avoid those at any cost. You kept the focus for about 700 comments. When you laid the scissors to rest clouds, CO2, water vapor, night/day, spinning earth, etc., and everything but the topic of the original post and the kitchen sink showed up.

    I guess that I may be in a minority status here but I have to support your position as “Willis Scissor Hands”. By the way, I could not get an arguable grasp on the gravity related heating having a net effect on the earth energy budget. I just assumed that there was something that was over my head or my head wasn’t into it at the time I read it..

  308. JDN says:
    January 17, 2012 at 10:39 am

    @Willis:

    I thought you were banning and snipping based on lack of cooperation in the discussions you were having, not scientific belief. Isn’t that really what’s going on?

    Indeed I was snipping off-topic posts. People seem to forget that I said what I would snip, and then I snipped what I said. Now people want to claim it was some huge trick or that they were deceived or that I was engaging in censorship. I said what I would do before I did it. Where is the deception?

    w.

  309. James Sexton says:
    January 17, 2012 at 3:37 pm

    Jeremy, you’re missing the point. And I’m not sure I can express this any better. But, yes, Willis is attempting to coerce TB (Roger) into accepting who and what Willis wants to see on Roger’s blog.

    You say,

    “So lets discuss and compare exactly who was banned on each blog and compare the justifications….”

    No, let’s not. There is no codification of what does and doesn’t happen on a skeptical blog. Nor, should there be, either written or understood.

    Nor should there be? Are you saying that anything goes with respect to scientific discourse? Are you suggesting that anyone purporting to have and maintain a blog on sound scientific reasoning should be allowed to whimsically ban people?

    This isn’t the Youtube comments section we’re talking about, these are skeptical science blogs attempting to pursue truth, demonstrable truth. I find it amazing that you can say “nor should there be.”

    So, the argument is, banning is okay as long as it rises to some abstract level some skeptics arbitrarily see fit. And, apparently Willis and others have deemed Roger unfit to make this discernment himself. Because Roger cannot run his blog properly, deception, and other forms of censorship and coercion are deemed acceptable. Because, Roger cannot come the the same reasonable conclusion we have.

    I’m not saying that at all, I think you misread me badly. I’m saying removal of access to comments at a blog seeking any sort of scientific credibility should be based upon blog rules of conduct, not arbitrary determinations of opinion and character based on behavior away from said blog.

    Do you now not see how this method is illogical and circular. How it repeats the imagined offense of Roger?

    It’s not imagined. How is being banned for speaking truth an imagined offense? Would you consider your offense and anger just your imagination if that happened to you? Roger Tallbloke banned someone from commenting simply because he imagined the offense of someone else to a 3rd party. If the scientific community worked this way you would get 100% of your papers rejected from a journal simply because you submitted a letter to the editor of a local newspaper that upset some regular reviewers at the journal. Oh wait, that is happening, it happens in Climate $cience already.

    Willis is standing up to the same sort of behavior we condemn on the other side of this overall issue. You are refusing to see that in favor of an imagined scenario where Willis is denying liberty and interfering with a fellow man’s right to blog. This could not be further from the truth. Willis has DONE NOTHING to Tallbloke’s blog. He has not threatened him at all. He has not made stated demands of equal post time to competing theories. He has not told TB to do this or the beatings will continue. He simply forced TB to experience the effects of his own actions on others ONE TIME. TB is free to do whatever he wants with his blog and always has been. It is YOU who is imagining things by suggesting some sort of hostage situation wherein Willis is promising further intellectual beatings unless TB shapes up. This subject is essentially closed with Willis’ previous post (I would imagine anyway, Willis correct me on this). It is now up to Tallbloke to realize that he’s censored someone for no good reason and soften his stance on this issue.

    Ask yourself what Willis has done to Tallbloke. Did Willis threaten TB with the ban axe at WUWT unless he allowed Joel to post? No. Did he make any overt demands of content change at TB’s blog AT ALL in his post here about that theory? NO. So exactly what horrific thing has Willis done to TB OTHER THAN demonstrate how horrible it is to be moderated out of discussion for speaking truth as you see it?

    I disagree with Roger’s decision. <—— (See how easy that was?) But, it is Roger's blog to do as he sees fit. I disagree more with the response to Roger’s decision. Reflecting? If TB is a reflection upon skeptics, how much more so is the content of WUWT?

    Disagreeing with TB’s decision IS NOT ENOUGH. If we’re going to call ourselves skeptics, we MUST STAND UP TO CENSORSHIP. The other side doesn’t do this. There are no warmist blogs that openly condemn censoring comments they disagree with. Should we be like them and simply turn a blind eye to censored commenters and comments? Is demanding equal opportunity to express ideas at fellow blogs an act that constitutes “denial of liberty” ??? REALLY?? Roger censored a commenter based purely on disagreement. Willis did not like that action and after attempting rational discourse on the issue and meeting no understanding he lured Roger into experiencing exactly what Roger is doing to someone else.

    That’s all that happened. Anything else is an exaggeration.

    I’m not missing any points James. You have got some kind of terrorist/blog-hostage situation stuck in your head clouding your perception of what has happened. If you really believe that Willis’ actions constitute a denial of liberty to Tallbloke, then my comments in reply to you here must constitute some kind of denial of liberty directed at you. You can’t really believe that.

  310. Thank you Willis Eschenbach for what you say on January 17, 2012 at 11:27 am: i.e.
    “Not sure where you got that info, but K&T say that about 500 W/m2 are entering the surface and of course, the same amount are leaving”.

    As you are curtious enogh to do what I cannot, i.e. show the K&T chart, I shall try to explain.

    Please examine the chart as I endeavor to explain how and where I got that info.

    First – look at the right hand side of the chart – A thick yellow arrow depicting sunshine is pointing to the surface. All the energy available to mother Earth is coming in, and is “K&T style” depicted as 341 W/m², – 101.9 of those are reflected straight back to space – and are therefore lost from the Earth System (ES).
    78 W/m² are absorbed by the Atmosphere. That, if I am not mistaking leaves 161 W/m² to be absorbed by the surface. And as far as I can ascertain, that is what the K&T plan depicts,

    So far, so good, unless you have any objections, – Then the last incoming 161 W/m² interact with the surface and 17 + 80 W/m² leave the surface in the forms of “thermals and evapotranspiration” – That leaves the surface with 64 W/m² to do with as it pleases. But as you can clearly see from your chart submitted, the earth is emitting 396 W/m². Why should that happen if energy is to be conserved?.
    No object can emit more energy than it receives without cooling down.

    I do of course understand that it is possible that you may suscribe to the most unscientific theory of them all, namely that “Back Radiation” to the source decide the rate of radiation from the source.

    But no – surely not! — If you do, then think about it as if the fabled “Heat Energy” is just heat and substitute therefore, in your mind, W/m² for Degrees Celsius. However never mind that for now.
    You say that “according to K&T about 500 W/m2 are entering the surface and of course, the same amount are leaving”
    Actually K&T says that 239 W/m² are being absorbed by the Earth System (ES) and 239 W/m² are leaving on the space shuttle. – All other energy which you may, if you wish, call 500 W/m² is only what I will call “window dressing” and it does not matter whether it is 1 W/m² – 239 W/m² or 500 of the little buggers. What leaves point A is lost from there and cannot therefore be retained by point A.

    If 100% of what is lost from A is absorbed by B and 100% of B’s gain is emitted equally in all directions from B then A cannot reasonably expect to receive any more than 50% of what it lost in the first place! – Simple –

    .

  311. Dear Anthony,
    I am not sure what transpired between Willis and Tallbloke, but maybe Willis needs his own blog.
    Warren in Minnesota

  312. Aussie says:

    I am a lay person, and I was very disappointed over what took place. I have seen some comments regarding the extremely arrogant Joel Shore.

    The man was invited to write a blog post and he refused. Tallbloke did the same with another person who as “trolling” and who had an opinion that was different. That person wrote a post and yes many of us picked the post to pieces, including yours truly, because Malthus was wrong!!

    First, in regards to your adjective “arrogant”, please read this: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/17/thanks-and-apologies/#comment-867434

    Second, I did not want to write a blog post for several reasons:

    (1) I didn’t feel I had the time necessary to devote to it and answering all the subsequent responses.

    (2) If I put in the work to do so, I didn’t trust that Tallbloke would actually post it or that he wouldn’t at some point cut my privileges to respond. In short, his arbitrary rules that I must apologize for saying what I know scientifically to be true in order to have the posting privileges of everybody else did not inspire much confidence.

    (3) I was not actually interested in spending a lot of time at Tallbloke’s blog. When I posted what I posted, I was simply interested in correcting one poster’s incorrect statements and giving the scientifically-accepted view on that one particular point. I had already made the decision that getting in a larger discussion of things like Nikolov and Zeller’s hypothesis over there was not a good use of my time.

    Also as a blog owner, I have the right to moderate comments, and to trash comments that I feel are the work of the trolls.

    It is a strange definition of trolls to apply it to someone who is actually trying to inject some correct science into a discussion that is mainly the trading back and forth of scientific nonsense. However, to a certain extent, I do agree with you on the larger point: I don’t have as strong feelings as Willis does that every blog owner has to open up the discussion to all comers. There is some advantage to using moderation to increase the signal-to-noise ratio.

    However, I also happen to think in this particular case, the way that Tallbloke has chosen to moderate things will insure that almost no serious scientific discussion takes place there. But, if Tallbloke wants his blog to be a place where like-minded people trade opinions that have little scientific truth to them, that is his prerogative.

  313. Peter S says:
    January 17, 2012 at 11:41 am

    I am afraid the whole thing has pretty much put me off coming back to this site, which is a pity, because it has been one of my favourites for the last couple of years, and I have huge respect for Anthony Watts and what he has made this site as a whole.

    Thanks, Peter. I’m sorry to hear that, but why not just skip my posts if they bother you?

    Willis- you may be right, but your methods are obnoxious, and, to be quite frank, I think that your approach has done nothing positive (apart from seemingly to have made you feel incredibly smug).

    I am sure that, with a different approach, things could have been resolved, even if it was only a matter of formally agreeing to disagree, and remaining friendly and respectful to one another.

    Perhaps so, Peter. I did try that approach first, posting on Rogers site and then corresponding with him. From everything that he said, there was absolutely no way he was going to change his mind.

    Now perhaps one should just shut up and walk away at that point as you advise. Me, I’m not made like that. It was an injustice to Joel, and a threat to the skeptic community’s high moral ground of scientific honesty and openness.

    The folks on the AGW side do what you advise. When they see the Climategate gang caught with their hands in the cookie jar, they “formally agree to disagree and remain friendly and respectful” with a bunch of lying, conniving scientific manipulators.

    So no, Peter, some things are not better solved by “agreeing to disagree”. Sometimes, a man needs to take a stand.

    As it is, you have just manufactured what is an ugly and scrap over a minor side issue, that is likely to distract from the main point, and spawned a general nastiness of which Joe Romm would be proud (In fact, if he is aware of this, I am sure he and his cronies are taking great delight in this- something you, and any others would do well to ponder before posting and inflaming things further).

    First, I do not see censorship as a “minor side issue”, I see it as a very important issue. I do not say you are wrong, but I say you are using your yardstick to measure someone else’s actions.

    Second, the “lets keep a united front against the opposition no matter what” meme is what Joe Romm and the AGW folks do. That response has led them to untold troubles and been a total failure, so I’m very surprised that you would suggest it for the skeptics.

    A couple of quotes spring to mind- one an old Chinese proverb – “If you fight evil with evil, then evil will always triumph.”

    What did I do that was “evil”, Peter? I told people I would snip off-topic posts and I did. I tried to get Tallbloke to reveal himself, and he did. Yes, I had my motives, but I did’t break laws or tell lies or mislead people in any way. I hardly see any of that as “evil”.

    The other is from an old TV series “Kessler” (it was a spin off from “Secret Army” a drama that was spoofed in “Allo, Allo”). Kessler at the end tried to justify his actions in the SS, saying that “The end justified the means” to which the other person replied “no, the end is the means.”

    What actually has been achieved? Does it make things better or worse?

    What has been achieved?

    • I’m now officially banned from the Talkshop, so that’s one gain because it brings up the banning issue yet again.

    • A whole bunch of folks at the Talkshop have been agitating against censorship, so that’s a gain, there’s a whole thread now at the Talkshop just for that.

    • The issue of censorship and banning is being discussed at length, here and at Tallbloke’s.

    • I showed that no “gravito-thermal” mechanism can warm a planet above the theoretical S-B temperature.

    • My post has provided a public place for a number of other people to tell TB that banning was a bad idea.

    • I’ve firmly established that to date not one person can explain the “gravito-thermal” theories in a clear and simple manner.

    My best to you,

    w.

  314. 389 comments read – I wish there was a better way of presenting this material – how about like/dislike tick boxes, maybe linked to group think stats ?
    I found this post tedious, no doubt the warmists are celebrating.
    I do like the escalator concept, possibly as an intro – good for the layperson and the verbose scientist. hueristics 101

  315. David Porter says:
    January 17, 2012 at 11:52 am

    … Sad Willis, but “we” were on the same side untill your massive ego got in the way.

    Thanks, David. “The same side” of what?

    w.

  316. Oh, I almost forgot.
    Gravity is a Force. A force causes work to be done. You can’t do work without energy!!! Does this violate the “Conservation of Energy”? Perhaps, perhaps not. Perhaps potential energy is greater than we thought. ——- You ladies can take it from there.

    My goodness, to understand we have a flawed numerical and science system isn’t earth shattering. What’s amazing is that skeptics are rejecting new science because it conflicts with accepted science.

    But, either way you turn this one, accepted science in one form or the other gets turned on its head. Either gravity is a force or it isn’t. It isn’t good enough to say the “Conservation of Energy” trumps the posit that gravity is a force. That’s vapid.

    Good evening,

    James

  317. Kevin says:
    January 17, 2012 at 12:43 pm

    I have to say that I hope Mr. Watts does not allow Willis the freedom to pull a stunt like this again. Well, I don’t have to say it, but I’m going to.

    Wouldn’t work twice in any case, Kevin, so you are totally safe.

    w.

  318. For all those claiming to be planning to no longer read WUWT, Willis has generated, at this point, 360 comments here and 1,075 on ‘A Matter of Some Gravity’. What got your interest to comment? Looks like someone has an interest.

    Pal Review does not exist at WUWT. That is why we are here now and if you are here now then you aren’t going anywhere so bitch until you are happy!

  319. • The surface of the earth emits energy in the form of thermal longwave radiation.

    • Some of that energy is absorbed by greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere.

    • In turn, some of that absorbed energy is radiated by the atmosphere back to the surface.

    • As a result of absorbing that energy from the atmosphere, the surface is warmer than it would be in the absence of the GHGs.

    Filling in a few gaps:
    • The surface of the earth emits energy in the form of thermal longwave radiation, which cools it.

    • Some of that energy is absorbed by greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere, but is overwhelmingly transferred to non-GHGS by conduction.

    • In turn, some of that absorbed energy is radiated by the atmosphere back to the surface, though most, virtually all, radiation from GHGs is of energy picked up by contact with non-GHGs.

    • As a result of absorbing that energy from the atmosphere, the surface is minutely warmer than it would be in the absence of the GHGs, due to a minute lag in a minute fraction of the surface radiation’s escape to space.

    • At the upper levels of the atmosphere, all GHGs, especially H2O but including CO2, preferentially radiate to space, which the non-GHGs cannot do. This results in net cooling by the GHGs.

    There; (partially) fixed.

  320. Willis Eschenbach says:
    January 17, 2012 at 6:47 pm
    “What did I do that was “evil”, Peter? I told people I would snip off-topic posts and I did. ”

    No issue with that as such. What I think is wrong is the base concept of doing something like that as a trap to cause public humiliation to another person.

    ‘So no, Peter, some things are not better solved by “agreeing to disagree”. Sometimes, a man needs to take a stand.”

    I have no issue with taking a stand in public either. Agreeing to disagree is not diametrically opposed to making a stand against something. You could have made a post here about Tallbloke banning Joel without the subterfuge. It would have still sparked debate, and it could have been done in a way that still allowed Tallbloke to change his stance whilst keeping his dignity.

    “Second, the “lets keep a united front against the opposition no matter what” meme is what Joe Romm and the AGW folks do. ”

    I am not against disagreements- am all for robust debate. I just think that it is possible to do this without resorting to underhand tactics or they type of nastiness that Romm displays.

    ‘First, I do not see censorship as a “minor side issue”’

    Fair enough. Though I was actually meaning the ‘ “gravito-thermal” theories’ (which I was meaning as minor issue when looking at the subject of Climate as a whole.

    In the main, I have found your posts informative and enjoyable in the past. The reason I considered not returning to the site is that I fear that a Pandora’s box of unpleasantness may have been opened on this site, and that it could end up polluting the comments are site wide (and I have often enjoyed the comments on articles almost as much as the articles).

    I appreciate you taking the time to reply to my post.

    All the best

    Peter

  321. James Sexton says:
    January 17, 2012 at 6:52 pm

    But, either way you turn this one, accepted science in one form or the other gets turned on its head. Either gravity is a force or it isn’t. It isn’t good enough to say the “Conservation of Energy” trumps the posit that gravity is a force. That’s vapid.

    Good evening,

    James

    I’d be interested in your take on this cross-post of mine from some other blog:

    In the absence of the Sun, the other potential energy sources (fission decay, the Cosmic background, etc.) would have to be taken into account, of course. But in any case there’s likely going to be little atmosphere to be concerned with; it’s likely to be liquified and/or solidified — i.e., part of the crust. Except for — hydrogen and helium. They happen to like very low energy input atmospheres, and hence can concentrate into ‘gas giants’ like Jupiter and the other 3 biggies out there. In the process of ‘coming together’, of course, a great deal of positional PE is turned back into KE (AKA heat), so their cores and mid- to lower-level ‘atmospheres’ get very hot. In a sense, the COG geometric point around which they collected is a matter of happenstance. A few alterations in the local ‘gravity wave’ tweaks to the starting environment (before the molecules started falling in towards each other) would have perhaps selected some other point, or none at all. In which case the particular slice of PPE (Potential Potential Energy) that now has [initiated and] potentiated their warming up would have remained purely hypothetical.

    [The PE the whole Earth has wrt the Sun, or Jupiter, or Sag-A (galactic core), is huge, and best left unrealized. It presently shows up in the motion x mass vector in some direction incompatible with arriving at those COGs. Let us give thanks ...]

  322. Joulse Verne says:
    January 17, 2012 at 8:02 am
    //////////////////////////////////////////

    I believe your suggestion about regulating to maintain constant pressure in each test chamber is valid. In a few days I will have the time to re run the experiment. I can connect a air bladder (hot water bottle) to each chamber and with a square of plywood and some house bricks I can create a constant pressure in each chamber. One of the advantages to this is that I can create a far greater pressure differential between the chambers than I have previously achieved. This should provide a more conclusive result.

  323. Well, Willis, after reading a bunch of the above comments, I would say that your big ego made you screw the pooch, popularity-wise. But I still appreciate your thoughts, probably because I don’t give a damn about popularity and you generally write interesting articles.

  324. Mydogsgotnonose says
    This is because the IPCC version was based on four fundamental scientific errors in the deceptive security of the assumption that CO2 drove the World out of ice ages.
    ———
    The IPCC or any climate scientist does not say that CO2 drove the world out of the iceage.

    It says that changes in solar heating did that but the effect is amplified by CO2. It seems that no one has been able to get explain how solar variations alone are sufficient to dispel an iceage. Evidently the climate sensitivity to solar insolation changes are not large enough if the solar insolation changes act alone.

  325. Willis,

    I don’t post much, I just read & learn. I’ve enjoyed your posts in the past. However, Willis, if you had pulled this sophomoric stunt as a part of my engineering team I would have fired your unprofessional butt.

    Where you may have convinced yourself of high ideals, your actions were more in line with what I’d expect from a one E. Mann than a real scientist.

    I guess I will now turn to other WUWT authors for rational enlightenment.

    Best,
    -S

  326. I’m in two minds about this.

    On the one hand it’s tallbloke’s blog so he can do as he likes in his own blog.

    On the other hand I was banned from there, not because of what I said, but because of what I might say. Seems tallbloke does not like debate unless he can stack the odds in his own favor.

    If tallbloke is now whining about being censored himself, it sounds rather self-centered to me, and I find it slightly amusing.

  327. Willis are you an acolyte of Dawkins and Hitchens ? This episode you have narrated seems to fall into the “lets be uncivil” category that they promote. I think science should be kept in the realm of a civil society.

  328. Lou says:
    January 17, 2012 at 1:41 pm

    What a disgusting display of arrogance. WUWT used to be good. Really now, we are “proving” scientific theories by elevator speeches? Bring back science.

    Thanks, Lou. I fear you misunderstand. An elevator speech is not used to prove a scientific theory, and you can’t prove a scientific theory except in special cases.

    It is very useful for a couple of things. One is to help me organize my own thoughts. If I can boil them down to a limpid concise clarity, I know I have them in order and that I understand them.

    A second one is to be able to communicate my ideas easily and clearly.

    Finally, they are useful to establish whether someone knows something. If they can’t explain it, they don’t understand it.

    But no, you are right, they’re nothing to do with “proving” theories.

    All the best,

    w.

  329. dlb says:
    January 17, 2012 at 2:10 pm

    Willis, I think you should have condensed this post into an elevator speech.

    Missed my chance … next time.

    w.

  330. Jeremy says:
    January 17, 2012 at 6:24 pm

    James Sexton says:
    January 17, 2012 at 3:37 pm
    ================================================================
    Sigh, Jeremy, I’ve had too many beers to respond to each of your assertions. Again, you are missing the point.

    We are not a collective unit. We gather for a collective purpose. Willis brought his personal piss fight to WUWT, where it had no reason to be. Last I checked, this isn’t Willis’ blog. If it is, someone let me know and I’ll quit coming by. If you want to believe Willis is standing on principle, that’s fine. I disagree.

    You ask, “How is being banned for speaking truth an imagined offense? “ That bothers me greatly. One, because I don’t believe Joel stated the truth. And two, you, nor Willis are the arbiters of truth.

    Going into a good example. Jeremy, I run a blog. It is a skeptical blog. But, more than that it is a socioeconomic political blog. I expect many to disagree with what I say and do on that blog. As a matter of practice, I don’t censor. Nor do I anticipate the necessity. But, if I were to ban someone, should I expect fellow skeptics to “lay traps” for me? Should I then also expect them lay malfeasance at my feet? Would I expect WUWT, with it’s 100,000,000 page views to be casting dispersions my way? What if I blog for money? (I don’t but some do.) I notice TB has a tip jar, as does WUWT. I don’t believe it will make a difference one way or the other, but it could.

    That would be a damned shame, because in a very small way, I’ve helped it achieve it’s 100,000,000 views. Worse, Roger has contributed more than I have. And we’ve both been here for some time.

    In closing, and I can’t stress this enough, it is Roger’s blog! It isn’t any business of Willis’ what he does with it. Nor, yours nor mine. If I have a problem with Roger and the way he handles his blog, I’ll go to him. If he refuses to see things my way, likely I’ll drop it. Or, I may even blog about it…….on my own blog! But, what I wouldn’t do, is I wouldn’t air my trash and attempt to assassinate the character of a person who has carried skeptical torch for some time.

    Jeremy, we’re probably best just agreeing to disagree. You are, btw, more than welcome at my blog. Again, I don’t do censorship, but I don’t have the audacity to presume to tell someone else how to run his/her blogs either.

  331. James Sexton says:
    January 17, 2012 at 2:12 pm

    Willis Eschenbach says:
    January 17, 2012 at 12:49 pm

    in response to James Sexton says: January 17, 2012 at 12:40 pm

    “Censorship is worse,……..”

    ===================================================================
    No, Willis, it isn’t. You’re trying to uphold a liberty by denying a liberty.

    James, whose liberty did I deny? Yours? What were you prevented from doing?

    I understand that something about this has you very upset. But truly, whose liberty did I infringe upon?

    w.

  332. I understood that this site was set up with a group of tireless, evenhanded and trusted moderators (by Anthony Watts as well as most contributors) who judged what comments got “snipped” based on well established rules of engagement. That open and well defined policy has always been, in my opinion, the distinguishing strength of Watt Up With That. How did it come to pass that Willis Eschenbach circumvented that well-established system and became “censor czar” for comments to his own article?

  333. Konrad,

    Might the difference be the different mass in each chamber? I’m guessing you are increasing the pressure by increasing the amount of gas (mass) in one chamber?

    Could one replicate the result with a chamber full of styrofoam and another full of say, steel?

    Just wondering.

  334. Bebben says:
    January 17, 2012 at 2:18 pm

    So now the once “excellent weblog Watts Up With That” (Roger Pielke Sr.) suddenly has morphed into a site where role-play and deception games are being played, and where you cannot trust any longer that words are written to mean what they say. The last couple of days this site’s quality has been degrading by the hour.

    Please stop this Anthony Watts.

    Bebben, I said nothing that was untrue or deceptive in the slightest. Yes, I had other motives in writing what I wrote, but show me the man who doesn’t.

    Think about it dispassionately, Bebben. What did I do that you see as so wrong? There was no deception, everything I did I announced in advance I was going to do. I didn’t say a single thing that I did not mean, I did not deceive anyone, so it is unclear why you feel you can’t trust something.

    All that happened was that IN ADDITION to the scientific discussion that went on, Tallbloke got hoist by his own petard. But for you, Bebben … what was the huge cost to you that you are upset about?

    All the best,

    w.

  335. I appreciate Willis’ ability to think through issues clearly, and to explain them in an enjoyable and very readable style. However, this kind of petty foolishness (on both sides) would be an embarrassment to someone half Willis’ age, and reflects poorly on this site. Banning people for scientific disagreement is stupid, but at least he did it on his own blog. Trolling and playing games with the readership of a widely read website you’re a guest contributor to is even moreso. I sincerely hope it’s the last of that seen from either side.

  336. hmccard says:
    January 17, 2012 at 2:27 pm

    Willis,

    After reading your comments in this thread, it apppears to me that you still don’t get it that it wasn’t merely your snipping in your previous post that turned off the readers. IMO, it was your Gavinesque-tone and demeanor as the self-moderator that was is such stark contrast to what we are accoustomed to seeing here at WUWT.

    Thanks, hmccard. My “Gavinesque-tone and demeanor”, I like that turn of phrase, although next to the Sultan of Scissors I am but a poor peon.

    I said I would snip things that were off-topic. You try doing it in other than a fairly fast style, with very short comments, and you’ll be there for a week. I was trying to keep the damn thread on line, and nobody but nobody wanted to give an elevator speech. So yeah, you’re likely right, I got cranky about everybody first posting stuff that was way, way off-topic and then bitching me out for being snipped.

    So you are right, hmccard, and let me offer my apologies, since this thread is thanks and apologies, to anyone offended by my tone and demeanor. I really did want to keep the thread on line, and I got crabby when it went all to hell, and I apologize for that.

    w.

  337. I am a complex and subtle man, and I’m generally playing a long game. Folks who see me as someone who unpredictably erupts in a rant underestimate me to their cost. My rants are all very carefully chosen and calculated, I have a clear, defined, and usually different purpose for each one, and my aim is to weigh and ponder each word and each tone and shading and to consider what they will do and what people will do in response.
    —————————————————————————
    Rather like the examples of Michael Mann or James Hansen, sometimes all you need to do is quote somebody’s words without further comment.

    When did WUWT become a vehicle for ego trips and personal vendettas?

    It was the absence of those things that drew me to this site, and has kept me here. I have no interest whatsoever in the internal mindscape of contributors, and suggest that it would best be kept between them and their therapist(s).

  338. BarryW says:
    January 17, 2012 at 6:52 am

    “Sun warms the earth’s surface, energy transfers by conduction to the gas, gas heats and radiates a percentage back to the earth which heats (same argument as used for GHG), heat transfers by conduction to the gas. Amount of heat transfer will be affected by the density of the gas. Denser gas, higher conduction. ”

    Heating by conduction stops as soon as the two things reach the same temperature at the interface. There is very little heat loss (less than 5%) from the ocean via conduction because of this as the air and water at the interface tend to remain very close in temperature. Heating of a greenhouse gas by radiation continues as long the gas is in the path which means it doesn’t stop when the temperature equalizes at the interface but continues to the top of the column. Non-greenhouse gas doesn’t heat at all from radiation and therein lies the crucial difference. Once equilibrium temperature is reached in the non-absorptive column it becomes invisible and no longer impedes energy loss from the surface. An absorptive column will continue to impede the energy flow regardless of temperature difference at the interface.

    If this is invalid then it would seem that GHG arguments would be invalid. The only difference is that they operate by radiation instead of conduction.

  339. An adjustment to the thought experiment which eliminates conduction and convection.

    Take your black body planet and enclose it in a perfectly transparent sphere (of perfectly transparent ‘glass’). There’s a gap between the glass and the black body surface, a perfect void.

    The non-GHG atmosphere sits outside the sphere.

    All incoming radiation reaches the planet* and there is no convection or conduction to the atmosphere (the void prevents that). The black body surface behaves exactly as it would had there been no atmosphere, that is it sits at the S-B temperature.

    We can then ask what the temperature will be in the atmosphere of this simplified model which still has gravity acting upon its gaseous mass.

    * When the atmosphere is gaseous, it needs to evaporate from ice to get there. All glass sphere is also a perfect rebounder, no kinetic energy absorbed.

  340. The hockey team must be rubbing their hands in glee over this kind of petty in-fighting, which is of no interest whatsoever to a general reader like me.

  341. A point of usage, moot at this point, but still worth noting:

    ‘Censorship’ is properly the prerogative of overriding, usually government, authority. It is not ‘censorship’ for a private publication (whether print or electronic) to refuse to publish a particular work, or the work(s) of a particular author. Said author always as the option to publish his work elsewhere, or if he cannot find an outlet, to publish it himself.

    I understand that if it is the stated editorial policy of a publication or website to publish all relevant contributions, so long as they meet certain standards, that to then deny a qualifying author or work the opportunity would be hypocrisy, and where standards of scientific or other openness are valued and proclaimed, perhaps contemptible. But it would not be censorship, properly speaking.

    /Mr Lynn

  342. Mr Lynn,

    I agree. One blog that practices outright government censorship is RealClimate, whose owners are paid with tax money, and who run their blog during tax-paid working hours. They routinely censor inconvenient and/or opposing comments. Censorship, by definition.

  343. tmtisfree says:
    January 17, 2012 at 2:31 pm

    Mr Eschenbach says

    The point was to keep alive the important scientific issue of openness and lack of censorship. That may not be important to you, and that’s OK. Claiming it was not important in some larger sense, however, that’s just your theory.

    One can discuss if “openness and lack of censorship” is a real scientific issue versus an epistemological one. Whatever it is, the “game” you played has not improved the issue in the slightest despite your “point to keep it alive”

    Now you make the same claim again, that somehow you have the view from on high. Before you claimed that you knew the issue I thought was important was really not important at all. Now, you claim that you know (although how you know is not specified) that the “issue”, whatever that might be in your mind, “has not improved.”

    While it’s great that you come to explain these things to us, I’m left with the nagging feeling that you don’t really know if “the issue” has improved or not. How would you know if it has or hasn’t improved?

    In any case, tmtisfree, it’s clear that some things you think are not important, I think are important. That wouldn’t normally be a problem … but you keep trying to get me to agree with your estimates of what is important and what’s not.

    Censorship of a scientific view is a scientific issue, not a epissantomological issue. I think it’s very important that the skeptical websites do not censor AGW scientists. The optics of it are horrible, it would cost us.

    You clearly don’t think so, tmtisfree, and that’s great. Go put your efforts into changing what you want to change. Everyone needs to decide where their efforts are best placed, where they think they will make the most difference to what they see as important.

    But to come tell me that what I care about is really of no importance on the real, international-standard tmt-approved celestial scale of importance, and to claim that I’ve made no difference to whatever you might believe “the issue” is?

    Sorry, that’s a step too far. I’m interested in your scientific opinion, but I’m not all that interested in your opinion on what’s important in the world.

    But hey, I know a place just down the web where some people think that cross-stitching samplers is important and that’s where they want to make a difference, in the world of artistic needlework.

    So how about you pop in there for a while and give them the benefit of your wisdom? Let them know that their cherished stitches are not that important, and that their efforts certainly haven’t improved “the issue” …

    I do what I can do to make the world a better place, tmt. Perhaps I succeed, perhaps I fail, but I don’t sit around and complain, I do something. You think that my goals are unimportant, and that’s OK with me.

    But what I don’t do is go around to your place and rag on you because your goals are not important to me, I don’t have time, I’m out doing something, and I consider it an imposition. Every person has to decide for themselves what is important.

    Best regards, tell the cross-stiching ladies hi for me,

    w.

  344. I understand that something about this has you very upset. But truly, whose liberty did I infringe upon?
    ===================================================
    Technically, of course, no one. You seem to have that wonderful ability to move from the abstract to the applied with ease. But only when it suits you to play obtuse. But, then you did use the world’s busiest science blog to cast dispersions towards Roger. In fact, you could call that a bit of character assassination. You also used a ploy in order for you to feel justified in doing so.

    But, if you want to play that game, in the applied world, you know that Roger didn’t censor anyone. Joel is free to comment all over the blogosphere. In the applied realm, your argument is the equivalent of berating a newspaper for refusing to print a perspective from a person they don’t wish to print. It’s petty and senseless. In the abstract world, specific to this country, viewing TB’s workshop as a journal, you’re claiming a 1st amendment foul and fouling the 1st amendment as a remedy.

    Willis, if you have a genuine curiosity about my perspective, then by all means ask, I’ll explain. If you feel the need for gamesmanship and senseless banter, shove. I don’t have the time nor the inclination.

    I’m busy trying to explain that our physical laws, like our math laws are not perfect. There are and always will be inconsistencies. Sorry, but you guys are wrong. An object dropping is because a force is working. Work only happens with energy. I know what the laws state, but what I’ve stated has the force of laws as well. Energy is easily expressed as heat. You can try to define the process all you wish. It doesn’t matter ….. friction, convection…. whatever. Work is occurring.

    1/3+1/3+1/3 = 1 or 1/3+1/3+1/3 = 0.999999……… Both are true, but because of the definition of equal, both can not be true.

    Willis, I’ll leave you with this, “Our worth isn’t defined by how many people we lay low, our value is in how many people we can cause to rise up!” Which way did that elevator go today?

    Best wishes going forward,

    James

  345. Alan Wilkinson says:
    January 17, 2012 at 2:41 pm

    dlb says: “Willis, I think you should have condensed this post into an elevator speech.”

    Agree. It was a mistake to play tricks but a much worse mistake to make a long speech about them. There were some interesting scientific issues raised in the last post and comments but none in this. IMO apologies should be short, sincere, to the point and devoid of self-justification.

    Yet another Apology Judge come to lambaste my apologies for improper form and not sticking the landing. You and the other guys should get together and sit on a bench so we can see all of your scores at once. Or perhaps you could give us some sample apologies, so that I could know what you give points for and what you deduct points for.

    I know there’s not much science in this post … did you really expect some?

    Finally, I felt that I owed people, not just thanks and an apology, but an explanation. Yes, it ran too long, but it was a complex story.

    Look, Alan, I could have kept my mouth shut and you’d have been none the wiser. Now you want to stand on high and judge my apologies.

    So let me try another one. Gee, Mr. Wilkinson, I’m sorry that my apologies don’t come up to your standards … naw, I’d score that as a 3.2, because unlike my apologies in the head post, that one was insincere.

    w.

  346. I wonder what the escalator summary for this post is ?
    e.g. – 2 guys disagreed over a point
    – one took his ball and went home
    – a bystander became involved
    – the disagreement has yet to be resolved
    – play is suspended.
    nice to see w taking an active interest in the comments, prob needs to be, given his orchestration of events. I may have missed it, but has tb conceeded some ground ? and do we now have a better understanding of the ‘point’ ? (I’m looking for a summary).
    not all problems have apparent solutions. make your best guess and come back later when more information is available. we don’t need to know everything now.
    there are gravy trains to derail !

  347. Chris B says:
    From Tallbloke’s blog
    (stuff from there)

    Well, I sorta understand it anyway, however, it won’t work. Lets try a thought experiment…

    Imagine, if you will, a universe with only two objects in it. One is a planet, say, earth sized, the other is a cloud of gas (non GH type gas). There are no suns, no background radiation, no radio actives in the planets core, no energy of any kind. Naturally, both the planet and the gas cloud are cold, probably close to absolute zero.

    Now, the planet wanders through the gas cloud. Needless to say, the planets gravity attracts the gas. The gas falls onto the planet. This produces friction, and heat. The gas, being non greenhouse, cannot radiate that heat, but it can and does conduct that heat to the ground of the planet. That planet can radiate heat, and does so. So far, so good, gravity has produced energy, in this case, heat from friction, which has now been turned into longwave radiation. However…

    This gas will continue to transfer it’s heat to the planet by conduction, and the planet will continue to radiate it out into space. As the planet radiates, it will cool down again. The bottom layer of gas will continue to conduct heat to the planet, which will continue to radiate it away. This longwave radiation will continue on forever, there being nothing else in this empty universe to heat up, and will be lost to the planet forever. The result is the bottom layer of gas will have it’s heat conducted out of it and radiated away, and eventually, that bottom layer and all the gas above it will lose all its heat and end up as a thin layer of frozen gas on a planet near absolute zero. We have now ended up pretty much where we started, the planet has gotten a tiny bit larger but that is about all, given enough time it will be as cold or very nearly as cold as it started.

    And this shows the problem with this gravity makes heat theory, yes, the gravity means the gas has potential energy, which is turned to heat energy when, and only when, it falls into the planet. However, it can only fall once, and only down, things don’t fall down, then fall up, and then fall down again, there is no repeating cycle of being able to fall down multiple times and produce heat from friction each time.

    Now a question, why does the gas on earth not fall straight down to the surface of the planet and form a thin solid layer (as the above gas eventually does)? It certainly cannot be because of gravity, gravity can only pull down, and once it has pulled the object of it’s attraction to, say, the solid surface of the planet, it cannot pull it any further down, and the object now resting on the surface no longer has any potential energy, there being no way it can fall any further and thus hit anything and produce friction. The answer is basically the same for gas as for, say, airplanes, some other force is holding it up. In this case, the gas is heated, by such things as direct heating by the suns longwave radiation (for GHG’s) , by UV radiation (for ozone), by indirect heating of non GHG’s by conduction by GHG’s, by convection and conduction, and by friction from the convection moving air around. The gas being heated by all these things causes the gas molecules to bounce off each other and this assume a distance from each other, expanding the gas so that it stays a gas and expands far above us. Gravity is not producing this heat that keeps it expanded, all gravity is doing is keeping the heat it has absorbed from all these various means in our neighborhood, rather than the gas expanding and shooting off into space never to be seen again, as it would if there were no such thing as gravity.

    So we see from the hypothetical planet above, where only the force of gravity exists to produce any heat ever, that it can only do so once, and when that heat is used up and radiated away, gravity will produce no more heat. One earth, it takes other energy, mostly from the sun, to heat up our gas and cause this gas to overcome the force of gravity and rise above us (or rise at all, for that matter). Yes, once the gas molecules are up there, gravity means that they have potential energy, however, all that energy came from a source other than gravity, which overcame gravity and rose the molecule up there in the first place. We thus see that the gravity does not give the molecule that potential energy, it got it from somewhere else.

    This is exactly like a rocket, if it goes high, it gains potential energy, which it can dive and convert to speed (and heat/friction if it dives into the ground), however, it uses it’s engines, not gravity, to overcome gravity and gain that potential energy, all that energy came from a source that is not gravity, and all the altitude that rocket can get must come from that other energy, and it will need more energy to go higher. When it starts as resting on the ground, it has no potential energy, it only has that when it has risen off the ground, the higher, the more potential energy. 100% of that potential energy must come from it’s engines, it can never gain more potential energy from any other source (lets assume it is taking off from the south pole, and going straight up).

    In short, a gas molecule is like the above rocket, given just gravity, it would fall to the surface of the earth and just lie there. The only reason we have air up there is because some energy other than gravity heated it up and it rose/expanded and thus overcame the force of gravity. It can never heat/expand/rise unless it gets some of that other energy (primarily solar, directly or indirectly), and it will rise (gaining potential energy to fall) only to the degree that it gains energy from the sun. It cannot rise and gain potential (gravity) energy from any other source, and can never have more energy than the sun gives it.

    I hope the above thought experiment shows that gravity alone can only give energy once, and once whatever it is (say, a gas molecule) has fallen and used up its potential gravity energy, it will never gain any more from gravity unless it gains some energy to overcome gravity from an outside source. Gravity as a source of heat/friction energy only works once, once that is done (billions of years ago), there is no more where that came from, you will have to look elsewhere for any more energy.

  348. Anthony Watts said on January 17, 2012 at 8:44 pm:

    @Willis 8:39 – I’ll be doing something to make the world a better place in T-16 minutes

    You’re shutting down the blog for 24 hours, joining in the SOPA protest?

    Oh Noes! Where we go without this site? What ever shall we do?

  349. I do what I can do to make the world a better place, tmt. Perhaps I succeed, perhaps I fail, but I don’t sit around and complain, I do something. You think that my goals are unimportant, and that’s OK with me.

    “It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”
    – Theodore Roosevelt.

  350. I’m must say I’m surprised by the negative responses. How does anyone get upset with someone pointing out hypocrisy?

  351. I finally had a chance to read the comments to this thread and all is clearer to me now. What I reckon we have is a case of a generally likeable and usually very entertaining Big Ego / Big Mouth, an Elevator, a quest for love, and a bit of wot an elevator does re: go up and down and all that.

    All ingredients of the following popular music video youtube. ;-) :-)

    Dunno about you lot but I’d rather see this thread end with a good laugh if it can be managed.

    regarDS

  352. Willis, it would not be difficult to compose a brief summary of what N&Z have said in their latest paper – “Reply Part 1.
    It does destroy your arguement, but I’ll refrain for the following reason and will also take my own good advice.

    I strongly urge both Willis and Tallboy to stop all further comment on this post.
    Better still, close it down and forget it, despite what anybody may write here, including myself.

  353. Brian H says:
    January 17, 2012 at 7:16 pm

    James Sexton says:
    January 17, 2012 at 6:52 pm

    I’d be interested in your take on this cross-post of mine from some other blog:
    ================================================================
    Brian, thanks for asking. I’m a bit humbled by you doing so. I’d have to contemplate some of your assertions for a while before I could offer any proper thoughts. To be perfectly honest, this isn’t my focus. There are many more here who can give you a better “take” than I. The best I can give you is that I don’t see any glaring misapplication of knowledge. Your “PPE” may need a bit of refining.

    Yes, I’m glad we haven’t realized the PE of the earth! I prefer to think of is as a near endless supply of unrealized energy for humanity. Or, an endless supply, depending upon one’s view of the “Conservation of Energy”. :-)

  354. AusieDan: “I strongly urge both Willis and Tallboy to stop all further comment on this post.
    Better still, close it down and forget it, despite what anybody may write here, including myself.”

    You don’t quite mean that, do you, Aussie…

  355. James Sexton says:
    January 17, 2012 at 3:37 pm

    Jeremy says:
    January 17, 2012 at 2:27 pm

    James Sexton says:
    January 17, 2012 at 2:12 pm
    ===============================
    Jeremy, you’re missing the point. And I’m not sure I can express this any better. But, yes, Willis is attempting to coerce TB (Roger) into accepting who and what Willis wants to see on Roger’s blog.

    No, no, and no. I am attempting to prevent skeptical blogs from censoring or banning people because of their scientific views. It has nothing to do with who I want to see on Roger’s blog, I don’t care in the slightest about who goes to his blog. It is about censorship of science, pure and simple. Not sure why you seem to have trouble with this concept.

    All the best,

    w.

  356. Merovign says:
    January 17, 2012 at 3:53 pm

    Wouldn’t straightforwardness have been *easier*, not to mention less destructive?

    Thanks, Merovign. I tried straightforwardness. It got me nothing.

    I don’t answer polls, I don’t answer the phone when I don’t know who’s calling, and I sure as shooting don’t have time for bloggers playing games with their audience.

    Nor did I ask you to. I played no games with the audience. I conducted a scientific discussion, which also caught a scientific censor. But I did not deceive or play games with you, Merovign.

    w.

  357. JC says:
    January 17, 2012 at 4:13 pm

    Einstein, when asked by the hostess of a party he was antending to “explain to her guests in a few words his Theory of Relativity”, told the following story: …

    I find no record of Einstein saying that, or anything like that. You have used an urban legend to try to make a point, which I fear is not uncommon on this website, although the urban legends are more commonly scientific in nature.

    Nor sure how to respond to being attacked using an urban legend, except to say that if your complaint about elevator speeches is based on an untrue fantasy about Einstien, you have real problems …

    w.

  358. jollygreenwatchman says:
    January 17, 2012 at 4:28 pm

    Cheers for a demonstration of capital P “Pragmatism” Willis, but I’ve already had my fill of that sort of thing from the likes of Phil Jones and Michael Mann (et al). Sorry, but AFAIC this article is far from being WUWT’s finest moments.

    “Subjective morality” not withstanding, did the ends really justify the means ?

    regarDS

    Did the ends justify the “means”? What terrible means did I use, my self appointed watchman? I told no lies, I did no terrible things.

    So … just what means are you talking about? WHAT DID I DO that has you upset? Please be specific.

    .w.

  359. PaulID says:
    January 17, 2012 at 4:51 pm

    To Joel Shore consider my opinion revised and as far as arrogance the attitude that you are never or very seldom wrong shows it well regardless of what you might think humility is something you and many warmists could use more of it is arrogance that is killing climate science right now the inability to admit that you might be not only a little wrong but in the case of Mann and others 180 degrees off of right.

    PauliD, Joel is no different in that regard that the rest of the inhabitants. Most everyone on this site thinks that they are not wrong very often. Except you, from your tone you must believe that you are wrong quite often. I won’t comment on that.

    But if so, Pauii, I fear you are in the minority. Joel is no exception, either here or anywhere on the planet. Most folks, if they answered honestly, would say that they are not wrong very often

    w.

  360. .oldgamer56 says:
    January 17, 2012 at 5:10 pm

    WUWT is normally the third site I visit after I get home. Sadly, since this the second time Willis has been allowed to indulge his oversized ego recently on this site, I will look elsewhere for Counter AGW info. WUWT now seems to stand for Willis’s Underwhelming Worthless Tripe.

    Drop me a line when the site goes back to it’s main purpose

    Geez, oldgamer, just skip my threads if they cause you pain. I truly don’t understand why you are busting Anthony for what I’ve done. If you don’t like me, don’t read what I write.

    w.

  361. Caleb says:
    January 17, 2012 at 5:17 pm

    Willis,

    Your “apology” is actually only a form of bragging. You seem to feel you are quite clever, and can pull strings and turn your fellow man into puppets. You are the high IQ puppet master, so much smarter than everyone else, I suppose.

    A third Apology Judge! This is indeed good news, now we can have a quoruma.

    Caleb, not sure what you are upset about. I did nothing to you. I did not tell any lies. I produced a proof, an interesting proof, and I requested elevator speeches. In the process, I caught a censor of science. But what did I do to you?

    Seriously, folks, you keep coming at me as though I’d murdered the Pope or something. I said I would snip. I did snip. Yes, I had ulterior motives, but who here does not? I did not lie, cheat or steal to achieve them.

    So where is the crime against you, Caleb, that has caused you to declare yourself Judge of the Apologies? How have you suffered so gravely through my actions?

    w.

  362. Allan Brodribb says:
    January 17, 2012 at 5:23 pm

    I am utterly staggered by how many people seem to miss the point in all of this. It is wrong of Roger to ban someone for stating what they believe.

    Willis has already apologised and welcomed Roger to his “house”. Roger has responded by banning Willis from his. This appears to me to put the ball back in Rogers court. I can understand why Roger feels pretty put out by this whole deal but would say that discussion and transperancy are the only ways to furthering understanding.

    Thanks, Allan. I too was surprised by the reaction … and the brickbats …

    w.

  363. Peter S says:
    January 17, 2012 at 6:18 pm

    Is it too late to broker peace between the parties?

    … Willis- (sorry, at a loss here, I don’t see much prospect of a reconciliation between you and Tallbloke, though I wish you would both try). I have to ask- given the divisions and infighting and the loss of respect you have caused for both you and Tallbloke. Was it really worth it?

    I have no problem with TB at all, only with his actions. As I said above, he’s wecome on my threads any time.

    Was it worth it? Definitely. Otherwise the issue would have sunk into obscurity, and Tallbloke’s actions would have disappeared without either protest or general knowledge and reflection.

    As to whether people lost respect for me, that’s their call. I cannot live my life based on whether other people approve of what I do, I’d never accomplish anything. Look at this thread. Some people say I was way wrong, others say I was definitely right. I can’t live my life looking at whether other people respect or agree with me, I’d go mad.

    I would hope that people would look, not at what other people including my opponents say I did, but at what I actually did. Yes, there are anguished screams from the crowd … but what did I actually do?

    All the best,

    w.

  364. Jeremy says:
    January 17, 2012 at 6:24 pm

    … Disagreeing with TB’s decision IS NOT ENOUGH. If we’re going to call ourselves skeptics, we MUST STAND UP TO CENSORSHIP. The other side doesn’t do this. There are no warmist blogs that openly condemn censoring comments they disagree with. Should we be like them and simply turn a blind eye to censored commenters and comments?

    Thank you, Jeremy. Yes, my methods were not of the first water. I didn’t like them myself, but I had no others.

    The problem is as Jeremy said. We cannot do what the AGW folks do, censor opposing views, or we are no better than they are. And in particular, we must stand up and object to censorship when we find it. We can’t just sit and say “well, I don’t have any methods to protest”. I didn’t have any method either, so I made one up. Not the nicest method, but we’re not playing pattycake here, there are important issues at stake.

    So I didn’t just sit there. I did something. Sorry it didn’t fit some folks preconceptions, but I broke no rules, told no lies, stole nothing and told people in advance what I was going to do. I’m not happy about doing it that way, I’d have loved to do it some other way, but it was very successful.

    All the best,

    w.

  365. O H Dahlsveen says:
    January 17, 2012 at 6:30 pm

    Thank you Willis Eschenbach for what you say on January 17, 2012 at 11:27 am: i.e.

    “Not sure where you got that info, but K&T say that about 500 W/m2 are entering the surface and of course, the same amount are leaving”.

    As you are curtious enogh to do what I cannot, i.e. show the K&T chart, I shall try to explain.

    Thanks, O.H.

    I do not think there is anything impossible or against thermodynamic laws in the so-called “greenhouse effect”. I lay out the case, including the calculations, at my post “The Steel Greenhouse“. Please take a look, it answers your objections and shows the sources, paths, and sinks of all of the energy involved.

    w.

  366. William Martin says:
    January 17, 2012 at 6:49 pm

    389 comments read – I wish there was a better way of presenting this material – how about like/dislike tick boxes, maybe linked to group think stats ?
    I found this post tedious, no doubt the warmists are celebrating.

    Thanks, William. Celebrating? Not anywhere near as much as they would celebrate the loss of moral position of the skeptics if we start censoring opposing views, William. In fact, I hope they pay a lot of attention to how we police our own backyard, and that it inspires them to clean up their own.

    It is thinking like yours, that a “united front” is necessary and we should stifle internal debates, that the AGW folks have followed to their great cost. It has left them with “scientific” sites, staffed by serious scientists, who censor blog posts and ban people all day long … and nobody says anything because they’ve swallowed your “united front” ideas.

    I don’t want that for the skeptical side, William.

    w.

  367. Brian H says:
    January 17, 2012 at 7:08 pm

    • The surface of the earth emits energy in the form of thermal longwave radiation.

    • Some of that energy is absorbed by greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere.

    • In turn, some of that absorbed energy is radiated by the atmosphere back to the surface.

    • As a result of absorbing that energy from the atmosphere, the surface is warmer than it would be in the absence of the GHGs.

    Filling in a few gaps:
    • The surface of the earth emits energy in the form of thermal longwave radiation, which cools it.

    • Some of that energy is absorbed by greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere, but is overwhelmingly transferred to non-GHGS by conduction.

    • In turn, some of that absorbed energy is radiated by the atmosphere back to the surface, though most, virtually all, radiation from GHGs is of energy picked up by contact with non-GHGs.

    • As a result of absorbing that energy from the atmosphere, the surface is minutely warmer than it would be in the absence of the GHGs, due to a minute lag in a minute fraction of the surface radiation’s escape to space. …

    Thanks, Brian. Downwelling radiation is routinely measured daily in a number of locations around the world. The values vary, being higher in the tropics and lower in the arctic, as we’d expect since the amount of radiation is related to the temperature.

    However, it is not “minute” as you claim in the last point I quoted. It is quite large, and globally it averages to more energy than strikes the surface from the sun.

    So your changes in the elevator speech were fine up to there. But describing the action of ~320 W/m2 of infrared radiation on the ground as “minutely warmer” is a huge understatement.

    w.

  368. Willis Eschenbach says:
    January 17, 2012 at 11:38 pm

    James Sexton says:
    January 17, 2012 at 3:37 pm

    Jeremy says:
    January 17, 2012 at 2:27 pm

    James Sexton says:
    January 17, 2012 at 2:12 pm
    ===============================
    Jeremy, you’re missing the point. And I’m not sure I can express this any better. But, yes, Willis is attempting to coerce TB (Roger) into accepting who and what Willis wants to see on Roger’s blog.

    No, no, and no. I am attempting to prevent skeptical blogs from censoring or banning people because of their scientific views. It has nothing to do with who I want to see on Roger’s blog, I don’t care in the slightest about who goes to his blog. It is about censorship of science, pure and simple. Not sure why you seem to have trouble with this concept.
    ==============================================================
    This is nice, it’s nearly a private conversation……. cool. Responding to your comment……

    Yeh, except, the whole reason for this post was because he banned Joel. You see, Joel is a person. He’s a person who got banned from TBWS. And, according to you, that’s why you went through all of that trouble of setting traps and …. blah, blah…blah……

    Willis this isn’t your call. It isn’t for you to worry about what Roger is doing with his blog or not doing with his blog. I’m not sure why you’re having a problem with this concept. Let me break it down to you, one more time. It isn’t your blog. You are not Joel. Your are not Roger. It doesn’t concern you.

    More, TBWS wasn’t the first skeptical blog to ban people. TBWS won’t be the last. Joel hasn’t been “censored”. He can comment on literally millions of different places. In fact, he can come to mine and comment. But, you know that already. Roger’s blog isn’t a euphemism for “where all the science takes place”. Can I now, expect you to post about all of the skeptic blogs that ban people for their views? Will you call them out as you did Roger? Will you lay traps for them? Traps….. you would imagine that reasonable people could disagree without the concern that if they did disagree the other party would devise and lay in wait so as to make a point, regardless of the consequences. Willis, in retrospect, as clever as that was, do you think that was very smart?

    It is unbecoming of you to attempt to tarnish Roger’s name in this fashion. I understand. Roger’s actions isn’t what most of us skeptics would want. But it isn’t our call. If you felt the need to address it, you should have simply laid the cards out and stated plainly your case (us cowboys do that). Most would have been much more receptive. Instead, you chose deception and manipulation. And, then you patted yourself on the back about how well you played those people. (this is why you’re not very familiar with me, I can spot people like you from miles away and that’s where you stay)

    Willis, whether you recognize this or not, the reason for your post was because it was about you. And only you. You don’t give a damn about Joel and its highly questionable whether you give a damn about the science. There has likely been over 100 commenters saying exactly that. Hundreds more that didn’t comment but saw the same thing. Turns out, you’re not the one to discern what other people do with their property. You are not the arbiter of science. And, most importantly, you sure the hell ain’t the arbiter of right and wrong. I don’t believe you’d know it if it up and slapped the crap out you.

    I’m sorry if that seemed hurtful. But, it is the way I see it. Willis, you’re a sharp guy. You have a gift of words. You are a fountain of knowledge. With all of this, you can’t understand why people think you may have misapplied your abilities in this case? Maybe, just maybe, instead of worrying about what Roger and Joel are up to, you could contemplate other things. Not the least of which, would be your actions.

    Again, wishing the best going forward,

    James

  369. Peter S says:
    January 17, 2012 at 7:15 pm

    Willis Eschenbach says:
    January 17, 2012 at 6:47 pm

    “What did I do that was “evil”, Peter? I told people I would snip off-topic posts and I did. ”

    No issue with that as such. What I think is wrong is the base concept of doing something like that as a trap to cause public humiliation to another person.

    I appreciate the reply, Peter. If my intention were to cause TB public humiliation, you would be entirely correct. That is an intention no one could dispute is bad, and if it were mine, you would be 100% correct in your assessment. Doing anything to further such an intention is a wrong action.

    But that was not my intention at all, as indicated by my saying that TB is more than welcome to post on my threads. It is also indicated by the fact I said in various ways at various times that Roger is a good guy stuck in a bad situation.

    My intentions were 1) to put pressure on TB to end his censorship of science, 2) to publicize his scientific censorship so he could not do it without public comment, and 3) to show the AGW folks that yes, we do police our own side and clean up our own backyard. We don’t just sit quietly like they do as regards for example the RC censorship or the Climategate scandal, which they didn’t protest in the slightest.

    I fail to see anything evil in that.

    All the best,

    w.

  370. From James Sexton on January 18, 2012 at 12:48 am:
    “…who got banned from TBWS.”

    Wait a moment. It’s late, my brain is slowing, and you’re confusing me. I thought the site was “Tallbloke’s Talkshop” as it says in the “Skeptical views” blogroll section. Where did you pull that acronym from? TallBloke’s WankShop?

  371. Willis,

    Calm down. I was just pulling your strings. And you, my dear puppet, behaved exactly as I planned.

    In fact, when you found yourself hitchhiking last summer, you likely asked yourself what on earth you were doing it for. I tricked you into doing it, by pulling your strings in an earlier post about sailing. You’re just my puppet. Sarc/Off

    Now, I’m sure you will protest you are independent and unaffected by my string-pulling, and it is only Tallbloke who is the puppet. However no man is an island. There is nothing you do that is not a response to others.

    What separates our responses from those of savages and despots is the dignity of respect. Entire textbooks have been written on “Civil Procedure,” describing the correct ways of debating legal points. While you dot your i’s and cross your t’s, and are exceedingly correct in terms of science, you are a bit of a bull in a tea shop, in terms of civil procedure.

    To argue the science and ignore the civil procedure is a bit like the Dutch arguing all about the wisdom of neutrality in 1938. Even if you win the debate, you are up against a foe who doesn’t give a hoot about the debate, and plans to come marching into your tulip patches within months.

    To be honest, the ones pulling the strings are certain Alarmists. Over and over they send you meekly back to your drawing board, where you obediently go over truths with a fine-toothed comb, perhaps thinking they will see the light. They won’t. They have no intention of seeing the light. In some cases they knew their science was false right from the start.

    If you were dealing with civil people it might make sense to quibble about details of Freedom of Speech. You’re not. At some point you need to wake up to the fact the debate is over. They lost the scientific debate. All their talk now is just a delaying tactic.

    Talk-talk-talk-talk is useless, beyond a certain point. At some point we simply need to call Alarmism’s bluff. You need to consider the fact this may be what Tallbloke is attempting. However the distinction I am trying to make may be something you just can’t understand, until the police come for your computers.

  372. Hi Everyone,

    I am not a scientist. Some observations:

    1) This is childish;
    2) Every comment I’ve read here suggests intelligence. Regardless of your scientific opinion, this seemingly endless thread isn’t a good use for such highly developed brains (surely?).

    Please get back to working stuff out, you seem good at it.

    M

  373. James Sexton says:
    January 18, 2012 at 12:48 am

    Willis Eschenbach says:
    January 17, 2012 at 11:38 pm
    No, no, and no. I am attempting to prevent skeptical blogs from censoring or banning people because of their scientific views. It has nothing to do with who I want to see on Roger’s blog, I don’t care in the slightest about who goes to his blog. It is about censorship of science, pure and simple. Not sure why you seem to have trouble with this concept.
    ==============================================================

    This is nice, it’s nearly a private conversation……. cool. Responding to your comment……

    Yeh, except, the whole reason for this post was because he banned Joel. You see, Joel is a person. He’s a person who got banned from TBWS. And, according to you, that’s why you went through all of that trouble of setting traps and …. blah, blah…blah……

    Willis this isn’t your call. It isn’t for you to worry about what Roger is doing with his blog or not doing with his blog. I’m not sure why you’re having a problem with this concept. Let me break it down to you, one more time. It isn’t your blog. You are not Joel. Your are not Roger. It doesn’t concern you.

    James, thank you for your long and thoughtful comment. However, you are singing from the AGW hymnbook. That’s what they say to each other. “It’s not your call to protest censorship at RealClimate. It’s not your blog.” “It’s not for you to worry about what the Climategate folks do. You don’t work for UEA.”

    I truly don’t understand this. The AGW-supporting scientists have gotten into big trouble by following your advice. They don’t say anything about RC censorship. They stay schtumm about Climategate. It’s not their problem, they are climate scientists. Like you say, it doesn’t concern them. In fact, they don’t say a single thing in the face of overwhelming evidence of scientific malfeasance … just as you advise me to do.

    Staying silent and not protesting scientific malfeasance has left the field in a shambles … and you are advocating that the skeptics take it up? You are saying we should do nothing and stay silent if skeptical websites take up the unscientific practices of the AGW folks?

    Not my style at all, my friend, and more to the point, that’s a recipe for suicide.

    More, TBWS wasn’t the first skeptical blog to ban people. TBWS won’t be the last. Joel hasn’t been “censored”. He can comment on literally millions of different places. In fact, he can come to mine and comment. But, you know that already. Roger’s blog isn’t a euphemism for “where all the science takes place”. Can I now, expect you to post about all of the skeptic blogs that ban people for their views? Will you call them out as you did Roger?

    Sure. Send me a list, I’ll call them out in a hot second, although not like I did Roger. Censoring people because of their scientific views is a bad thing anywhere. But it is doubly bad at a skeptical website. Send me their names.

    Will you lay traps for them? Traps….. you would imagine that reasonable people could disagree without the concern that if they did disagree the other party would devise and lay in wait so as to make a point, regardless of the consequences. Willis, in retrospect, as clever as that was, do you think that was very smart?

    I did not set a trap for Roger because I disagree with him. That’s not true in any sense.

    I set a trap for him to try to get him to stop censoring people for their scientific views.

    Would I do it to someone else if they are censoring someone? Heck, I don’t know. In this case I was passionate about it because Joel, despite all the slanging that you hear about him, is an important person in the climate discussion.

    Why? Because he is one of the few AGW-supporting scientists who is willing to stand up for his views on skeptical blogs. None of the AGW rock stars will do so, they appear not to have the nerve for such an adventure. But Joel will.

    In addition, he’s no fool. Despite the fact that I disagree with him on many points, his science-fu is generally strong. So Roger was doing inestimable damage by censoring Joel because of his views. Roger was cutting the ground from under my feet, because I have been and remain a strong voice for scientific transparency and lack of censorship. When someone can say “Hey, don’t talk to me, skeptic sites censor people because they don’t like their science too”, that’s not good.

    So to return to your question, would I do the same for some random site, trap someone? Likely no. As I said above, I was not happy to use these methods. I only did so because I felt the issue was so important.

    It is unbecoming of you to attempt to tarnish Roger’s name in this fashion.

    Me tarnish Roger’s name? Me? My goodness, James, the man is censoring Joel because he disagrees with Joel’s scientific views. There is absolutely nothing that I could do which would tarnish Roger’s name more than that. My poor abilities don’t stretch that far, he’s done a right royal job I could never match.

    I understand. Roger’s actions isn’t what most of us skeptics would want. But it isn’t our call. If you felt the need to address it, you should have simply laid the cards out and stated plainly your case (us cowboys do that). Most would have been much more receptive.

    James, do you really think that being quiet and reasonable about it would have done anything but let the issue sink from sight without a sound? You say people would have been receptive, and you are right, but I’m not interested in how receptive you might be. I’m not trying to change your minds. I’m trying to accomplish something, I’m trying to get something done.

    I knew going in it would cost me, as I said above. And if I thought there were the slightest chance I could accomplish it some other way, I would have chosen that way. Unfortunately, realpolitik is not always that accommodating.

    Instead, you chose deception and manipulation. And, then you patted yourself on the back about how well you played those people. (this is why you’re not very familiar with me, I can spot people like you from miles away and that’s where you stay)

    Deception? Not really. I created a situation that I hoped Roger could not resist, but I did not deceive him, force him, or lie to him. I stated clearly what I did, nothing was hidden.

    This is the real world. I wanted to bring a huge amount of attention to the issue, not be all “receptive” about it as you recommend. I wanted to make a large, visible, widely-discussed protest against scientific censorship. Unfortunately, discussing it in a collegiate manner with you and other “receptive” folks would not achieve any of those things.

    So I chose a different path. I decided to combine a scientific discussion with an attempt to force Roger to discuss the issue in public. I had tried discussing it in public. He wanted me to take it private. I did. It went nowhere. I wanted to talk to Roger in a very public setting.

    I did not lie to Roger. I trapped him, yes, but you make it sound like the trap sawed his leg off. All I trapped Rodger into doing was publicly discussing the issues. I’m sorry, but I fail to detect a crime in there. Along the way, he displayed his lack of understanding of the very theory that he banned Joel for, by not being able to summarize the theory.

    Willis, whether you recognize this or not, the reason for your post was because it was about you. And only you. You don’t give a damn about Joel and its highly questionable whether you give a damn about the science. There has likely been over 100 commenters saying exactly that. Hundreds more that didn’t comment but saw the same thing. Turns out, you’re not the one to discern what other people do with their property. You are not the arbiter of science. And, most importantly, you sure the hell ain’t the arbiter of right and wrong. I don’t believe you’d know it if it up and slapped the crap out you.

    Since (as you say above) you avoid people like me, you may not have noticed that we don’t run our lives by polls, we leave that to politicians. It is a curious twist of fate that you are invoking the “consensus” … in any case, your reported scientific consensus is “Willis doesn’t give a damn about Joel or about science”, with a reported vote of at least 200 to hardly any.

    OK, got it. Not sure what to do with it, but I got it.

    And you are 100% correct, James, I am absolutely not the arbiter of right or wrong. No one is. All I can do is live my own life as best I know how, just as you do.

    I’m sorry if that seemed hurtful. But, it is the way I see it. Willis, you’re a sharp guy. You have a gift of words. You are a fountain of knowledge. With all of this, you can’t understand why people think you may have misapplied your abilities in this case? Maybe, just maybe, instead of worrying about what Roger and Joel are up to, you could contemplate other things. Not the least of which, would be your actions.

    God damn it, I started out this post by saying I’d misapplied my abilities, and exactly why I had done so. I said I wasn’t happy with it, but life is like that sometimes. Now you want to rag on me with a claim that I’m ignoring people saying what I had said … wait, what?

    James, I saw something that I saw as dangerous, censorship by a skeptical website of an important person in the climate discussion. I tried to remedy that by talking with the proprietor, first in public and then in private. He was absolutely intransigent, no sign of changing, no chance of relenting.

    So I took action. I didn’t have a lot of options because a gentlemanly discussion was not what was needed. I had to bring Roger to a discussion he didn’t want to attend. So I trapped him into discussing the issue and defending his views in public.

    You don’t like that. Not sure why, but for you, there was no problem with censorship of science, or if there was, I shouldn’t mention it because the AGW side would seize upon that. I don’t see the logic in that, it hasn’t worked for the AGW folks.

    Finally, James, I’m sure that there are things in your life that move you to action. Quite possibly, they would be about something that I think is totally unimportant, that I might judge as completely trivial in the larger scheme of things.

    But that doesn’t give me the right to judge your actions. If you think it is important, that’s your business. I’m not going to come around to your house and say “James, you don’t really care about that, you’re just pretending it’s important, that’s just your big ego trip” … you see how that sounds?

    Yet you feel qualified to do that to me … and then you want to lecture me about politeness?

    In any case, I do wish you well, James. It’s OK with me if you and a hundred others think that I shouldn’t say anything about scientific censorship. As I said, I’m not one for following the polls.

    Again, wishing the best going forward,

    James

    And I to you, James, and I to you.

    My thanks,

    w.

  374. Willis: Items 1-5 and 6-8 can stand alone. Two elevator trips. (9-11 will avoid confusion.)

    1) Energy from DLR arriving at the surface of the earth in regions with an unstable lapse rate can be immediately returned to the atmosphere by convection without warming the surface.
    2) Our atmosphere contains so much GHGs that the surface and lower troposphere can’t emit by OLR all of the energy they receive from the sun. The surface has warmed to the point where the average global lapse rate barely permits convection to remove the excess energy. The planet as whole is therefore on the edge of convective instability.
    3) Weather, the seasonal cycle and the diurnal cycle create regions where the lapse rate is unusually stable (low) and compensating regions where the lapse rate is unusually unstable (steep).
    4) DLR arriving at spontaneously stable locations can warm the surface, but an equivalent amount of energy can be lost from the compensating spontaneously unstable locations.
    5) QED, increased DLR from increased GHGs is required to warm the surface.

    6) Energy reaches and leaves the earth only by radiation. The earth’s temperature is determined mostly by radiative equilibrium high in the troposphere at the “critical emission level”, where 240 W/m2 of OLR can escape to space through the thin GHGs. Only about 1/6 of this amount is emitted by the surface and controlled by surface temperature.
    7) Surface temperature is controlled by the lapse rate between the critical emission level and the surface. The lapse rate is g/Cp.
    8) DLR arriving at the surface (emitted mostly by GHGs within 0.5 km of the surface) has NOTHING to do with the lapse rate or radiative equilibrium at the critical emission level.

    9) GHGs raise surface temperature by increasing the altitude of the critical emission level at which radiative equilibrium is established. A greater distance between the critical emission level and the surface will result in a warmer surface. If the critical emission level rises 1 km to permit radiation to escape through additional GHGs, the surface will warm about 6.5 degK.
    10) Consider the lapse rate, surface temperature and critical emission level (about 70 km) for Venus. Does surface DLR matter there? Hint: Radiative equilibrium produces a curved lapse rate; convection a linear lapse rate (for constant Cp and g).
    11) Read Lindzen’s Taking the Greenhouse Effect Seriously.

  375. dlb says:
    Kasua, a dense atmoshere has more in common with a heat sink than an insulator.
    _________________

    Dense atmosphere has first of all greater thermal capacity than thin atmosphere. So it can absorb more heat when the surface is warm and store it for longer time. That’s the quality of being better thermal insulator.
    _________________

    Joules Verne says:
    An insulator must impede the flow of energy for it to work. An atmosphere transparent at all relevant wavelengths does not impede the flow.
    _________________

    I am not sure which particular atmosphere do you have on mind but I was talking about Earth atmosphere. And that one definitely does act as a thermal insulator, otherwise we’d have temperatures comparable to those on Moon here.
    And by the way, purpose of elevator speech is to give you points from which you can start thinking about the matter, not to give you short enough time to dismiss it with an invalid argument.

    My main point is, anybody claiming that the N&Z paper breaks thermodynamic laws did not pay enough attention or just did not understand when reading it.

  376. Ned Nikolov says:

    I just submitted our Reply Part 1 to comments on our GH paper. The reply is already posted at the Talkshop, see:

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/01/17/nikolov-and-zeller-reply-to-comments-on-the-utc-part-1/

    and Anthony will soon post it here as well.

    Ned,

    Thanks for the reply.

    First, I would like to say what is good about this reply: It is well-written and clearly explains your thinking and I thank you for that. Furthermore, the actual calculations that you do appear to be correct.

    However, there are some quite erroneous statements and interpretations as discussed below that will presumably set the stage for major incorrect conclusions in the second part of the reply.

    Here is a brief discussion of the most major errors:

    page 3:

    Since Earth’s mean surface temperature is 287.6K (+14.4C), the present theory estimates the size of ATE to be 287.6K – 254.6K = 33K. However, as pointed out by other studies, this approach suffers from a serious logical error. Removing the atmosphere (or even just the water vapor in it) would result in a much lower planetary albedo, since clouds are responsible for most of Earth’s shortwave reflectance. Hence, one must use a different albedo (alpha_0) in Eq. (3) that only quantifies the actual surface reflectance. A recent analysis of Earth’s global energy budget by Trenberth et al. (2009) using satellite observations suggests ˜ 0.12. Serendipitously, this value is quite similar to the Moon bond albedo of 0.11 (see Table 1 in our original paper), thus allowing evaluation of Earth’s ATE using our natural satellite as a suitable PGB proxy. Inserting alpha_0 = 0.12 in Eq. (3) produces 269.6K, which translates into an ATE of only 18K (i.e. 287.6 – 269.6 = 18K).

    This is mainly a semantic issue: The conventional assumption of a constant albedo is used in order to derive the temperature rise attributable to the greenhouse effect alone. It is true that clouds also have another effect, in that they change the planet’s albedo, but that is a separate issue. Furthermore, if you do want to imagine removing the albedo due to clouds, you really also have to then ask how the surface albedo of the colder planet will change due to the increase of snow and ice. (But then…Does the planet still have water on it to form snow and ice? It depends by what magic we got rid of the IR-absorbing gases in the atmosphere! We thus get into various hypotheticals!) I think the best “clean” statement that we have is that if we imagine somehow turning off the radiative greenhouse effect without changing anything else, then our planet would be about 33 K colder.

    page 5:

    In a recent analytical study, Smith (2008) argued that Eq. (5) only describes the mean temperature of a non-rotating planet and that, if axial rotation and thermal capacity of the surface are explicitly accounted for, the average temperature of an airless planet would approach the effective emission temperature . It is beyond the scope of the current article to mathematically prove the fallacy of this argument. However, we will point out that increasing the mean equilibrium temperature of a physical body always requires a net input of extra energy. Adding axial rotation to a stationary planet residing in a vacuum, where there is no friction with the external environment does not provide any additional heat energy to the planet surface. Faster rotation and/or higher thermal inertia of the ground would only facilitate a more efficient spatial distribution of the absorbed solar energy, thus increasing the uniformity of the resulting temperature field across the planet surface, but could not affect the average surface temperature. Hence, Eq. (6) correctly describe (within the assumption of albedo uniformity) the global mean temperature of any airless planet, be it rotating or non-rotating.

    No…You guys have failed to fully understand the implications of Holder’s Inequality. First of all, there is no condition that says that additional heat energy can’t be added to the planet: It is receiving energy from the sun! Hence, conservation of energy has been misapplied here.

    The correct way to apply energy conservation is to note that what is required is that the planet will be near (and always pushed toward) a state of radiative balance where it is radiating back into space the same amount of radiation as it receives from the sun. What Holder’s Inequality shows is that there are lots of different temperature distributions having lots of different average temperatures that satisfy the criterion that the average radiative emission is, say, 240 W/m^2. A planet could thus hypothetically have any average temperature compatible with Holder’s Inequality, which means any average temperature lower than the average temperture for a perfectly uniform temperature distribution (which is ~255 K for a blackbody earth); the actual one that occurs will depend not only on the distribution of insolation (in space and time) but also on the convective, advective, and conductive transport mechanisms in the atmosphere, oceans, and (to a lesser degree) solid surface.

    page 9:

    Meanwhile, data published by NASA planetary scientists clearly show that the value 250K-255K adopted by the current GE theory as Moon’s average global temperature is grossly exaggerated, since such high temperature means do not occur at any lunar latitude! Even the Moon equator is 44K – 49K cooler than that estimate. This value is inaccurate, because it is the result of an improper application of the SB law to a sphere while assuming the wrong albedo (see discussion in Section 2.1 above)!

    It is not really a matter of one being more accurate than another. It depends very sensitively on how you define the average temperature of the surface, e.g., is the surface the first millimeter of the planet’s surface or is it the first meter? The data from Diviner presumably is measuring the temperature right at the surface. However, if you go several centimeters down, you find the temperature remains remarkably uniform between day and night and you get the average value of around 250 K. This is explained, for example, here: http://www.asi.org/adb/m/03/05/average-temperatures.html

    Hence, average surface temperature of an airless planet is not a very well-defined quantity because of the large temperature swings right at the surface. This is fundamentally because lots of different average temperatures (corresponding to different temperature distributions) lead to the same amount of power emitted by the planet’s surface.

    page 11:

    The main result from the Earth-Moon comparison (assuming the Moon is a perfect gray-body proxy of Earth) is that the Earth’s ATE, also known as natural Greenhouse Effect, is 3 to 7 times larger than currently assumed. In other words, the current GE theory underestimates the extra atmospheric warmth by about 100K! In terms of relative thermal enhancement, the ATE translates into NTE = 287.6/154.7 = 1.86.

    Not really…What the results, correctly interpretted, show is that it is probably not very useful to talk about an average temperature for an airless planet where the temperature distribution is so non-uniform. That is why scientists usually talk about the “average temperature” determined by averaging T^4 and taking the 4th root.

    This finding invites the question: How could such a huge (> 80%) thermal enhancement be the result of a handful of IR-absorbing gases that collectively amount to less than 0.5% of total atmospheric mass?

    First of all, you can’t really appeal to intuition here…What is a reasonable thermal enhancement due to the IR-absorbing gases? How is one to know?

    More importantly, nobody is claiming that the IR-gases are responsible for such a large thermal enhancement. They are responsible for raising the average emissions of the surface from ~240 W/m^2 to ~390 W/m^2, which for any sort of reasonably uniform temperature distributions (such as that which occurs on the Earth presently) corresponds to a temperature rise of ~33 C.

    Hence, the evidence suggests that the lower troposphere contains much more kinetic energy than radiative transfer alone can account for!

    The limitation imposed by the physics is not directly on the amount of kinetic energy that the troposphere can contain. It is receiving huge amounts of energy from the sun! The limit is instead set by radiative balance…i.e., that the Earth must radiate back out into space the same amount as it receives from the sun (or else it will warm up or cool down).

    The thermodynamics of the atmosphere is governed by the Gas Law, which states that the internal kinetic energy and temperature of a gas mixture is also a function of pressure (among other things, of course).

    The “among other things” is alas the rub. The Ideal Gas Law alone does not uniquely constrain the surface temperature.

    In the case of an isobaric process, where pressure is constant and independent of temperature such as the one operating at the Earth surface, it is the physical force of atmospheric pressure that can only fully explain the observed near-surface thermal enhancement (NTE). But that is the topic of our next paper… Stay tuned

    (1) What process is isobaric?

    (2) Try as one might, one is not going to explain the fact that the Earth’s surface emits an average of ~390 W/m^2 while the Earth + atmosphere absorb an average of ~240 W/m^2 without acknowledging that the atmosphere must absorb some of the terrestrial radiation emitted, i.e., that there is a radiative greenhouse effect.

  377. Mr Eschenbach says:

    Now you make the same claim again, that somehow you have the view from on high. Before you claimed that you knew the issue I thought was important was really not important at all. Now, you claim that you know (although how you know is not specified) that the “issue”, whatever that might be in your mind, “has not improved.”
    [...]
    Censorship of a scientific view is a scientific issue, not a epissantomological (sic) issue. I think it’s very important that the skeptical websites do not censor AGW scientists. The optics of it are horrible, it would cost us.

    Despite you repeating it, nowhere I claimed the issue is important or unimportant (= strawman). What was interesting to me is that the “game” you played and failed (the CAWG scientist, whatever that self-contradiction means, is still banned and you have had to apology many time for your “game”) was below the line. Let me explain why.

    What I support is the Liberty of Mr Tattersall to ban someone because his right to do so is well defined. I place this Liberty above all others. You tried to rescind his Liberty to manage his blog by calling a ban a “censorship against a AGW scientist” (the bomb, see below) and finally play a “game” against him (lend the bomb) publicly by a mean that is no different of terrorists (the scale is very different of course but the move and motive are very similar). His Liberty to ban is well above the manner you try and fail to publicly force him to unban. Of course this kind of action is doomed to failed (given your country you should have known better) and it’s a pity to see this “game” coming from you given the many enjoyable posts I read here.

    That does not means I support the initial ban by Mr Tattersall (it’s irrelevant here). I just respect the right he has to ban because he has the Liberty to manage his house according to his will. Likewise I respect and defend the right of AGW people to ban if they want to. To paraphrase, I disagree with what he has done but I will fight to the death to protect his Liberty to do so. Not to do it had already and will cost us.

    I hope this clarifies the matter. Back to Science now.

  378. At Tallblokes Nicolov and Zeller explain the nature of the Earths atmospheric thermal effect elegantly and very convincingly. I will leave it to the maths experts to check the numbers.

    I look forward to the explanation of the origin of such a large atmospheric affect. Its about 90K at the equator and 150K at the poles when Earth is compared to the moon, atmosphere versus no atmosphere.

    They will follow up with an explanation in part 2 later.

    But, I am going to chance my arm at an explanation:

    The denser it is, the greater is the energy that the atmosphere accumulates and the more effective it is in transferring energy from low to high latitudes and from the day to the night side thus raising the temperature in what would otherwise be very cold locations. If there is no atmosphere, there is no warmth at two meters and no redistribution.

    There is a necessary minimum level of greenhouse gas to facilitate the atmospheric absorption of the small portion of energy that leaves the surface of the earth as radiation. But in fact most of the energy is transferred to the atmosphere by conduction and evaporation. Any increase in the proportion of the atmosphere that absorbs the Earths long wave radiation is unlikely to promote an increase in surface temperature because, in the grand scheme of things, this is a minor and already very well developed process. Compare the relative presence of CO2 at 390ppm and ozone at about 1ppm, the latter reversing the decline of temperature with altitude at the tropopause.

    It is the bulk density of the atmosphere that in the first instance that determines the ‘average’ surface temperature. In the case of the Earth, there is an even more efficient absorber and transporter of energy….the oceans. Together the atmosphere and the oceans raise the temperature of mid and high latitudes well beyond that of the moon, a good proxy for what the Earth would be if there were no atmosphere and no ocean.

    Since the density of the atmosphere is relatively invariable and the radiative feedback effect already very well expressed we must look for a different explanation for the change in surface temperature. Change in cloud cover is the obvious alternative. There is very strong evidence that the temperature of the cloud bearing layers of the middle and upper troposphere is affected by change in ozone content that has its origin in polar processes.

  379. Konrad says:
    January 17, 2012 at 7:19 pm

    Joulse Verne says:
    January 17, 2012 at 8:02 am
    //////////////////////////////////////////

    I believe your suggestion about regulating to maintain constant pressure in each test chamber is valid. In a few days I will have the time to re run the experiment. I can connect a air bladder (hot water bottle) to each chamber and with a square of plywood and some house bricks I can create a constant pressure in each chamber. One of the advantages to this is that I can create a far greater pressure differential between the chambers than I have previously achieved. This should provide a more conclusive result.
    ___________________________________________________________

    That’s how science is done. Good on you for doing it right. You da man.

    If you contact Anthony I think he would be happy to have you write up this and your experment with retarding evaporation to test the ability of LWIR to heat water. I know I’d enjoy seeing it along with pictures of the apparatus. A good friend of mine and role model for me since the 1960’s is Forrest Mims who used to write the “Amateur Scientist” column in Scientific American and continues to this day doing experimental science as an amateur. He was very into electronics and computers in the 1960’s and 1970’s and so was I only I was much younger and simply following his instructions for building cool stuff.

    http://www.forrestmims.org/

    I salute you, sir.

  380. Willis sez:

    I did not set a trap for Roger because I disagree with him. That’s not true in any sense.

    I set a trap for him to try to get him to stop censoring people for their scientific views.

    Sorry, that’s a distinction without a difference. You disagreed with his “censorship” practices, therefore you disagreed with him.

  381. Joel Shore said:

    However, if you go several centimeters down, you find the temperature remains remarkably uniform between day and night and you get the average value of around 250 K. This is explained, for example, here: http://www.asi.org/adb/m/03/05/average-temperatures.html

    Sorry…I was a little sloppy there with arithmetic. The source I linked to actually says the average value a meter down is about -35 C or 238 K. I assume what going a meter down does for you is averages over the day-night cycle but there is still considerable variation in the temperature with latitude, which is why the average temperature is still below what would be predicted as the blackbody temperature for a uniform temperature distribution.

  382. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    January 18, 2012 at 1:07 am

    From James Sexton on January 18, 2012 at 12:48 am:
    “…who got banned from TBWS.”

    Wait a moment. It’s late, my brain is slowing, and you’re confusing me. I thought the site was “Tallbloke’s Talkshop” as it says in the “Skeptical views” blogroll section. Where did you pull that acronym from? TallBloke’s WankShop?
    =======================================================
    lol, no, it is my error, for some reason after a few beers, my mind wants to call Tallblokes Talkshop, Tallblokes workshop. I don’t know why.

  383. Gases are affected by gravity. A gravitational field would constrain the movement of gas.The more gas the greater the mass. the greater the mass ,the more molecules per unit volume will manifest. From there on u can calculate pressure,volume ,temperature and mols. The ideal gas laws have not been disproved and we are dealing with a situation within these gas laws.

  384. Willis Eschenbach says:
    January 18, 2012 at 12:01 am
    yes Willis I am wrong very often after all I am married and have 2 teenagers I don’t think I have been right since about 2005 and I do appreciate your comments :).

  385. PaulID says:
    January 18, 2012 at 9:37 pm

    Willis Eschenbach says:
    January 18, 2012 at 12:01 am
    yes Willis I am wrong very often after all I am married and have 2 teenagers I don’t think I have been right since about 2005 and I do appreciate your comments :).

    Thanks, PaulID. As a married man with a teenage daughter, fortunate, I had just swallowed my coffee when I read your post.

    All the best,

    w.

  386. This still leaves the question, what do you do when someone keeps insisting on nonsense when commenting on a blog. You almost need to state up front the assumptions for the blog. For example, you might state that the 2nd law of thermodynamics has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect, and that any post to the contrary will get snipped.

    That way, people could choose a blog where they at least agreed on the basics, and therefore could have (what they perceive to be) a sensible discussion.

    If there was a “skeptical” blog which didn’t believe that most climate scientists are corrupt and are falsifying their work, I’d be interested…

  387. “In the case of the Earth, there is an even more efficient absorber and transporter of energy….the oceans”

    I agree.

    Back in 2008 I said that the oceans should be included with the air for the purposes of calculating the so called Greenhouse Effect , now to be known as The Atmospheric Thermal Effect (ATE) in order to distinguish it from the older concept.

    In fact my 2008 article bears a lot of similarities to the N & Z ‘new paradigm':

    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1562&linkbox=true&position=7

    “Greenhouse Confusion Resolved”.

  388. Joel Shore says:
    January 18, 2012 at 4:05 a

    “(1) What process is isobaric?”

    Pressurization of gas (atmosphere).

    “(2) Try as one might, one is not going to explain the fact that the Earth’s surface emits an average of ~390 W/m^2 while the Earth + atmosphere absorb an average of ~240 W/m^2 without acknowledging that the atmosphere must absorb some of the terrestrial radiation emitted, i.e., that there is a radiative greenhouse effect.”

    The Energy Budget of Earth is irrelevant to the atmospheric temperature near its surface.

    Joel Shore, I hope I can help your understanding by saying, the budget is wrong it takes 390 W/m2 at the earths surface to achieve maximum kinetic energy of its mass, and it takes less W/m2 as pressure lowers to achieve maximum kinetic energy of its mass, etc upwards.

    My initial thought on the theory lead me to see how the S-B equation is wrong. I’ll let you know when its broken.

  389. The Earths Energy Budget is wrong. I should read not the amount available to but the amount its convection requires for mass to achieve its maximum kinetic energy, and by inference, its maxium Energy saving.

    Why is the Earths energy Budget dismissive of Energy received into its gavitational field, that it does not require? Strange economics to me.

  390. arkus says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    January 19, 2012 at 12:33 am

    The Earths Energy Budget is wrong. I should read not the amount available to but the amount its convection requires for mass to achieve its maximum kinetic energy, and by inference, its maximum Energy consevation.

    Why is the Earths energy Budget dismissive of Energy received into its gravitational field, that it does not require? Strange economics to me.

  391. So Number in 1,000,000,000,000,000 Wm/2. Number needed by convection for isothermal, stored kenetically, X = suface, y = 1 klm, z = 10 klm, etc. … Number out 1,000,000,000,000 WM/2 – x+y+z.

    Now, all things on Earth being equal … What goes in must come out, except what is need for life.

  392. Normally I read your posts with relish, Willis. You are an excellent communicator. However, this spat is not doing climate scepticism or you any favours. This is the sort of childish point scoring bollocks we expect from the likes of Jones, Mann and Romm. There are better ways of discussing yours and Tallbloke’s differences. This shenanigans makes you look boorish, vindictive and smug beyond belief. You disappoint me. :0(

  393. UK Sceptic says:
    January 19, 2012 at 12:57 am

    Bollocks, it has been the best science I’ve seen ever.

  394. Joel sez:
    It is not really a matter of one being more accurate than another. It depends very sensitively on how you define the average temperature of the surface, e.g., is the surface the first millimeter of the planet’s surface or is it the first meter?

    Thanks for bringing your points here for debate Joel, it makes it much easier for me to engage with you where impartial moderation can take place. To your question:

    The surface, where the measured radiation to space occurs, is at the very top of the first millimeter, or meter, or mile.

    It doesn’t really matter much what the subsurface gets up to in terms of absorbing, retaining and conducting energy back upwards, providing you integrate the outgoing energy at the surface across all seasons and longitudes/latitudes to get your average surface temperature.

    Cheers

    TB.

  395. http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/oceansandclimate.htm

    “84% of the energy available to warm earth’s surface has gone into the ocean during the 48 years from 1955 to 2003; 5% has gone into the land; 4% has gone into the atmosphere; and the remainder has gone into melting ice. (Levitus, 2005)

    The ocean stores and transports heat.
    Temperature in the atmosphere, even global changes in temperature are slowed by the exchange of heat with the ocean. Thus, 18 times more heat has been stored in the ocean since the mid 1950s due to global warming than has been stored in the atmosphere. Most of the heat trapped by greenhouse gases has gone into the ocean, not the atmosphere. ”

    Ignoring al the silly global warming interpretations, the figures are interesting.

    as SW (shortwave) visible light (our eyes consider it “visible” because it’s the most potent and dominant part of the local Sun’s spectrum, so we’re adapted to use it.

  396. While I, and probably the majority of us) don’t agree with Tallbloke’s decision of conditional censorship I don’t agree with Willis’ “trick” either. But then, being female I guess I’m missing that blokeish humour angle.

    Shrugs.

  397. Joules Verne says:
    January 18, 2012 at 6:54 am
    Konrad says:
    January 17, 2012 at 7:19 pm

    Joulse Verne says:
    January 17, 2012 at 8:02 am
    //////////////////////////////////////////

    I believe your suggestion about regulating to maintain constant pressure in each test chamber is valid. In a few days I will have the time to re run the experiment. I can connect a air bladder (hot water bottle) to each chamber and with a square of plywood and some house bricks I can create a constant pressure in each chamber. One of the advantages to this is that I can create a far greater pressure differential between the chambers than I have previously achieved. This should provide a more conclusive result.
    ___________________________________________________________

    That’s how science is done. Good on you for doing it right. You da man.

    If you contact Anthony I think he would be happy to have you write up this and your experment with retarding evaporation to test the ability of LWIR to heat water. I know I’d enjoy seeing it along with pictures of the apparatus. A good friend of mine and role model for me since the 1960′s is Forrest Mims who used to write the “Amateur Scientist” column in Scientific American and continues to this day doing experimental science as an amateur. He was very into electronics and computers in the 1960′s and 1970′s and so was I only I was much younger and simply following his instructions for building cool stuff.

    http://www.forrestmims.org/

    I salute you, sir.

    =========

    Please oh please would you do a test to show how much blue visible light heats water?

    I am so fed up of this moronic idea from the AGW science fiction department that visible light heats land and oceans.

  398. Joel Shore says:
    January 18, 2012 at 4:05 am

    “(2) Try as one might, one is not going to explain the fact that the Earth’s surface emits an average of ~390 W/m^2 while the Earth + atmosphere absorb an average of ~240 W/m^2 without acknowledging that the atmosphere must absorb some of the terrestrial radiation emitted, i.e., that there is a radiative greenhouse effect.”

    ========

    The most obvious reason is that the incoming figures are wrong – as I said on the gravity thread.

    If you excise the actual thermal energy unidirectional direct from the Sun heating the surface, land and oceans, this is what you’d expect to find.

    The AGWScience Fiction energy budget is physical nonsense –

    The thermal energy of the Sun is what we feel as heat, we cannot feel visible light.

    Visible light is not a thermal energy.

    This idiotic fiction has given the properties of the great thermal energy of the Sun, which reaches us direct from the Sun in 8 minutes, to visible light!

    And, taken this real thermal energy direct from the Sun out of the energy budget!

    This is, quite frankly, beyond stupid.

  399. Re: Myrrh says:
    January 19, 2012 at 1:11 am

    Sorry, the last sentence in that post is something that BrianH said elsewhere, not relevant to the post.

  400. Having thought about this for a couple of days, I’d like to add my dissapointment. It’s almost like a self inflicted ad-hom attack: if someone shows themself to engage in what is clearly intended to be manipulative behavior directed against others, to “trap” them, what does that say about that person? Can you now trust them not to manipulate facts and data? Trust and respect are difficult to get back once lost.

  401. Joel

    Good to see you and tall bloke engaging here. This has been a very strange episode which does not reflect well on the key players. I agree with Uksceptic that this seems to be some sort of blokeish thing whereby everybody wants to prove their virility by shouting the loudest.

    You, Willis and Tallbloke are big personalities and everyone seems to have got on their high horse and refuses to dismount. For what its worth I’m always glad to see you engaging in any sceptical forum and although we rarely agree I do respect your point of view.

    tonyb

  402. tallbloke says:

    The surface, where the measured radiation to space occurs, is at the very top of the first millimeter, or meter, or mile.

    Okay…but if you adopt that definition, what you are going to find is that the surface temperature is a very sensitive quantity and you can get huge differences in average temperature for different temperature distributions that all emit the same amount of power. Hence, anything that evens out the temperature distribution (such as starting to add an atmosphere) can result in a significant change in average temperature but no change in the power radiated from the surface.

    Also, N&Z justify this definition by saying that the temperature is important because that is what the energy is proportional to. However, if you have to go the top fraction of a mm in order to determine the temperature, the amount of energy stored in that fraction of a mm will be very small compared to the fraction stored in the first meter of surface, so in fact, looking at the first meter might be more representative of the energy stored.

    I’m not going to spend a lot of time arguing about which definition of surface temperature is better. The point is just to understand how your result might depend on your definition…and to understand the fundamental difference between two temperature distributions (with two different average temperatures) for a surface that result in the same amount of radiated power vs two temperature distributions with different amounts of radiated power.

    It doesn’t really matter much what the subsurface gets up to in terms of absorbing, retaining and conducting energy back upwards, providing you integrate the outgoing energy at the surface across all seasons and longitudes/latitudes to get your average surface temperature.

    But, like I said, if you are justifying using the temperature in the top fraction of a mm as being representative of energy storage, it won’t be very useful.

    If you are using it just to determine power radiated back out into space, then, yes, you should get about the same result whether you use the temperature in the first fraction of a mm or temperature in the first meter or whatever (as long as you are consistent over the surface). This is again a statement that there are lots of different temperature distributions with lots of different average temperatures that nonetheless lead to the same value for the average of T^4 and hence emitted power.

  403. A “Frosted Banana”? I hate it when my banana is frosted…. unless it’s chocolate…

    On “banning”:

    Willis, it is important to remember that not all things are the public square with civil servants to keep order. Not all speech can be free to all comers (lest things degenerate into a shouting match of the Agent Provocateurs…)

    So, for example, at my site, I sometimes can’t get ‘moderation’ done for a day or two at a time. There is “only one of me”. Because of that, some folks get an open microphone, others who have proven themselves little more than a PITA go to the bit bucket.

    By your rules, that makes me evil and to be shunned. Sorry to hear that, guess we won’t be talking much…

    But the simple fact is that my site is more like my workbook or notebook. Folks are welcome to look over my shoulder and comment, politely, or discuss among them selves. But I simply do not have the time to repeatedly enter into the same endless arguments with Trolls and related.

    If I indulged them, I would spend my entire life repeating the same things: It is bad calorimetry to constantly change the thermometers. You can NOT average temperatures from ‘different things’ and the air at a place is a different thing in a few hours with different humidity et. al. You can not average intrinsic properties (and temperature is an intrinsic property). Models can NOT conduct experiments. Model output is not “data”. etc. etc.

    So folks get told: Be polite, add something to the discussion, don’t consume too much of my time, and try to push forward understanding. Oh, and soap boxes are for shipping soap and trolls get tossed under the train trestle…

    Most folks can handle that. Some can’t. Again, by your rules, you would be one of them.

    So I’d suggest a bit of a ‘rethink’ about standing on principles of demanding an open forum at every forum, especially in the light of the reality of a lone person trying to manage their time so that they can get some work done; while trying to prevent the graffiti artists from turning the place into a dump.

    Per ‘the trick':

    Generally when ‘tricking’ folks, you just end up looking either mean, or dumb. Folks don’t like to be tricked, and they don’t like seeing others ‘tricked’ either. Me? Don’t really have an opinion on your ‘trick’. I didn’t stay around that thread long enough to ‘figure it out’. To me it just looked like you were being a bit high strung. Even with this posting, that old evaluation stays. ( It is hard to go back and rewrite old memories, so I’m not bothering… yes, sloth.)

    It may well have been all the things you described it to be. I’m not going to put in the effort to verify (and will not just accept as presented). I’d only suggest that if you need to apologize for something, it usually was not all that neat a trick…

  404. Myrrh says:
    January 19, 2012 at 1:22 am

    “Please oh please would you do a test to show how much blue visible light heats water?”

    I don’t need to do a test sweety. It doesn’t heat water to any extent that I could afford to measure. Water is transparent to visible light. The light falling on the ocean heats the solid impurities in the water. Depending on water clarity it can be a hundred meters before most of the light is absorbed.

    Now you know.

    Perhaps you’d care to watch an experiment where blue light is heating solids.

    You’re welcome.

  405. Joel Shore says:
    January 18, 2012 at 8:28 am

    Joel Shore said:

    However, if you go several centimeters down, you find the temperature remains remarkably uniform between day and night and you get the average value of around 250 K. This is explained, for example, here: http://www.asi.org/adb/m/03/05/average-temperatures.html

    Sorry…I was a little sloppy there with arithmetic. The source I linked to actually says the average value a meter down is about -35 C or 238 K. I assume what going a meter down does for you is averages over the day-night cycle but there is still considerable variation in the temperature with latitude, which is why the average temperature is still below what would be predicted as the blackbody temperature for a uniform temperature distribution.

    The same site at a different page claims the average surface temp is 250K (see link below). The actual year-round constant temperature of the regolith at two mid-latitude Apollo landing sites at any depth greater than 50cm is in fact 250K. Given the moon is geologically dead and has had billions of years for conduction to equalize the internal temperature below the surface throughout the body it’s pretty safe to say 250K is correct and should at least be regarded as a good working number.

    http://www.asi.org/adb/02/05/01/surface-temperature.html

    “I assume what going a meter down does for you is averages over the day-night cycle”

    You claim to be a physicist and that’s what you assume? I should think a physicist could do more than assume and he’d assume better than that to boot. In fact a meter down in any dry soil on the earth or the moon gives you a year-round average of the surface temperature. Diurnal variation disappears in a few centimeters.

  406. This whole episode is utterly pathetic and does credit to no one.
    Frankly some of this is pretty saddening to be.

    Its time People stopped the baiting to score some kind of gotcha points .

    Dissapointing guys very dissapointing!

  407. @Joel Shore

    I pinched this from Tallbloke’s site where you wrote:

    tallbloke: The evidence that they have violated conservation of energy is clear from all of the amusing contortions that people are going through to try to explain to Willis and I how it could possibly not violate conservation of energy. Stephen Wilde has gone so far as to try to get around it by appealing to the gravitational redshift [2]. Unfortunately, it turns out that said effect is 9 orders of magnitude too small, besides which, we already know the solution to the conundrum that the Earth’s surface is emitting ~390 W/m^2 whereas there is only 240 W/m^2 absorbed by the Earth and atmosphere from the sun: It is that as seen from space, the Earth is only emitting 240 W/m^2…The rest of the emissions from the Earth surface are absorbed by the atmosphere. We call this the atmospheric greenhouse effect…and it is what allows the surface to emit more energy than the Earth and its atmosphere receive from the sun.

    You are casting aspersions on Nikolov et al for a hypothesis that appears to violate conservation of energy and in the same breath you say the earth’s surface radiates far more energy than is delivered by its only significant source of energy?

    It appears to me your hypothesis is even more hare brained than Nikolov et al. Pray tell, Shore, what generates that extra 100 W/m2 the earth radiates over and above what is received from the sun? Energy accountants need to know!

  408. @Joules Verne: The answer is very simple – The earth’s surface emits ~390 W/m^2 of radiation but when the satellites look at the Earth from space, they only see the Earth emitting ~240 W/m^2 of radiation. Looking at the spectrum of the emission seen by the satellites shows why this is the case: the spectrum has “bites” taken out of it corresponding to the absorption bands of the various constituents in the atmosphere that can absorb terrestrial radiation.

    So, the elevator speech is this: “The Earth’s surface emits ~390 W/m^2 but some of that is absorbed by the atmosphere. (While the atmosphere itself also emits radiation, it emits it in all directions, so it absorbs more outgoing radiation than it emits out to space.) Hence, only ~240 W/m^2 is emitted by the Earth + its atmosphere, as seen from space. And, in fact, the only way it is possible for the Earth’s surface to be at a temperature such that it is emitting ~390 W/m^2 is if the atmosphere is absorbing some of these emissions, i.e., there is a greenhouse effect.”

    [Okay...I'm on an elevator in a pretty tall building!]

  409. @Shore (con’t)

    Since you seem to have great difficulty with conservation of energy I want you to realize that what greenhouse gases do is, in effect, lower the albedo of the earth’s surface. There is NO WAY that the earth’s surface can emit a total energy greater than it absorbs. This would violate conservation of energy. Therefore for greenhouse gases to “warm” the surface they can do no more than allow the surface to absorb more of the sun’s energy. They do this in a roundabout way of course by not directly increasing the net absorption but rather by decreasing the net emission. The effect is the same however and so are the limits on what may be accomplished within the inviolable law of conservation of energy.

  410. I would urge readers who are having trouble following Willis’s and Joel’s description of GHG absorption and re-radiation to spend some time looking at the MODTRAN program. There is a really nice web version at http://forecast.uchicago.edu/Projects/modtran.orig.html. You can clearly see how a GHG absorbs energy in certain bands and then re-radiates again with black body pattern for the temperature of the gases doing the radiating.

    Peter Spear

  411. @Joules Verne: I am really not sure what you are even trying to argue at this point. Why don’t you come up with some sort of clear statement of your beliefs?

    I have explained to you very simply how it is possible for the Earth’s surface to emit more than 240 W/m^2. If you believe there is any other way that this can be done without invoking a greenhouse effect, then you need to explain it and we’ll explain why you are mistaken.

  412. @Joules Verne: One basic point that you seem to be missing is that Willis and I are not concerned about the surface energy balance, which is complicated because there are other ways that the surface can receive and emit energy. What we are concerned about is the global energy balance of the Earth + atmosphere system (what is usually called the top-of-the-atmosphere energy balance).

    The point is that at the top of the atmosphere, the Earth system can only be emitting back out into space the same amount of power that is receiving from the sun (or else it will warm or cool). And, the problem is that if the surface is emitting ~390 W/m^2 and the atmosphere is not able to absorb any of this and prevent it from escaping to space, then the Earth system will be emitting 150 W/m^2 more than it receives. Notice that no amount of moving energy around within the system is going to save you from this fundamental fact because the only significant way that the Earth system communicates energy with the rest of the universe is via radiation.

  413. While I wait for a description of visible light heating land, as I’ve requested re this:
    Joules Verne says:
    January 19, 2012 at 7:17 am
    Myrrh says:
    January 19, 2012 at 1:22 am

    “Please oh please would you do a test to show how much blue visible light heats water?”

    I don’t need to do a test sweety. It doesn’t heat water to any extent that I could afford to measure. Water is transparent to visible light. The light falling on the ocean heats the solid impurities in the water. Depending on water clarity it can be a hundred meters before most of the light is absorbed.

    Now you know.

    ========

    I know well that water is transparent to visible light…..

    That water is a transparent medium for visible light and can’t heat it – but that’s not the AGW sales pitch about it, and I’ve had enough arguments on the subject and been enough references and so on to know that’s exactly what is taught – that visible light reaches the surface of the Earth and heats the water in the oceans. This is energy budget you’re all working to, that short wave radiation from the Sun heats the land and oceans, the KT97 model, the whole of the global warming energy budget is based on this, that thermal infrared direct from the Sun does not heat land and oceans.

    You’re the first to agree that water is transparent to visible light and visible light doesn’t heat it…

    ..everyone else argues that water absorbs visible light, and that blue light because it goes deeper heats the water even further down. The teaching is ubiquitous, for examples:

    “On average, about 51% of the sun’s radiation reaches the surface. This energy is then used in a number of processes, including the heating of the ground surface; the melting of ice and snow and the evaporation of water; and plant photosynthesis.”

    http://www.eoearth.org/article/Greenhouse_effect?topic=54099

    Light transmission and absorption

    “Light absorption in the open ocean [5]Life depends directly or indirectly on energy from sunlight. In the ocean, marine plants and protoctists use green chlorophyll and a few accessory pigments to capture the visible light from the sun. A large fraction of that sunlight is reflected from the sea surface back to the atmosphere. The remaining light enters the water and is absorbed by water molecules. Approximately 65% of the visible light in water is absorbed within 1 meter of the sea surface. This energy is converted into heat and elevates the surface water temperature.”

    http://www.euromarineconsortium.eu/wiki/Open_oceans </blockquote

    This is a given in this energy budget, that visible light heats the water of the oceans is the common teaching, so your version is different – give me the facts and figures of how much visible light heats "the solid impurities" in the oceans – I haven't seen details on this, no descriptions, explanations or any figures. This should be interesting.

    And careful with the sweety, or you'll have Latitude to deal with…

  414. Willis Eschenbach says:

    January 17, 2012 at 7:59 pm

    Thanks, hmccard. My “Gavinesque-tone and demeanor”, I like that turn of phrase, although next to the Sultan of Scissors I am but a poor peon.

    I said I would snip things that were off-topic. You try doing it in other than a fairly fast style, with very short comments, and you’ll be there for a week. I was trying to keep the damn thread on line, and nobody but nobody wanted to give an elevator speech. So yeah, you’re likely right, I got cranky about everybody first posting stuff that was way, way off-topic and then bitching me out for being snipped.

    So you are right, hmccard, and let me offer my apologies, since this thread is thanks and apologies, to anyone offended by my tone and demeanor. I really did want to keep the thread on line, and I got crabby when it went all to hell, and I apologize for that.

    w.

    Willis,

    Thanks. My earlier comments were intended to convey to you that, IMO, in your role as a self-moderator, your tone and demeanor was a turn-off. You have now received that same input from a large number of commentors and appear to learned something from your experiment.

    BTW, having been a lurker on this blog for several years; this may be my 5th or 6th comment. You are correct and I will not return to this or your previous thread; a week was enough for me.

  415. Joules – while I’ve got the page up here’s another example, this time of a page which, as you did, gives a bit of truth and then screws it.

    http://www.scienceandthesea.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=373&Itemid=10

    Graph showing the wavelengths of infared, visible, and ultraviolet light. Credit: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

    “The infrared energy is invisible to the eye, but we feel it as heat. Most of the Sun’s infrared energy is absorbed by water vapor in the atmosphere. The fraction that hits the surface is absorbed in the top few feet of the water, heating the ocean surface.

    Most of the energy that penetrates the atmosphere is visible light — what we see with our eyes. This, too, is converted to heat as it enters the water.

    But some of this energy is absorbed by microscopic plants that float near the surface, or by larger plants rooted in shallow waters. They combine the sunlight with carbon dioxide, water, and nutrients in a process known as photosynthesis. This process creates the food that sustains the plants. It also produces oxygen, which is released into the water — and some of which eventually escapes into the atmosphere.”

    So, factual physics they say that the heat we feel is the invisible infrared, bully for them, that’s a first from my considerable reading of such pages. It then degrades it to appear insignificant by repeating the sf meme that only a fraction reaches the surface and absorbed in the first few feet of water, but which is better than the usual centimetres or not even getting through the surface tension… :)

    Then back to plot to push the impossible, the ‘most of energy meme is visible light’ that penetrates atmosphere and yes, “this, too, is converted to heat as it enters the water”

    It then says some of this energy absorbed by plants for photosynthesis…

    Do you see the disjunct here?

    If visible light is converted to heat as it enters the water then it is no longer visible light, so there’s no visible light for the plants for photosynthesis.

    Oh, some of it is for photosynthesis. OK, How much is converted to heat and how much left for photosynthesis, and most importantly, how does it achieve this?

    This is the problem I have with the AGWScience Fiction memes, because they’re not based on real physics, they cobble together anything that someone reading without logic metre on or newbie or without real physics understanding of this, isn’t likely to spot it’s gobbledegook. Because, it is now taught universally as if it is real physics, people don’t generally question it. They’re expecting to read something like it or they’re new and think this is being educated.

    This isn’t just some web site set up by a fan of AGW, this comes from the University of Texas.

    “Science and the SeaTM is a production of The University of Texas Marine Science Institute on the Gulf of Mexico in Port Aransas, Texas.”

    I don’t believe the meme that only a fraction of thermal infrared, the thermal energy of the Sun coming direct to us, reaches the surface, because, I haven’t any real world data on it or figures I can trust, and, because it’s the larger portion of the radiation reaching our atmosphere, and, it doesn’t get bounced around the sky like visible.., but mainly because it is the real direct heating mechanism of the oceans by the Sun. Water is the great absorber of thermal energy, heat.

    Visible really doesn’t heat oceans and land, does it?

    =====================

    Willis

    And I’ll say again Willis, your elevator speech is based on manipulated figures incoming, so the most obvious reason the outgoing is more is because there’s some incoming energy unaccounted for. If they accounted for it, they wouldn’t be able to pretend that it was all ‘back radiation from greenhouse gases’…

    Myrrh

  416. I am not understanding the firestorm of criticism directed at Willis. I’ve read through a great number of the replies and the reasoning for the harsh criticism, but it all falls flat.

    Willis never deceived anyone. He stated exactly what he was going to do, and then proceeded to do it. To – the – letter.

    The only thing he kept hidden was his motive. Hiding his motive is not deception, since he stated in advance what he was going to do.

    There are accusations directed against him that just plainly don’t make sense. For example, James Sexton accuses Willis of attempting to deny Roger his liberty. How does that follow? What liberty is Willis denying? Willis exercised his only liberty by discussing the issue, and then using a tactic to drive his point home and keep the discussion alive Roger exercised his liberty by keeping his blog policy intact. So where’s this liberty denial? If free speech in the form of criticism is interpreted as denying some else’s liberty, then that is a seriously warped view of liberty.

    As to Willis’ primary point: On this blog and elsewhere, Realclimate, Skeptical Science, and others are routinely criticized for using their moderating powers to silence any dissenting opinions. IMO, this criticism is valid. Most of the high-profile skeptical sites allow dissenting opinions. Many will bar disruptive behavior, but genuine difference of opinion, particularly over scientific matters, is allowed and even encouraged. For Roger to ban someone for interpreting the scientific data different then how Roger interprets it is ceding the moral high ground. Roger runs a high profile skeptical site. Therefore, his behavior at that site reflects on all skeptics. I think he is wrong for doing what he is doing.

    Roger is free to keep his policy as it is. Willis is free to continue to criticize him because of it. Willis is even free to use tactics that that he does not share his motive as to why he is using that tactic, to keep up his criticism. Liberty.

    As Willis points out, we do not participate on these blogs so we can all hold hands and sing kumbaya. We are here to express our opinions, and hopefully learn something from one another. That will sometimes lead to disagreements. That’s ok – as long as we are free to discuss those disagreements.

  417. Ron Dean, thank you very kindly. I’m glad someone out there gets it. I did not lie, I did not deceive anyone, including Roger. I hate to suggest such a course but I invite anyone who doubts that, to read the post and the thread again. I said what I would do, and I did exactly that.

    I did not coerce Roger into posting. I did not write his statements for him. I cannot make him do anything at all—if I could do that I’d make him un-ban Joel and I, because I don’t like being banned. I liked the Talkshop. It is one of the few sites I subscribe to. Yes, my unstated motive was to get Roger to declare himself publicly. Yes, I was glad that I succeeded, happier than some people liked. I, like you, fail to see a major crime in that.

    I feel badly that people were offended and took umbrage as they did, I’m glad you and others were not offended. The response was unexpected, to say the least. Hey, live and learn, I’ve been wrong before, I’m one old dog that learns new tricks every day.

    Finally, let me quote you on what I agree is the real issue in all of this (emphasis mine):

    On this blog and elsewhere, Realclimate, Skeptical Science, and others are routinely criticized for using their moderating powers to silence any dissenting opinions. IMO, this criticism is valid. Most of the high-profile skeptical sites allow dissenting opinions. Many will bar disruptive behavior, but genuine difference of opinion, particularly over scientific matters, is allowed and even encouraged. For Roger to ban someone for interpreting the scientific data different then how Roger interprets it is ceding the moral high ground.

    I have spoken forcefully for a couple of things: 1) I have advocated scientific openness, transparency, and lack of censorship, and 2) I have chastised the mainstream AGW scientists for not standing up and speaking out and acting to prevent the kinds of scientific malfeasance that is far too common in the field.

    I can hardly do that and then just meekly quit when my peaceful public and private entreaties and reasons and discussions proved unable to move Tallbloke in the slightest.

    As I said at the top, I am not happy with using the method I used. Setting a scene in the hopes that Tallbloke would declare his position publicly was the method of last resort. I knew going in that there would be a cost to me, and I was willing to pay that, and I have. The real mistake I made was not seeing that people would take it out on poor Anthony, who had nothing to do with any of it. I was totally blindsided by that. Once again, live and learn.

    And I have been totally upfront and honest about telling everyone what I had done, and I have stood up and taken whatever licks I deserved and some I didn’t for it.

    Overall? Not one of my finer moments, but I was reduced to doing what I could to try to not cede the moral high ground, at least without fighting for it as hard as I could.

    Would I do it again? No way, too many people were upset. It’s done for me, Tallbloke can do what he will, I won’t push him any more. But I will continue to fight as forcefully as I can for scientific openness, and transparency of code and data,

    All the best, thank you for your comment,

    w.

  418. Regarding the demonstration posted by Joules Verne, Myrrh says,
    Cant’ watch it , describe it.
    then…
    While I wait for a description of visible light heating land…
    ~~~~~~~~~~~

    From the description of the video at youtube (v=4Rl3w8nG1kU):
    “Here a BEAST blue laser in the class IV range burns some stuff. This laser is extremely dangerous!”
    A frame from the video:
    pic 1

    Then you say:
    I know well that water is transparent to visible light…..
    But Joules Verne said, “The light falling on the ocean heats the solid impurities in the water.”
    Physical demonstration of spectrum depleting with depth in sea water (not pure water):
    Pic 2
    source: MBARI video
    Visible light does heat land and ocean. Quod Erat Demonstrandum

  419. I believe the results of all this blather is zippo….just blather. It might have even increased the the heat of the earth by expending energy on all the PCs and networking gear that had to function while the notes were generated and sent. So in the interest of global warming reduction, could we end this rabble now that the net remains zippo accomplished. Thks Bill

  420. LoL@’The Fiskars of Doom.’

    Oh, I love good drama. Not cheap drama, the kind I have to make over at Topix where I repeatedly drive spikes through heads of people with whom I disagree: but good drama, where you can tell the wife and kids.

    Although Willis I must say, the long line of disapproving posts is as hilarious as any of it, because EVERYBODY WANTS FREEDOM BUT NOBODY WANTS TO PUT ON THE BRASS KNUCKLES AND GO OUT FINDING AND KILLING THINGS IN THE DARK COLD MUD to KEEP it.

    Freedom isn’t free girls, it requires a lot of overlooking the inCREDIBLE tackiness of not simply drowning the babies with the wrong moon sign,

    AND, it REQUIRES Y.O.U. to be as T.O.U.G.H. as N.A.I.L.S.

    All weather,
    All conditions,
    All comers.

    And let the most intelligent ones feed the other ones
    to Darwin’s Dogs.

    Thanks for sponsoring the entertainment Tony; the very fact I endorse this means it’s probably a bad idea to the current generation of politically correct consensus monkeys who replaced the PIONEERS of freedom

    When freedom meant you could actually pay for whatever you did, with whatever you had, and there not be any court of appeal from evolution.

    Modern Americans are learning again what Europeans learned a long time ago.
    Tribalism lends a sense of security, but it still doesn’t mean the entire camp can’t be overrun and entire legacies lost to having the wrong idea:
    O.N.C.E.

    So toughen up skeptics, and keep baiting those future Darwin’s Dogs’ t*rds. You WILL win: you will NOT win by being too polite to prove who’s a stupid lunge monkey.

    Only non stupid lunge monkeys will make it out of the tree, across the grass, with a handful of seed heads and grasshoppers,

    and back up the next tree, before the lions even know it’s time for breakfast.

  421. Khwarizmi says:
    January 20, 2012 at 3:05 am
    Regarding the demonstration posted by Joules Verne, Myrrh says,
    Cant’ watch it , describe it.
    then…
    While I wait for a description of visible light heating land…
    ~~~~~~~~~~~

    From the description of the video at youtube (v=4Rl3w8nG1kU):
    “Here a BEAST blue laser in the class IV range burns some stuff. This laser is extremely dangerous!”
    A frame from the video:
    pic 1

    Thank you Khwarizmi, now I ‘see’ the problem…

    We’re talking about the effect of light direct from the Sun in the AGW KT97 and ilk energy budgets, we can make a carbon dioxide laser and burn through steel, does carbon dioxide do that in our real world atmosphere?

    If we are to draw conclusions about our real world physics from using artificially enhanced technology of laser visible light properties then the Sun would have burned us to a crisp yonks ago…

    Visible light direct from the Sun is benign to matter, you don’t get your eyes destroyed by looking at a patch of blue sky. (In case there’s anyone reading this who doesn’t know, the reason you’re seeing blue is because the blue light is being reflected back into your eyes.)

    This is yet another example of what pees me off in these arguments, that properties of one thing are given to another, that processes and laws taken out of context, the actual context to which they apply, and then being given as examples to prove something in another context and with different properties altogether. And now added to that being given explanations which state a truth that has been a bone of contention in the climate wars, followed by more junk science to confuse even further.

    So I’m not overly impressed by Joules’s post to me, as I showed another example in the University of Texas piece.

    Then you say:
    I know well that water is transparent to visible light…..
    But Joules Verne said, “The light falling on the ocean heats the solid impurities in the water.”
    Physical demonstration of spectrum depleting with depth in sea water (not pure water):
    Pic 2
    source: MBARI video
    Visible light does heat land and ocean. Quod Erat Demonstrandum

    Well no, not Q.E.D. How does light attenuation in the ocean prove that “the light falling on the ocean heats the solid impurities in the water”?

    What do you think that is showing anyway? Joules understands this point about water being a transparent medium for visible light – he’s not disputing that, what he’s not come back with is any proof that light heats solids, anywhere, the land or in the sea.

    It’s now becoming just a bit harder for the “visible light heats the oceans” meme to be sold by AGWSF, even if only here on WUWT.., but I gave examples of how this is still the basic teaching about it from the AGW crowd.

    It’s physical nonsense because it is well known that water is transparent to visible; visible isn’t, on a physical level capable of heating water – it doesn’t even get to play with a water molecules’ electrons as does visible light in the sky play with electrons – where the electrons of oxygen and nitrogen actually absorb it and then reflect/scatter it, that’s the blue sky you see as the effect.

    This absorption is real in the technical meaning of the word in this context, actual absorption of visible light’s energy by the electrons, – so how much is it heating the sky?

  422. @Joules Verne

    I have finally found time to re-run my empirical experiment into the N&Z hypothesis. This time I followed your suggestion and regulated the pressure in the test chambers. I used an air bladder (hot water bottle) and weights (bricks) to maintain constant pressure in the high pressure chamber.

    Due to thunderstorms and rain I was unable to use sunlight as a long wave source and had to use a flood lamp (too much IR). However the results were just as before. The chamber with the higher pressure always rises to a higher temperature when illuminated. I should point out that illumination is only started when the chambers have been pressurised and allowed to equalise temperatures.

    With just 6 house bricks on the air bladder, chamber temperature differentials of over 4 degrees were observable. Again I reiterate that low and high pressure chambers were allowed to equalise in temperature before illumination.

    When the weather clears I will re run the tests with sunlight instead of a floodlamp. In the meantime I am confident in claiming that Nicolov and Zeller are correct and that Willis and Joel are entirely wrong. Again.

  423. Water isn’t transparent to visible light. Its degree of transparency varies by frequency (as any scuba diver knows) with red being absorbed first and blue last, but go deep enough and it is all gone…. I think the absorption coefficient of water for visible light goes from a bit less than .0001 for blue to .01 for red. Very small, but not zero. Since water isn’t perfectly’ transparent a deep enough water column will eventually absorb all of the visible light. If the light is now gone where could it go but into heat?

    To Myrrh’s point about visible light not being injurious because you can look at blue sky without damage and not the sun, perhaps the relative power densities of the two sources might have something to do with it….

  424. “Water is transparent in the visible electromagnetic spectrum. Thus aquatic plants can live in water because sunlight can reach them. Infrared light is strongly absorbed by the hydrogen-oxygen or OH bonds.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water

    In a nutshell.Or should that be, in a sea shell? Anyway, you have to understand something here, the reason you think water isn’t transparent is because the fisics you’ve been taught was designed to promote AGW and over the last few decades that misinformation has been introduced into the education system, cleverly. That’s where the “shortwave in thermal out” meme comes from in the ‘energy budget’, that visible light from the Sun heats land and oceans, and that the real thermal energy from the Sun, which is powerful heat and which is actually able to move water molecules into vibration, kinetic energy, to heat them up, doesn’t play a part in this.

    It is still possible to find proper physics on the subject, in the disciplines specialising in it, but overwhelmingly you will find the AGWScience Fiction meme promoted as if it is a ‘general science fact’, a lot of the time by people in other disciplines who don’t know any better.

    Visible light is ESSENTIAL for our carbon life forms, without it there wouldn’t be photosynthesis, we wouldn’t have any oxygen, and, we wouldn’t be able to see the world around us. We began life in the ocean and moved to land, around 90% of our oxygen is still produced by photosythesis in the ocean and our eyes evolved in the ocean, from eating the plants that used it for chemical energy creating sugar for energy to grow, for life. It’s role in real life is quite wonderful.

    I’m not asking anyone to simply believe me, research the subject yourselves. Which version is more logical?

    But do bear in mind that short sentence above, it’s giving you two vital pieces of information, infrared is strongly absorbed by water, and if visible light was absorbed by water there would have been no life as we know it in the oceans, and we wouldn’t exist..

  425. Actually Willis, I just realized there is a planetary example of gravitational heating effect – Jupiter. Previously I used Venus due to it’s 90 bar atmospheric density but one could realistically argue that it’s close proximity to the sun accounted for ALL of its energy budget. Not so with Jupiter.

    Scientists do not have exact numbers for the various temperatures on the planet, but at the upper edge of the cloud cover, the temperature is thought to be -145 degrees C. On Jupiter the temperature increases because of atmospheric pressure, so as you descend temperature increases. Not far into the atmosphere the pressure is about ten times what it is here on Earth and the temperature is thought to be about 20 degrees C or average room temperature for Earth. Descend further and hydrogen becomes hot enough to turn into a liquid and the temperature is thought to be over 9,700 C. At the planet’s core scientists think that the temperatures could be as high as 35,500 C.

    http://www.universetoday.com/15097/temperature-of-jupiter/

    Now it’s obvious that Jupiter is not heating due to solar energy because of it’s proximity to the sun. Therefore, there are only four possible explanations for this heat
    1) thermonuclear reaction, but this has been ruled out since it is estimated that Jupiter needs to be 80 times its present mass to have a nuclear reaction.
    2) atmospheric pressure of Jupiter is estimated to be 4 million bar at the core. Since pressure alone would only release existing heat and radiate that to space, that means the heat must come from somewhere to get a sustained 9700 C
    3) A chemical reaction in the atmosphere. But this is unlikely due to the composition of 84% H and 15% He. With virtually no O2 there would be little heat be caused other than trace amounts of water ice falling into the atmosphere from space to be disassociated and then combusted.
    4) leaving us with something more exotic and not considered – gravitational (weak force) energy drawing from the collective energy of quantum forces on an atomic scale of the entire mass. If work is force times movement (W=Fs) then it stands to reason that energy is transferred from the quantum state to gravity and heat is released in the process. Without gravity there is no atmosphere, therefore where gravity exists work is being done and that means an energy transfer. The idea of energy (of motion) transfer is not without precedent between physical bodies as demonstrated by the earth moon system and solar system, via the conservation of angular momentum. I propose that gravity is the collective energy transfer of quantum forces from individual atoms (electrons moving around the nucleus and such) via angular momentum to the whole of the planetary body. Therefore the concept of a Stefan-Boltzmann temperature is mutually excluded because it falsely assumes no other energy transfers occur in black body that has mass.

  426. geoff says:
    January 21, 2012 at 9:51 am
    To Myrrh’s point about visible light not being injurious because you can look at blue sky without damage and not the sun, perhaps the relative power densities of the two sources might have something to do with it….

    My point exactly.

    We’re describing the energy which comes from the Sun, not an artificially enhanced lasar… I don’t know if you’ve read any of the original research on light, but here’s a page from one of the great scientists of the day working on it, Tyndall.

    http://books.google.ie/books?id=jC9JAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA270&output=text#c_top

    “We have now cleared our way towards the clear comprehension of the physical cause of colour. This spectrum is to the eye what the gamut is to the ear; its different colours represent notes of different pitch. The vibrations which produce the impression of red are slower, and the ethereal waves which they generate are longer, than those which produce the impression of violet, while the other colours are excited by waves of some intermediate length. The length of the waves both of sound and light, and the number of shocks which they respectively impart to the ear and eye, have been strictly determined. Let us here go through a simple calculation. Light travels through space at a velocity of 192,000 miles a second. Reducing this to inches, we find the number to be 12,165,120,000. Now it is found that 39,000 waves of red light placed end to end would make up an inch; multiply the number of inches in 192,000 miles by 39,000, we obtain the number of waves of red light in 192,000 miles: this number is 474,439,680,000,000. All these waves enter the eye in a single second. To produce the impression of red in the brain, the retina must be hit at this almost incredible rate. To produce the impression of violet, a still greater number of impulses is necessary; it would take 57,500 waves of violet to fill an inch, and the number of shocks required to produce the impression of this colour, amounts to six hundred and ninety-nine millions of millions per second. The other colours of the spectrum, as already stated, rise gradually in pitch from the red to the violet. But beyond the violet we have rays of too high a pitch to be visible, and beyond the red we have rays of too low a pitch to be visible.”

    This comes from his Heat as a Mode of Motion in 12 Lectures.

    So, how many shocks of blue light hit our eye every second while looking up at a blue sky..?

    Anyway, If you’ve never read him, I think you’ll be impressed with John Tyndall and the scientists of his day he also describes; meticulous in thinking through how to devise experiments, leaving copious notes about methods tried and thinking thought. But if nothing else, do take a look at this for the measure of the man: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1225/1225-h/1225-h.htm Faraday As A Discoverer

    p.s. I learned to scuba dive some time ago.

  427. ..and a final p.s.

    Not only amount per second, but size of the individual shocks to be considered. The difference in size between near infrared which is light like short wave visible and can’t be felt because not hot, not the Sun’s great thermal energy on the move, is microscopic, while thermal infrared is the size of a pin head.

    and,

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/28/spencer-and-braswell-on-slashdot/#comment-711886

    If there’s any interest in this, I’ve got a post here where I found how NASA has been manipulating information about this. The NASA kids page was going to disappear altogether, it did briefly, but someone, many thanks, has changed that and it’s still available.

    And, re near infrared being light like visible light – think of the difference between an infrared camera which works on the same principle as ordinary visible light cameras, capturing the infrared being reflected back from the subject, and a thermal infrared camera which is measuring the amount of heat being radiated out from the subject.

    and, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transparency_and_translucency for a closer look at the difference between heat and light on electron/molecular levels. Visible/UV meet matter and interact with electrons, electronic transitions, and there are four possible interactions; the second is what is happening when visible light is absorbed by the electrons of oxygen and nitrogen in the atmosphere, and which give us our blue sky in reflection and scattering, and the third what is happening when meeting a transparent medium like water, it is tranmitted through without being absorbed or reflected. The larger heat energy of thermal infrared meets matter and moves the molecules into vibration, which is kinetic energy, heat.

  428. dscott says:

    Actually Willis, I just realized there is a planetary example of gravitational heating effect – Jupiter. Previously I used Venus due to it’s 90 bar atmospheric density but one could realistically argue that it’s close proximity to the sun accounted for ALL of its energy budget. Not so with Jupiter.

    I propose that gravity is the collective energy transfer of quantum forces from individual atoms (electrons moving around the nucleus and such) via angular momentum to the whole of the planetary body. Therefore the concept of a Stefan-Boltzmann temperature is mutually excluded because it falsely assumes no other energy transfers occur in black body that has mass.

    It is understood why there is a gravitational heating effect on Jupiter: It is undergoing slow gravitational collapse, converting gravitational potential energy into thermal energy.

    Are you suggesting that the Earth and its atmosphere are undergoing gravitational collapse? If so, what is your evidence and how does it jive with the fact that we know why the Earth is emitting 390 W/m^2 from its surface while absorbing only 240 W/m^2 from the sun: The satellites in space show us that some of the 390 W/m^2 is being absorbed by exactly those wavelength bands of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, so that the emission as seen from space is only 240 W/m^2.

    Oh and I propose that you sentence “I propose that gravity is the collective energy transfer of quantum forces from individual atoms (electrons moving around the nucleus and such) via angular momentum to the whole of the planetary body” advance directly to the finalist status in the category of “Best Gobblygook to Justify Pseudoscientific Nonsense”.

Comments are closed.