Open thread weekend

I’m taking a blog holiday this weekend. Right now I’m watching the History channel 2 (H2) while some off the rails eco-scientist explains to us why we are all going to die because of “what might happen if a gigantic methane-gas explosion occurred in the Pacific.” Methane Explosion (2007) watch the video:

I had to laugh at the YouTube description (bold mine):

History Channel “Mega Disasters” series. This explores the controversial paper published by Northwestern University’s Gregory Ryskin. His thesis: the oceans periodically produce massive eruptions of explosive methane gas… enough to cause global catastrophe on a regular basis!

Discuss the methane explosions or whatever you like, within site policy. If you want to submit a guest post, flag a moderator.

WUWT will return to its regularly scheduled programming Sunday evening.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Open Thread and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

210 Responses to Open thread weekend

  1. jonathan frodsham says:

    Oh dear 1.40am in VN, help!! the oceans are going to explode.” We are all going to die”. Hmm that is the 4th time this week. At least I got the first post in.

  2. This guy’s resemblance to Jim Hansen is creepy. I note also an equivocation between Lake Nyos (CO2) and this [unknown] source of methane. Result? Folk-science claptrap, served up on a Hollywood-style platter: San Diego buys it. Gawrsh, there’s a disaster waiting in Cauliflowernia for every day of the year. I’d love to see the credits for this History Channel expose.

  3. dp says:

    That stuff will rot your mind! :) Enjoy your time away, and don’t forget to stay away.

  4. Ric Werme says:

    I could use a holiday. Maybe I’ll watch “The Day after Tomorrow” and marvel at the top-of-troposphere air blown down to the ground so quickly it doesn’t have a chance to warm up.

  5. ew-3 says:

    From the “delaying the truth” department…..

    “The launch of NASA’s second Orbiting Carbon Observatory, under construction to replace a satellite lost in 2009, will be delayed at least one year after the space agency terminated an agreement for the carbon-tracking mission to lift off on a Taurus XL rocket, officials said Friday.”

    Full article at:
    Spaceflight Now

  6. Richard Jenkins says:

    Here in France, the river Loire and Garonne are both freeezing over, something not seen for 25 years at most, and since 1995 at least, depending on the zone.
    http://pays-de-la-loire.france3.fr/info/froid–des-glacons-dans-la-loire-72444783.html
    http://www.ladepeche.fr/article/2012/02/10/1281928-la-garonne-gelee-pour-la-premiere-fois-depuis-1985.html
    This after nearly two weeks of sub zero temperatures.
    http://comprendre.meteofrance.com/content/2009/10/21331-48.pdf shows the years with really cold winters and you can perhaps link them to solar minimum years.
    We certainly beat the electricity use
    http://www.lefigaro.fr/conso/2012/02/09/05007-20120209ARTFIG00633-electricite-pourquoi-on-enregistre-des-records.php
    and temperatures were also beaten or very nearly beaten
    http://www.sudouest.fr/2012/02/10/au-coeur-de-la-vague-bergerac-surfe-le-record-629992-757.php
    http://actualite.lachainemeteo.com/actualite-meteo/2012-02-07-03h00/vague-de-froid—des-records-mensuels-battus—15618.php
    and over 600 people died in europe
    http://www.lepoint.fr/monde/le-froid-et-la-neige-ont-fait-plus-de-600-morts-en-europe-11-02-2012-1430413_24.php
    All these in French, so google translate them!

  7. R. Shearer says:

    Watch the South Park episode, then search Northwestern’s CE faculty for Dr. Ryskin. No photo for him. Weird.

    http://www.chem-biol-eng.northwestern.edu/people/faculty/core_faculty.html

  8. John-X says:

    “Giant Methane Explosion”

    Known colloquially as a “Lloyd Christmas Scenario”

  9. Skiphil says:

    I lost all respect for the History Channel about the time they started taking Nostrodamus seriously…. they have some good programs but then they have some god-awful hideous programs….

  10. theburntcity says:

    Love the special effects in the History channel’s programs.

  11. Alexej Buergin says:

    The german story continues, with “Welt” (the broadsheet sister of “Bild”) and Latif getting wobbly.
    According to author Kuhlke the german media are treated from Berlin (Postdam) the same way as they were 75 years ago.
    http://www.welt.de/debatte/kommentare/article13861989/Die-Klimaforschung-wird-zum-neuen-Religionsersatz.html
    (Translation: Climate is the new religion)

  12. Jeff Alberts says:

    H2 used to be History International, which occasionally had some good programming. Since they changed to H2 it seems we simply have two channels of garbage masquerading as “history made every day”. Lately it’s become like A&E, the Trailer Trash Channel.

    I used to complain that HC was nothing but The Hitler Channel, but now I long for a return to such heady days…

  13. papiertigre says:

    I got Rob Honeycutt to say, “So what if [Michael] Mann created errors in his code? [So] What if he was up late nights trying to figure out how to force the data to show a hockey stick?”

    Yeah, I know it’s not much of a victory. But you’ve got to savor them when they come, no matter how small.
    That would never happen at SkS.

  14. RockyRoad says:

    Wolf!, wolf!, wolf!, wolf!….

    By the time something very bad and very true is predicted, everybody will just take the weekend off and watch the History Channel.

    Wolf!, wolf!, wolf!, wolf!….

  15. Adam Gallon says:

    On the frozen major rivers theme, the Danube’s frozen in several places, they’re even blasting the ice apart http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/dynamite-used-to-blow-apart-ice-sheets-on-white-danube-3016530.html
    A week’s worth of sub -10C temps is needed to freeze the river.
    It’s hit -16C last night (8am this morning, to be exact), here in Lincolnshire.

  16. Stop Press: France-Ireland rugby match called off due to frozen pitch.

    Global warming, global schwarming!

  17. JDN says:

    I keep reading that India is going to try thorium-based nuclear reactors. However, I don’t think GE or Westinghouse even have a prototype under design. This makes me think it’s not workable for some reason, even though India & China have allegedly approved construction. I did a little searching and couldn’t find much. Does anyone have something that looks like a technical analysis of a prototype thorium reactor?

  18. Gary Hladik says:

    Ric Werme says (February 11, 2012 at 11:10 am): “I could use a holiday. Maybe I’ll watch ‘The Day after Tomorrow’ and marvel at the top-of-troposphere air blown down to the ground so quickly it doesn’t have a chance to warm up.”

    Which also got the South Park treatment, in one of their best episodes:

    http://southpark-zone.blogspot.com/2008/01/s9-two-days-before-day-after-tomorrow.html

    The History Channel has had some good stuff in the past, like “How the Earth Was Made”, but now it has a lower signal-to-noise ratio than climate science…

  19. Robin Hewitt says:

    So this man doesn’t know where the methane ‘pocket’ is but thinks it will hit San Diego?

    I thought the aliens, asteroids, giant apes, dinosaurs etc. automatically homed in on New York, Metropolis and Gotham City.

    A refreshing change but it makes you want to sneak up behind him, whisper “clathrate” and see if he hits his forehead.

  20. Eric Simpson says:

    Two points: 1. there’s nothing wrong with the climate, and 2. CO2 has nothing, or effectively nothing, to do with it.
    Elaboration on Point 1: current temperatures, and rates of temperature change, are not unusual. The fabricated hockey stick graph, which the ipcc used to falsely claim that current temps are wildly high, has been fully debunked.

    On CO2 and Point # 2: every American should see at least this short ~ 3 minute video on CO2 which also shows Al Gore engaging in the pivotal deception: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK_WyvfcJyg

  21. dtbronzich says:

    Revisionist history channel. There’s no evidence that methane caused the Permian extinction; this is, at best a hypothesis, at worst, rank speculation. And as it’s methane, rank is the right word.

  22. George Kominiak says:

    MMMMM, for a few minutes, let’s give the good Professor the benefit of the doubt. Let’s assume that his thesis is totally correst. What then, does he propose to do about it and how much will his follow-up “research project” cost???

    G.

  23. Edim says:

    http://oilandenergyinvestor.com/2012/02/energy-crisis-looming-in-the-european-deep-freeze/

    It’s getting worse in the Balkans. The rivers are completely frozen (ice is closed and not moving). We are getting new snow over the weekend.

    The biggest daily paper in Bosnia has a big story about cooling, new ice age, climategate! This is the first time I see skeptical article in MSM here.

  24. According to the UK’s Dept of Environment, higher rainfall in winter will lead to floods, and there will be droughts in summer. They obviously have not bothered to check with the Met Office..

    http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/02/09/rainfall-trends-in-england-and-wales/#more-786

  25. Louise says:

    Yet the Kara and Barents Seas are unusually ice free http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2012/02/barentsz-and-kara.html

  26. Nerd says:

    (Giorgio A. Tsoukalos in his voice) Who started this thread? The Aliens….

    Who caused the warming?… The Aliens.

    Who caused the rise of CO2?…. The Aliens

    Where did Mann, Phil, and Hansen get their data from?… The Aliens

    Who invented the hockey stick? …. The Aliens

  27. Lark says:

    I’ve seen charts of CO2 and temperature over geological history; is there such a thing for air pressure?

    The only atmospheric pressure proxy I can find was an estimation from gas bubbles in basalt which is intended for paeloaltimetry and seems to assume current air pressure. I guess that if you found basalts formed across the sea/air boundary you could date them, estimate their sea-level pressures and then graph it.

    Very large and flying dinosaurs seem to require higher air pressure than ours. If so, how much has it changed, what caused the changes, is the change continuing, is there a possibility it might change back…? These questions interest me; they might even be important. Is this not studied because it is harder than measuring CO2 and temp – a case of looking for keys under the street light? -Or because it’s known that it’s always been the way it is now?

    If anyone can point me to a discussion of this, I would be much obliged.

  28. kbray in california says:

    If this theory is correct, then I can see those methane bubbles injected into food,
    as a self-cooking process.
    Everything becomes “Shake and Bake”, no oven or grill needed.
    Instant Bar-B-Que via a “flash flame”, no messy charcoal either!
    Great for camping or the third world.
    Easy on the bumpy roads and the brake lights though,
    pre-ignition in the trunk would be best avoided.
    Alas… so many ideas, so little time…

  29. Jurgen says:

    Icy winters were bygones for a while in Holland, but it looks like they are returning again. There was a record low of -23 C in one spot and even lots of ice on the shallow coastal sea in the North. For over a week a complete ice skate-frenzy took over here, as we have miles upon miles of waterways everywhere.
    Well, being an ice skate lover myself, I feel if winters like this are still around, AGW isn’t that bad after all… as long as the oceans don’t start burning…

  30. DirkH says:

    JDN says:
    February 11, 2012 at 12:09 pm
    “I keep reading that India is going to try thorium-based nuclear reactors. However, I don’t think GE or Westinghouse even have a prototype under design. This makes me think it’s not workable for some reason, even though India & China have allegedly approved construction. I did a little searching and couldn’t find much. Does anyone have something that looks like a technical analysis of a prototype thorium reactor?”

    The Indians have a pretty new research facility where they develop their own Thorium tech; but not LFTR but solid rods.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/feb/16/china-nuclear-thorium
    Sorensen:
    http://energyfromthorium.com/2011/01/30/china-initiates-tmsr/
    The leader of the project is the elder son of former president of China, Jiang Zemin.
    2010: Indian Thorium program goes critical!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nl5DiTPw3dk

    The Chinese have also licensed the German HTR technology. This was designed to build small reactors with a small enclosure to be positioned right within industrial areas. It’s inherently safe insofar as Fukushima style accidents can’t occur; no runaway warming when cooling fails.
    Scroll down to see a photo of the prototype plant that to my knowledge still stands in the research facility in Jülich:
    http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTR

  31. DirkH says:

    How to make your own nuclear reactor at home. Make your own Plutonium!

  32. old44 says:

    “periodically produce massive eruptions of explosive methane gas… enough to cause global catastrophe on a regular basis!”
    I worked with that bloke once.

  33. Anthony Scalzi says:

    Nerd says:
    February 11, 2012 at 12:49 pm

    (Giorgio A. Tsoukalos in his voice) Who started this thread? The Aliens

    This post is useless without a picture.

    http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/158326

  34. e k johnson says:

    I’m more worried about the giant planet eating aliens which “might”, “may”, “could”, new research suggests, come and eat our planet and all the people on it. I am trying to save your children, your grand-children, from this threat. But we need to raise money to fight the deniers, they are all paid by the aliens.

  35. Craig Moore says:

    All we need is for Sheldon to pop up and shout , “BAZINGA!!!” http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQPXkhcaj8VwoJriM4B_KO_msvffHEtv7ae4TtH0lG1CwQLi6k9Qbv9NT03

  36. Harold Ambler says:

    A pet peeve: People googling me with wiki in search field wind up on realclimate, due to some low-level hijinx on its administrators’ part and a terrifying lack of fame on my part: http://bit.ly/xb5s35

  37. nc says:

    This is about regular meetings between Washington State and British Columbia. Just thought I would bring forward a couple of topics. I like the low carbon energy part seeing as BC is an exporter of oil, natural gas and coal and we have a carbon tax. We have it all.

    BC And Washington Announce 2012 Action Plan

    •specific actions to better align and maximize opportunities for energy efficiency, clean transportation, and low-carbon energy including natural gas.
    http://www.opinion250.com/blog/view/23200/1/bc+and+washington+announce+2012+action+plan?

  38. Anthony Scalzi says:

    Much Better. :)

  39. Myrrh says:

    http://devconsultancygroup.blogspot.com/2012/02/ipcc-receives-further-credibility-blow.html

    IPCC receives a further credibility blow: Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner resigns as expert reviewer

    The problems to IPCC never seems to end. Vahrenholt, the high profile German scientist made headlines last week:
    ‘The IPCC is more of a political than a scientific body. As a rapporteur on renewable energy, I witnessed how thin the factual basis is for predictions that are made at the IPCC.”

    Now a Swedish scientist quits the IPCC. Here’s the letter Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner faxed the IPCC:

    I hereby resign as expert-reviewer of Chapter 13: Sea Level Changes. I do this for two reasons:

  40. Alcheson says:

    I suggest we rapidly and immensely expand oil and gas drilling in the ocean. That way we relieve the dangerous buildup of methane and save the world plus we get the added benefit of reduced energy prices for all!

  41. Ric the Elder says:

    I like THC’s motto: “Made up every day.”

  42. H.R. says:

    Harold Ambler says:
    February 11, 2012 at 2:10 pm
    A pet peeve: People googling me with wiki in search field wind up on realclimate, due to some low-level hijinx on its administrators’ part and a terrifying lack of fame on my part: http://bit.ly/xb5s35

    LOL!!!!!! Made my weekemd Harold!

    Best regards,
    H.R.

  43. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    Russian scientists reach lake under Antarctica
    By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV | Associated Press – Thu, Feb 9, 2012

    Lukin said about 1.5 cubic meters (50 cubic feet) of kerosene and freon poured up to the surface from the boreshaft, proof that the lake water streamed up from beneath, froze, and blocked the hole.

    FREON?! They were releasing FREON right below the OZONE HOLE?
    And Seth Borenstein contributed to the piece? Without ANY mention of possible ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE from added OZONE DEPLETION?

    Where Is The Outrage?! The TV warms me of the environmental dangers from just the CFC’s used as a blowing agent in making the foam insulation of the old refrigerators, demanding that insulation be properly recycled or bad things will happen. And the Russkies got a free pass on using FREON? Where Is The ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE When It’s REALLY NEEDED?

  44. NetDr says:

    The collapse of the Man-Made Myth continues apace. You may not read headlines as such (at least not in major dailies) but all the signs are there.

    People who we never would have imagined speaking against the Big Scare Campaign are now doing so. Key glaciers are not melting and corals are happy. Governments won’t tell you it’s over, but they are behaving that way (the Australian one excepted, due to an election fluke that gave the Greens the balance of power). The Catholic Herald headlined it: Is the ‘anthropogenic global warming’ consensus on the point of collapse?
    Source Barchart.

    The last year of carbon trading in EUR’s continues to fall. (Click to enlarge).

    Mini update: The carbon market is being referred to as “dead”. Johannes Teyssen, chief executive of Germany’s EON, urged policymakers to make fixes. “Let’s talk real: the ETS is bust, it’s dead,” Mr Teyssen said in Brussels this week, adding: “I don’t know a single person in the world that would invest a dime based on ETS signals.” [full story: Financial Times]. Point Carbon analysts have downgraded the forecast price of carbon credits for the second time in two months as the carbon market continues to slide. What was estimated to be 12 Euros, has fallen to 9 euros for 2012, and 8 euro’s for 2013. It’s a long way below $23, set by our Australian “free-market-lovin’-Labor-Party”. (If only they knew what a free market was.)

  45. dp says:

    Louise says:
    February 11, 2012 at 12:48 pm

    Yet the Kara and Barents Seas are unusually ice free

    With nothing to retain the heat there it must be getting very cold.

  46. Bob Diaz says:

    The Truth Is Out There
    (On South Park)

    ;-)

  47. u.k.(us) says:

    Louise says:
    February 11, 2012 at 12:48 pm
    Yet the Kara and Barents Seas are unusually ice free http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2012/02/barentsz-and-kara.html
    =============
    OK, I’ll go thru the motions.
    Quote from your link:

    “What could be causing such an early retreat of sea ice cover? The answer is probably manifold. First and foremost is the big high-pressure system over Northern Siberia that formed about 10 days ago and is helping Ded Moroz to hold Europe in a late frosty grip. At the same time this high draws in winds from the west, pushing the ice back in the Barentsz and Kara Seas. These winds also bring warm air and rain from the North Atlantic.”
    ———–
    It is sea ice, it gets pushed around by winds and currents.

  48. Steve from Rockwood says:

    Lark says:
    February 11, 2012 at 12:55 pm

    I’ve seen charts of CO2 and temperature over geological history; is there such a thing for air pressure?

    [...]

    Very large and flying dinosaurs seem to require higher air pressure than ours. If so, how much has it changed, what caused the changes, is the change continuing, is there a possibility it might change back…? These questions interest me; they might even be important. Is this not studied because it is harder than measuring CO2 and temp – a case of looking for keys under the street light? -Or because it’s known that it’s always been the way it is now?

    Lark, I think you are suggesting that because flying dinosaurs were much larger than today’s birds the air pressure must have been much greater to support their weight. I don’t agree with this suggestion but there is evidence that the oxygen levels were much higher in the past.

    The first link discusses recent (60 year) variations in atmospheric pressure.
    Don’t stay too long at the second link – just grab the references and get out of there.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/12/earths-changing-atmosphere/
    http://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/early-earth/atmosphere/

    But, while you are pondering a thicker atmosphere, consider how birds today can fly at over 20,000 ft elevation without dropping out of the sky. The air must be pretty thin up there. Also, how can they breath at those elevations let alone fly 350 miles without resting? It turns out the scientists who want to study dinosaurs don’t know enough about our present day birds to realize the mistakes in their questions.

    Air pressure at 20,000 ft is half that at surface. Birds breath differently than humans.

  49. Steve from Rockwood says:

    Myrrh says:
    February 11, 2012 at 3:00 pm

    http://devconsultancygroup.blogspot.com/2012/02/ipcc-receives-further-credibility-blow.html

    IPCC receives a further credibility blow: Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner resigns as expert reviewer resigns

    I hearby resign as expert reviewer of Chapter 13: Sea Level Changes, for two reasons:

    1. The deadline for review is tomorrow and I haven’t even started (I thought the deadline was next month).
    2. And oh, the chapter is crap and you’re all a bunch of idiots.

    Sincerely,
    Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner
    Sea Level Expert
    ————————————————
    OK, I did a little word-smithing on his letter. But I have to say, the guy sounds like an idiot, so resigning probably helped the cause. Who signs a letter “Sea Level Expert” anyway?

    Sincerely,

    Mr. Steve from Rockwood
    Blog Commenting Expert

  50. John Billings says:

    Didn’t we see a story a while back about methane erupting from the sea in unprecedented quantities? Ah yes, here it is:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/vast-methane-plumes-seen-in-arctic-ocean-as-sea-ice-retreats-6276278.html

    I’m going to call Reuters or AP or someone to get a pre-emptive denial out, as I have 18-month-old twins, and today greenhouse gases, especially methane (I suspect this: I haven’t carried out any scientific tests) have been erupting from their “equatorial regions” in unprecedented quantities.

    They, I have to say, seem rather proud of their farty achievements. Their parents are, on the other hand, worried that James E. Hansen is going to blame us for a never-seen-before rise in polar bear suicides or somesuch.

  51. Paul says:

    Anthony, a question, why do you include accuweather in as a lukewarmer? I mean they are not a look warmer site. More like an extreme warmest site. Just a question.

  52. clipe says:

    Go head-to-head with an icebreaker. Plunge down a twisting mountain gorge. Soar through the clouds in the nosecone of a jet, then speed along with a dog team as it races across a frozen Arctic lake. A sweeping, moving tribute to Canada’s stunning geography and rich cultural heritage, Momentum leaps off your screen–and touches your heart.

    http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b331/kevster1346/icebreaker.jpg

    http://www.nfb.ca/film/momentum_en/

  53. Beesaman says:

    It looks like all the weather patterns have been pushing the sea ice back in the Kara Sea, instead of out into the North Atlantic. Evidence of this can also be seen in the increasing ice thickness near the shores of the Kara Sea:

    http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/arcticictn/nowcast/ictn2012021018_2012020800_035_arcticictn.001.gif

    Don’t tell the AGW crowd this as they don’t believe in education, only indoctrination!

  54. Charles Gerard Nelson says:

    Kakada…well spotted!

  55. Charles Gerard Nelson says:

    What do any of my ‘learned friends’ here know about the Piri Reis Map?

  56. neill says:

    “So this man doesn’t know where the methane ‘pocket’ is but thinks it will hit San Diego?”

    I know where it is. Off to the john…

  57. JC says:

    I have heard an argument claiming to refute the greenhouse effect itself on the basis of basic thermodynamics: The surface of the earth is warm; space is cold. Therefore, CO2 molecules can’t reradiate toward the surface. This argument seems sensible on its face. Is it easily refuted?

  58. Zac says:

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, I just love this graphic. The science behind a three folded cord deserves proper research, as do knots in general.

    I’ve never understood why science seems to ignore knots when they are so important to all our lives.

  59. Harold Ambler says:

    If anyone knows a teenager who is teetering on the fence separating intellectual seriousness and AGW orthodoxy, please consider buying him or her a copy of my book. Too many of the young are being fed the unmitigated terror emanating from Michael Mann et al.

    http://amzn.to/xam4iF

  60. Severian says:

    http://photoblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/10/10375026-spectacular-cloud-tsunami-rolls-over-florida-high-rise-condos

    From the interesting weather photo files, amazing and beautiful pics of fog rolling in off the ocean in Panama City Florida. I’ve never seen the like.

  61. The vast quantities of frozen Methane Calthrate on the ocean floor are ten times the proven reserves. The polar cap Methane Hydrates exceed proven reserves by six fold. Although ‘proven reserves’ as misproven, as there is Methane under ever rock you can FRACK. This is all ‘elemental Methane’, just as the ocean floor is full of liquid ‘elemental CO2′. When large atoms decay [fission] the released neutrons, protons and electrons are still present in lower order elements and are thus ‘elemental atoms’ subject to enormous heat and pressure they combine to from ‘elemental molecules’. This is explained in “Fossil Fuel is Nuclear Waste” and “Earth’s Missing Geothermal Flux”. Also see “Volcanic CO2″ by geologist Timothy Casey posted here, http://geologist-1011.net

    @ Lark

    YES, the atmosphere is being constantly eroded by solar wind and by cosmic ray decay, which is how Nitrogen goes from N14 to Carbon as C14. The four parameters of flight are gravity, lift, thrust and drag. ASSUMING that gravity did not change in the last 60 million years, and that muscles did not evolve to be magnitudes of strength LESS, then the only reasonable answer is greater lift from a denser air mass. This proved by UCSD Aeronautical Engineers some time ago. Pterodactyal Quezalocoatus wing span was 36 ft, todays Peruvian Condor wing span is 16 ft. Meganeura Dragonfly wingspan was 20 inches, todays Atlas Moth wingspan is 11 inches.

    And YES, the US TVA did produce a workable Thorium reactor, BUT it had no usefull bomb grade waste and the processing of input fuel did not underwrite the Uranium based nuclear bomb industry. A clear case of the ‘military-industrial complex’ responding to the HIGHER calling of the ICBMs.

  62. Jessie says:

    Charles Gerard Nelson says: February 11, 2012 at 5:05 pm

    This site may be of interest, though Indian Ocean, there may be valuable references in some papers.
    http://www.ari.nus.edu.sg/events_categorydetails.asp?categoryid=6&eventid=539
    History of Aceh & the Indian Ocean World
    for eg Paper 2. Goksoy

  63. pwl says:

    “‎….but CAN we afford that much Gas-X?” – J.D.

    J.D. we’ll have to ramp up production of Gas-X to offset the F.E.A.R. (Fraidy Environmentalists Anticipating Rapture) factors.

    http://www.uky.edu/Pharmacy/faculty/kuhn/formulary/group6/gasx.jpg

    The real question is how much Gas-X is needed to deal with this problem? Anthony? Willis?

    [;)]

  64. jorgekafkazar says:

    I love the South Park version of the HIstory Channel slogan: “The History Channel, where the truth is history!”

  65. Alvin says:

    Another reason we need to drill-baby-drill. Gotta get that over pressured methane and use it.

  66. PaulID says:

    I personally think that a methane explosion (not at the scale those fools are talking about) is far more likely to happen than AGW.

  67. Gary Hladik says:

    JC says (February 11, 2012 at 5:16 pm): “I have heard an argument claiming to refute the greenhouse effect itself on the basis of basic thermodynamics: The surface of the earth is warm; space is cold. Therefore, CO2 molecules can’t reradiate toward the surface. This argument seems sensible on its face. Is it easily refuted?”

    As I recently discovered (heh heh), this comes up frequently at WUWT. It seems to be based on a misunderstanding of the laws of thermodynamics.

    Short answer: Yes, I think it’s easily refuted by the example of the infrared camera, which can detect (by their emissions) objects colder than itself. See the infrared photo at the top of this page:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/13/a-conversation-with-an-infrared-radiation-expert/

  68. novareason says:

    I’m sadly addicted to some of the crap the history channel throws up there. Not that I believe half the claptrap they produce, but with the high production values, and amusing logical fallacies, it’s great fun to watch. “The government denies there are any aliens at all, so they must be colluding with them!!”

    Their reality competition show Top Shot is actually amusing, the high speed camera work capturing the bullet flights is great. Also excited about that Full Metal Jousting show that they’re coming out with… should be a good time.

    But if you believe anything they produce is really based in fact, you’re a lunatic.

  69. Doug Cotton says:

    Here is a simple proof in 10 easy steps why the Greenhouse Effect is a physical impossibility.

    (1) The IPCC claim that radiation from a cooler atmosphere slows the rate of cooling of the (warmer) surface, thus leading to a greenhouse effect.

    (2) The “rate of cooling” is a 24 hour worldwide mean, so wherever the Sun is warming the surface (any sunny morning) the rate of warming would have to be increased by whatever process is slowing the rate of cooling.

    (3) Thus extra thermal energy must be added to the surface by such radiation in order to increase the warming rate in the morning and slow the mean rate of cooling calculated from both day and night rates.

    (4) Now the Second Law of Thermodynamics relates to heat transfer which is not the same as energy transfer. Radiated energy can be two-way, but heat transfer between two points is always one way and it is invalid to split such heat transfer into two opposite components and try to apply the Second Law to each. Physics doesn’t work that way.

    (5) Hence, the surface cannot warm faster in the mornings due to such an imaginary heat transfer, because that would be clearly breaking the Second Law no matter what. Nor can it slow the rate of cooling because of (4). And in general you would expect the same process to happen whether the surface is warming or cooling.

    (6) So, those photons from the cooler atmosphere are not being converted to thermal energy in the warmer surface, as Prof Claes Johnson proved in Computational Blackbody Radiation.

    (7) Hence the effect of the photons being either reflected or scattered is that there is no impact on the surface at all.

    (8) It is also clear that there is no significant transfer by diffusion or conduction from the atmosphere to the surface because the surface absorbs more solar insolation than the lower atmosphere, and we observe that the atmosphere is generally cooler and even cools faster at night than the surface.

    (9) So it really does not matter even if extra thermal energy is trapped higher up in the atmosphere because it does not affect what we call climate, and any such energy cannot make its way back to the surface, except possibly an insignificant additional amount in precipitation.

    (10) Hence there is no valid physical way in which backradiation or absorption by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will cause a significant atmospheric greenhouse effect.

    If I haven’t convinced you, read this paper Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within the Frame of Physics http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

  70. Ric Werme says:

    Steve from Rockwood says:
    February 11, 2012 at 4:29 pm

    Sincerely,
    Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner
    Sea Level Expert
    ————————————————
    OK, I did a little word-smithing on his letter. But I have to say, the guy sounds like an idiot, so resigning probably helped the cause. Who signs a letter “Sea Level Expert” anyway?

    Well, given that Mörner has probably spent more time that anyone else on the planet studying sea levels, I think he can call himself an expert.

    I heard him talk at the ICCC in Chicago a couple years ago. He was 72 years old, but probably put on the most animated talk of anyone there and kept it up that evening during social time. He doesn’t have time to suffer fools gladly. Nor does he pull any punches – he speaks his mind.

    I’m not sure what possessed him to become an expert reviewer of the next IPCC report, when he reviewed the third, he said:

    “Chapter 11 on “Sea Level Changes” was written by 33 persons; none of which represents actual sea level research. I have now finished a 7 pages review report. It is a most shocking reading; lots of modeler wishes but very little hard facts based on real observational data by true sea level specialists. It seems that the authors involved in this chapter were chosen not because of their deep knowledge in the subject, but rather because they should say what the climate model had predicted. This chapter has a low and unacceptable standard. It should be completely rewritten by a totally new group of authors chosen among the group of true sea level specialists.”

    He is retired now, and doesn’t have a job to protect. I’m not expecting him to be looking to make many new friends. Like Nobel laureate Brian Josephson, some stuff he’s exploring is more than a bit odd, see my post http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/05/nils-axel-morner-arctic-environment-by-the-middle-of-this-century/ . On the other hand, there is more support for that idea now than in last July.

    A fairly recent article about him is at
    http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf “Claim That Sea Level Is Rising Is a Total Fraud.”

    Here’s another recent Mörner story – http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/7438683/rising-credulity.thtml

    A different sort of article is at http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1153 (Note right side nav bar on WUWT pages says “Unreliable; Skeptical Science – John Cook; Unreliable Due to (1) deletion, extension and amending of user comments, and (2) undated post-publication revisions of article contents after significant user commenting.”

  71. Ric Werme says:

    Zac says:
    February 11, 2012 at 5:20 pm

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, I just love this graphic. The science behind a three folded cord deserves proper research, as do knots in general.

    I’ve never understood why science seems to ignore knots when they are so important to all our lives.

    Mathematicians have studied knots for ages, or so I heard from Martin Gardner in his SciAm column Mathematical Games.

    They even go overboard – for the list of 85 possible (I think limited by the standard length or other practicality) ways to tie a necktie, see http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~tmf20/tieknots.shtml

  72. Ric Werme says:

    Doug Cotton says:
    February 11, 2012 at 9:49 pm

    (5) Hence, the surface cannot warm faster in the mornings due to such an imaginary heat transfer, because that would be clearly breaking the Second Law no matter what. Nor can it slow the rate of cooling because of (4). And in general you would expect the same process to happen whether the surface is warming or cooling.

    I haven’t looked at your list closely, but this point is bogus. In areas that are prone to radiational cooling, the inversion can break up quickly. All morning sun has to do is heat up a thin (10 meters or so) layer of air next to the ground and presto – wind and convection can scour that out quickly and trigger a big temperature jump. These points seem to expect a marginally stable atmosphere, and that’s often not the case, especially in the morning.

    Once the inversion is cleared out, then sunlight on the surface winds up heating the whole tropospere, not just the local inversion, and the heating rate goes way down.

    (8) It is also clear that there is no significant transfer by diffusion or conduction from the atmosphere to the surface because the surface absorbs more solar insolation than the lower atmosphere, and we observe that the atmosphere is generally cooler and even cools faster at night than the surface.

    Umm, convection? Let me guess – these guys have been doing small scale lab experiments, not setting foot outside. Well, neither have I. Not quite true, I check out temperature traces from my Davis VP weather station every day.

  73. Brian H says:

    Lark says:
    February 11, 2012 at 12:55 pm

    Very large and flying dinosaurs seem to require higher air pressure than ours.

    If anyone can point me to a discussion of this, I would be much obliged.

    Check out this: http://dinosaurtheory.com/index.html particularly Ch 4&5. Brace yourself; he says the big dinos had 2/3 of their weight supported by air 370 times heavier than present.
    ____
    As for the loon in the clip, he’s Prof. Gregory Ryskin Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering Northwestern University. I suspect he’s been mentally hoist on his own petard (exploding flatulence).

  74. Other_Andy says:

    As this is an Open thread weekend, I was wondering if anybody could help me.

    I have been reading the following:
    http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2005/9634.pdf
    http://www.climate.org/topics/climate-change/ocean-uptake-climate-change.html

    In short, they are articles state that due to the increase of anthropogenic CO2 the oceans have absorbed more CO2 which is causing ocean acidification.

    My questions:

    1. How do they know that the extra CO2 absorbed by the ocean is anthropogenic CO2? Is there a difference between anthropogenic CO2 and natural CO2?
    2. Isn’t there a limit on how much atmospheric CO2 can be absorbed by water independent of the amount of CO2 in the air?
    3. The increase of CO2 caused by humans is about 3%. If this is correct, why does such a small increase cause such a major reaction?
    4. In the past CO2 levels have been much higher. Did this also result in ocean acidification?
    5. In the last few hundred years ocean temperatures have gone up. Doesn’t warmer water have less ability to absorb CO2? So how can it be that while the oceans are warming, they (As stated) are absorbing more CO2?

  75. See - owe to Rich says:

    For your entertainment, here is an excerpt from a letter I wrote to my son’s geography teacher, answering some of the questions she put in a pamphlet to encourage students to continue with geography studies to age 16.

    1. Does it matter that 1998 was the warmest year on record, since 1861?

    Yes, but not for the reasons you think. You think that this means that global warming is an increasing danger to the world, and that with some fluctuations global temperatures are still rising. But it does matter that 1998, now 14 years ago, was the warmest rather than a more recent year, because the failure of these following years is rapidly falsifying the models and projections on which the IPCC relies for its alarming view of climate around 2100AD. In fact, a noisy function in the vicinity of its peak will tend to show fairly flat behaviour, just like that seen in the years 2001-2011 (and almost certainly 2012 too). After a peak comes a fall – global cooling, a term which may surprise you, except that even mainstream media such as The Daily Mail are now reporting on the possibility that a grand solar minimum, possibly to rival Maunder’s, will imply a cooling climate.

    Why did the question specify “since 1861″? The pre-eminent UK global temperature series is HadCRUT3, which starts in 1850. So 1998 was the warmest since at least 1850, and quite probably since about 1300, when the Mediaeval Warm Period started to give way to the Little Ice Age; but we really don’t know when the last warmer year was. In my spare time I have been writing a paper (to submit to peer-reviewed journals) which fits a curve to carbon dioxide concentrations and the length of solar cycles. It predicts a very modest global cooling of about 0.06K during 2010-2030, so it is quite possible that 1998’s mark may not be exceeded until the 2030s (though the odd “super El Nino” year could do it). There are some global cooling alarmists who predict far more serious cooling, but for now I am going to trust my more balanced view.

    2. What is happening to the world’s ice? Will ski-ing holidays still be available in 2060?
    It depends on which bits of the world’s ice are being considered. The Antarctic sea ice has shown a very modest upward trend over the last 30 years. In contrast, the Arctic sea ice as measured at minimum (September) has declined significantly. When measured at maximum extent the decline is smaller but still noticeable. Right now there is more ice than usual in the Bering Sea, but less in the Greenland and Barents seas. This is probably related to the fact that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation has gone negative whereas the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation is still positive. Global warming theorists might argue that oceans will never return to the cooler conditions of yesteryear, but the PDO contradicts that, so how confident are you that the AMO will not reverse phase?

    So yes, while the AMO is positive we can expect polar sea ice on the Atlantic side to be low, and more melting could occur even if global air temperatures do fall slightly. But 2007’s record low Arctic ice extent has not yet been broken. It will of course be fascinating to see when (and if) it does get broken. Will 2007 be to Arctic sea ice what 1998 is to global temperatures (i.e. a hard record to break)? Or is the Arctic in a so-called “death spiral”, and most years from now will be lower than 2007’s?

    Now ski-ing holidays are taken on mountains rather than on sea ice, so there shouldn’t be much connection between the two. Except, bizarrely, only today I read a report suggesting that a warmer Arctic would, for a while, lead to colder northern winters. But I have to say I have very little faith in that research – it just seems to be a knee-jerk reaction to the fact that we have had some cold winters recently.

    Regarding ski-ing in 2060, my model puts the global temperature at about 0.93K above the 1971-2000 mean, or 0.55K above the 1996-2006 mean. That’s a bit of global warming, but I don’t think it’s enough to prevent ski-ing in the Alps. The saturated adiabatic lapse rate is about 5K/km, and global warming of 0.5K might translate, through “polar amplification” and a large stretch of the imagination, to 1.0K at the Alps’ latitude, so that corresponds to a freezing level difference of 200m. Alpine ski resorts typically offer a vertical range of 1200-1500m, so they won’t lose all their snow, but the season will on average be a little shorter, and in late season taking lifts back down to the resort will become more common. It’ll still be great fun though.

    As a case in point, at the end of November there were concerns that no snow had fallen at village levels; now they have oodles, and in Les Deux Alpes the maximum temperature this week is set to be -14degC. You can add 1 degree of global warming to that and not make much impact on a cold February’s ski-ing.

    3. Will rising sea levels affect me?

    No. That is a categorical “no”, not just for me in my fifties, but for James in his teens too. The rate of sea level rise in the last 30 years has been about 3mm per year, and there has been no sign of acceleration. In fact the latest La Nina (cold and contracting Pacific Ocean) has put a big dent into the figures and sea levels have fallen the odd millimetre, probably temporarily. Even the IPCC AR4 only puts sea level rise at 40cm per century.

    The only risk is the pusillanimity of the British government. “Sea levels are inching up, shall we build bigger walls and dykes like the Dutch do, to protect our land? Nah, I never much liked East Anglia anyway…”

    4. Is Toowoomba a victim of climate change?

    Where? Oh, that town near Brisbane which was deluged in January 2011. Now this is actually quite an interesting question. But these are not the climate changes you are looking for. The onset of global cooling is in fact a plausible mechanism for flooding, and I was attributing the one to the other even at 1p.m. on July 20th 2007 while I was trying to persuade the stream in our garden not to invade our house. Why is it plausible? Well, why is August typically wetter than July? It is because the atmosphere has warmed and saturated with moisture, and the onset of any hint of autumnal cooling causes heavy rain.

    Globally we can have the same effect occurring. The Pakistan floods were caused by cold air coming down through central Asia and meeting the monsoon air. In Queensland the Pacific condition was La Nina, a massive cooling current, not the warming El Nino.

    There are two aspects to Toowoomba which are really striking as regards the fickleness of Mother Nature and our stupid belief that we understand Her. The first is that before 2011 the Australians were blaming global warming for the severe drought they were suffering in the Murray-Darling basin – as if they had never suffered droughts before. Well they are not in drought since that La Nina kicked in. Last year they had to give up filming the latest film in the Mad Max series at their favoured location – because the desert was too green!

    The second aspect is an awful human culpability bordering on the criminal, because it probably cost lives. At the time of the heavy rains some hydrologists knew that a bad river surge would surely occur if they let the reservoir fill up, so they wanted to release plenty of water well before it filled up. But the head honcho, knowing of the drought, could not bear to let one drop go out until it was absolutely necessary. And by then, with the continuing rains, it was too late! So that belief in the continuing drought-making effects of global warming killed people.

    Finally, here are a couple of questions which didn’t make it into your list.

    5. Does it matter that solar Cycle 23 was the longest since 1850?

    Yes, because it was 2 years longer than the average of the previous 8 cycles, and my model shows that those 2 years convert to global cooling of 0.16K. This is counteracted by about 0.10K of warming from increased CO2, leaving a net cooling. Because the previous cycles were shorter, part of the global warming of the 20th century was attributable to that, leaving the sensitivity to CO2 at 1.8K per doubling, well below central IPCC estimates.

    6. Does it matter that thunderstorms have become a rarity in England since 2006?

    Not really – it’s the sort of “climate change” which is benign, and not that noticeable (had you noticed it – the Met Office don’t report on this type of thing). But it contradicts the “climate change meme” of the Earth’s climate becoming more violent (as does the lowest Accumulated Cyclone Energy levels for 40 years). And it’s another sign of the quiet sun, which is proving to be in the driving seat of climate. Solar maximum is due in 2013, so I am hoping to see a few more thunderstorms this summer.

    I hope that you have found these answers interesting, and that you will be encouraged to think about teaching a balanced view of global warming in Geography. Because the only thing that is certain about it all is that the science isn’t settled.

  76. Doug Cotton says:

    Ric Werme says:
    February 11, 2012 at 11:02 pm

    I haven’t looked at your list closely
    ___________________________________________

    Well may I ask that you do look at the list, reading each point in order, because your response is about something altogether different and irrelevant to the whole thrust of the argument.

    All points need to be read in order. They are not stand alone points as you seem to think.

  77. Doug Cotton says:

    Ric Werme says:
    February 11, 2012 at 11:02 pm

    Umm, convection?
    __________________________________________

    You display a lack of knowledge of basic physics. I suggest you look up “Heat Transfer” in Wikipedia, because there can be no convection from a gas to a solid – only the processes I stated.

    So I can see you are not likely to understand the physics nor spend the time to read the 100+ page peer-reviewed published paper by two top German physicists.

    I would prefer to discuss this only with those who show an interest in learning and at least reading my post and some of the linked paper. So please refrain from making further irrelevant comments so I can save my time for those who are genuine in their interest.

    [Lose the attitude. You don't have to respond to every commenter, that is up to you, but all courteous comments here are valid and welcome ~jove, moderator]

  78. Doug Cotton says:

    Ric Werme says:
    February 11, 2012 at 11:02 pm

    Let me guess – these guys have been doing small scale lab experiments, not setting foot outside.
    ____________________________________________________________

    Observations on ‘Backradiation’ During Nighttime and Daytime
    http://principia-scientific.org/publications/New_Concise_Experiment_on_Backradiation.pdf

  79. Doug Cotton says:

    See – owe to Rich says:
    February 12, 2012 at 12:40 am

    eaving the sensitivity to CO2 at 1.8K per doubling
    ________________________________________________________

    Good points, but you can reduce that 1.8K to zero now – see
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/11/open-thread-weekend-7/#comment-890609

  80. Steve from Rockwood says:

    Ric Werme says:
    February 11, 2012 at 10:00 pm
    Steve from Rockwood says:
    February 11, 2012 at 4:29 pm
    ————————————–
    Ric, thanks for the links. I’m checking them out now. So I had a little fun with the Dr. He could have written a more eloquent “I just can’t take it anymore” letter rather than the “dog stole my homework”. In reflection, perhaps he was just so frustrated with the content of the chapter he jumped ship mid-voyage. But I see this thread has been hijacked by a bunny rabbit so I’ll leave it there.

  81. wermet says:

    Zac says: February 11, 2012 at 5:20 pm

    I’ve never understood why science seems to ignore knots when they are so important to all our lives.

    Mathematicians do indeed study knots. Knot theory is a sub-specialty of topology and is the study of mathematical knots. Mathematical knots differ from physical knots in that their ends are connected such that the “knot” cannot be “untied”. For more introductory info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knot_theory .

  82. Ric Werme says:

    Doug Cotton says:
    February 12, 2012 at 12:59 am

    Ric Werme says:
    February 11, 2012 at 11:02 pm

    Umm, convection?
    __________________________________________

    You display a lack of knowledge of basic physics. I suggest you look up “Heat Transfer” in Wikipedia, because there can be no convection from a gas to a solid – only the processes I stated.

    So I can see you are not likely to understand the physics nor spend the time to read the 100+ page peer-reviewed published paper by two top German physicists.

    I’m very sorry – I though I was clear that I was talking from heat from solid ground to gaseous atmosphere and gaseous convection leading a temperature profile changing from a thin inversion to a well mixed region matching the adiabatic lapse rate.

    Convection is pretty much useless for moving heat from air to ground.

    I thumbed through Gerlich and Tscheuschner sometime in the past, I think when the 2009 version was discussed here. IIRC, I got the impression that their concept of the Greenhouse effect didn’t match mine or others. It is worth revisiting, but I have to write a presentation I’ll call “Elements of Climate Change” for our local Mensa groups annual gathering and later polish it to give to a NH House Committee looking at another RGGI repeal attempt.

    I would prefer to discuss this only with those who show an interest in learning and at least reading my post and some of the linked paper. So please refrain from making further irrelevant comments so I can save my time for those who are genuine in their interest.

    [Lose the attitude. You don't have to respond to every commenter, that is up to you, but all courteous comments here are valid and welcome ~jove, moderator]

    I might offer your comments for the person introducing me at the Mensa gathering, it will get a good laugh.

    BTW, the best way to suppress further comments from attention seeking clueless idiots is to simply ignore us. Once we’ve established we’re clueless idiots, then the community doesn’t need your reminder. Of course, requests like “please refrain from making further irrelevant comments” only act as a challenge. Now, had you suggested I not make comments at 2 AM, I’d fully agree with that. If you had you credited Gerlich and Tscheuschner in your 10 points, I wouldn’t have bothered to reply.

    Oh yeah – I did check out Wikipedia’s notes on heat and energy in a previous discussion, and concluded that people have different idea of what heat really is. Back in high school, I got a 800 on the SAT Physics Achievement test. So while I passed understanding of basic physics back then, perhaps it’s time for the dreaded Mensa retest. (My favorite question was “There is a surgical kit under your desk. Remove your appendix.)

  83. Steve from Rockwood says:

    Ric Werme says:
    February 11, 2012 at 10:00 pm
    ——————————————
    Further in regards to sea level rise, Mörner claims that sea levels have not risen overall in the past 150 years and that currently there is no trend. He makes specific reference to a 1.1 mm rise from 1850 – 1940 and then no rise from 1940 – 1970. He goes on to say from 1992 – 2002 there was no trend to sea level, only a straight line (presumably he meant a slope of 0.0).
    His comments are here:
    http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf
    I tried to verify his claims, specifically here:
    http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/past-current-future-sea-level-rise-graphs/
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/06/sea-level-graphs-from-uc-and-some-perspectives/
    What I have found is a (more or less) straight line of some 3 mm per year for quite awhile.
    Any hints Ric on how to verify Mörner’s claims that sea level is not rising? I’m not a fan of skepticalscience but they do tear him up quite nicely.

  84. JDN says:

    @DirkH: Thanks for the info. Those were interesting, but, I have seen a few suggestions that the breeding portion of the fuel lifecycle is going to be problematic. If you remember the old hybrid approach to use un-enriched uranium (inject neutrons to sustain the reaction), the devil was in the details. I get a little worried to see so much hype on a technology without any discernible technical discussion or calculations of energy yield, etc. I guess the recent solar & wind debacle has me suspicious of all things “alternative”.

  85. DirkH says:

    Steve from Rockwood says:
    February 12, 2012 at 6:48 am
    “What I have found is a (more or less) straight line of some 3 mm per year for quite awhile.
    Any hints Ric on how to verify Mörner’s claims that sea level is not rising? I’m not a fan of skepticalscience but they do tear him up quite nicely.”

    Satellite altimetry is difficult as the satellite sends a signal, receives the echo and has to make sense of it, as opposed to purely passive measurement-taking. So they calibrate that, and they use that subsiding Hongkong gauge as reference to have a nice trend for the glossy IPCC reports. Or something like that, according to Mörner, see below.

    Before Jason/TOPEX there was 1.6 mm/yr; since 1993, when Jason/TOPEX started, it’s 3.3 mm/yr, and ENVISAT says something completely different (no change over the past 6 years or so, the lifetime of Envisat).

    http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2011/06/06/deception-from-nasa-satellites-are-true-cause-of-sea-level-rise/#comment-6607
    THE GREAT SEA-LEVEL HUMBUG
    There Is No Alarming Sea Level Rise!
    by Nils-Axel Mörner
    http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2011/Winter-2010/Morner.pdf

  86. David Ball says:

    Regarding exploding methane pockets; Is there not lightning on Titan?

  87. DirkH says:

    JDN says:
    February 12, 2012 at 7:48 am
    “@DirkH: Thanks for the info. Those were interesting, but, I have seen a few suggestions that the breeding portion of the fuel lifecycle is going to be problematic. If you remember the old hybrid approach to use un-enriched uranium (inject neutrons to sustain the reaction), the devil was in the details. I get a little worried to see so much hype on a technology without any discernible technical discussion or calculations of energy yield, etc. I guess the recent solar & wind debacle has me suspicious of all things “alternative”.”

    I agree completely. Probably for that reason China also builds a ton of Westinghouse AP 1000 light water reactors. Like the ones that will be build in the US.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP1000

    German media are out of their tiny little socialist minds about that. :-)

  88. David Ball says:

    Ric Werme, I always read your posts and have learned a great deal from them as they are always well presented thoughtful arguments. Just wondered if you had read the Slayer’s book? If not, perhaps you could tell me why not.

  89. Ric Werme says:

    Steve from Rockwood says:
    February 12, 2012 at 6:48 am

    I tried to verify his [Mörner's] claims, specifically here:
    http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/past-current-future-sea-level-rise-graphs/
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/06/sea-level-graphs-from-uc-and-some-perspectives/
    What I have found is a (more or less) straight line of some 3 mm per year for quite awhile.
    Any hints Ric on how to verify Mörner’s claims that sea level is not rising? I’m not a fan of skepticalscience but they do tear him up quite nicely.

    No, I don’t have good supporting notes, there are a several things I’d like to look into further:

    1) Mörner’s ICCC talk emphasized how different sea level changes are, even at geologically stable places. (IIRC, he was very critical about some much touted data where he claims sensors are installed on fill that is settling, it’s not just glacial rebound or tectonic plate movement.)

    2) Some of the data from around SE Asia he ascribes to wind and salinity changes, it would be nice to see how that varies with PDO, ENSO, and all the other pertinent Os.

    3) Some sites that people claim have shown little change (e.g. the eastern Mediterranean, John Daly’s http://www.john-daly.com/deadisle/ etc) deserve more attention.

    4) The biggy – Mörner’s claim

    In 2003 the satellite altimetry record was mysteriously tilted upwards to imply a sudden sea level rise rate of 2.3mm per year. When I criticised this dishonest adjustment at a global warming conference in Moscow, a British member of the IPCC delegation admitted in public the reason for this new calibration: “We had to do so, otherwise there would be no trend.”

    is easy to find on the web, but I’ve found essentially nothing that corroborates or invalidates it. OTOH, I haven’t looked very far. I found some references that the error in satellite radar sea level measurements is about 4 cm (IIRC), so we’re in the noise regime and long range averaging. If I looked into how people do radar altimetry, I suspect I’d be reading things for months. There ought to be GPS data that could provide alternative sea level data, but I haven’t stumbled across any. Ditto laser distance measurements to the Moon, I think that has sufficient resolution. Nor have I Emailed Mörner about any of this.

    All in all, yet another topic I’d love to investigate more but simply don’t have time to do so. It seems like such a simple thing, but by the time political invective, unsubstantiated claims, and all the other crap that happens in this field gets added to noisy data, the fallback of patient waiting and watching becomes overwhelmingly attractive.

    If there is indeed a 2.3mm/y adjustment it will show up soon enough. And then there’s the new Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/05/new-sea-level-page-from-university-of-colorado-now-up/ ):

    One important change in these releases is that we are now adding a correction of 0.3 mm/year due to Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA), so you may notice that the rate of sea level rise is now 0.3 mm/year higher than earlier releases. This is a correction to account for the fact that the global ocean basins are getting slightly larger over time as mantle material moves from under the oceans into previously glaciated regions on land. Simply subtract 0.3 mm/year if you prefer to not include the GIA correction.

    With this, “Sea level” now means “sea volume” and that means any comparison to some vertical reference is utterly meaningless and we should be ashamed to even think that a level might have anything to do with a line scratched on some random piece of bedrock. What do I know? Obviously not simple physics! :-)

    I’d almost rather go back to the runaway greenhouse effect on Venus….

  90. Steve from Rockwood says:

    DirkH says:
    February 12, 2012 at 7:50 am
    ———————————————–
    DirkH, thanks for the links. I so want to believe Mörner but I have to say it’s looking bad for his claims of no sea-level rise and no trend since 1850. See the graph below from the link you provided. OK, so the trend is 1.7 mm per year and not 3.2. But a trend is still a trend.

    http://climatesanity.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/nasa-sea-level-data-ground2.jpg

  91. Toto says:

    The Cliff Mass Weather Blog is the best weather blog I have seen. His topic is mainly Seattle weather. Why can’t other weather sites give the excellent graphics and explanations he does?
    http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/

    Today’s entry is “Will we do anything about global warming? Should we?”
    http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2012/02/will-we-do-anything-about-global.html

    Cliff is convinced that CAGW is real, although there is still hope for him.

    Although warming is certain, the AMOUNT of warming is not–there is a substantial range of possibilities, and significantly the uncertainties have not been reduced during the past several decades. (As we have learned more, additional uncertainties appear!)

    Unfortunately, this global warming business has become politicized. Sometimes I think Al Gore did far more harm than good; if he had never injected the issue into the political arena, might we be in a better place now? Hard to know. And too many people have confused what HAS happened to what WILL happen. Global warming up to now has been relatively subtle and roughly of the same magnitude as natural climate variations. The big action is YET to come, particularly in the later half of this century. Politicians and a few activist scientists that exaggerated the effects of greenhouse-induced warming on recent climate/weather events have often done far more harm than good by reducing the credibility of the real threat later in this century.

    I propose that we compromise: we will allow global warming in the winter and put a cap on it in the summer. Just ask any snowbird in AZ escaping the winters in the northern states and Canada.

  92. Steve from Rockwood says:

    Ric Werme says:
    February 12, 2012 at 9:19 am

    [some interesting stuff]

    —————————————-
    Thanks Ric. You would think a guy like Mörner could show a graph of sea-level rise with no trend over the past 150 years when if fact there are dozens of graphs out there to the contrary (ah the consensus is right after all! – not that I agree).

    And then says

    I’d almost rather go back to the runaway greenhouse effect on Venus….

    Haha, I’m there too. Plus I’d like to see Willis have another go at the N-Z paper. And I’d like to know why Jupiter and Saturn radiate more energy than they receive from the sun. Must be all the uranium that jorgekafkazar found when he was there.

  93. Ric Werme says:

    David Ball says:
    February 12, 2012 at 8:59 am

    Ric Werme, I always read your posts and have learned a great deal from them as they are always well presented thoughtful arguments. Just wondered if you had read the Slayer’s book? If not, perhaps you could tell me why not.

    Thank you for the kind comments, I appreciate them greatly.

    I assume you’re referring to Slaying the Sky Dragon…. Unfortunately, I have haven’t had time to read most of the books I’d like to (or some of the stacks of interesting papers I’ve printed). Between too many other hobbies and commitments, and altogether too many people posting interesting stuff here, there doesn’t seem to be time to pursue stuff I want to learn more about.

    Heck, I haven’t even finished Bob Carter’s book, and I got that a couple years ago.

    I also need to figure out what my role at WUWT should be. There are enough knowledgeable folks here now so a lot of stuff I could add someone else does too. (That’s fine – I can use the time!) I seem to be good at remembering the existence of old but relevant posts and am good at hunting down other relevant web pages. I’m always looking for connections between new observations that may help explain past puzzles. One thing I spent a fair amount of time on is helping Anthony keep things running well by working around some WordPress shortcomings (e.g. getting images like the ENSO meter in a fixed URL and documenting the HTML WordPress supports).

    The rest of the time I try not to say too many things beyond my skill and knowledge. While I’m a carnivore, I like to keep my foot out of my mouth.

  94. Ed Mertin says:

    Few interesting items I found over at eruptions@wired… Smaller stratosphere eruptions can be much more rich in SO2 than larger eruptions. Large SO2 ice crystals can drop out quickly. Fine ash aerosols may have the ability to stay in the stratosphere longer than I thought. Tried to post in tips & notes but kept getting closed.

    http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/332612/title/Small_volcanoes_add_up_to_cooler_climate

    Small volcanoes add up to cooler climate

    Airborne particles help explain why temperatures rose less last decade

    By Alexandra Witze August 13th, 2011; Vol.180 #4 (p. 5)

    Along with sulfur emitted by coal-burning power plants, volcanic particles spewed high in the atmosphere reduced the amount of global warming otherwise expected during the 2000s, a new study finds…

    Volcanoes affect upwelling and ocean currents as static heat sources

    NPG – Abstract – The effect of a localized geothermal heat source on deep water formation

    http://www.nonlin-processes-geophys.net/18/841/2011/npg-18-841-2011.html

    Explosive volcanic eruptions triggered by cosmic rays: Volcano as a bubble chamber 10.1016/j.gr.2010.11.004 : Gondwana Research | ScienceDirect.com

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1342937X10001966

    http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/elsevier/explosive-volcanic-eruptions-triggered-by-cosmic-rays-volcano-as-a-3p053jxP0S

  95. David Ball says:

    Ric, thanks for your response. My father has been at the forefront of this discussion from the outset and I was concerned that you had fallen for the smear campaign that would like you to believe that he is no longer at the pinnacle of the discussion. Having been at this important debate for longer than just about anyone, I would have thought that people would realize that his expertise and experience would still be of import. He is not out of the game and I implore you to give this some of your time. It would be a mistake to dismiss it outright.

    I have said many things beyond my skill and knowledge regarding climate . My father has not. I am not my father. I am interested in the climate, but it is not my “area”. I do know BS when I see it posted, though.

  96. WUWT has never done a post on Graphene.

    I have one if you want to use it as a guest post. It’s short. But it is a good outline of Graphene. I can submit it to you for review to see if it meets WUWT standards.

    This is an introductory video to Graphene.

  97. Anthony Scalzi says:

    David Ball says:
    February 12, 2012 at 8:31 am

    Regarding exploding methane pockets; Is there not lightning on Titan?

    —–

    Actually, it seems like there isn’t much, if any lightning on Titan.

    http://planetary.org/blog/article/00003040/

    But even if there was, it wouldn’t cause explosions because Titan doesn’t have any oxygen for the methane to burn with.

  98. DirkH says:

    Steve from Rockwood says:
    February 12, 2012 at 9:46 am
    “DirkH, thanks for the links. I so want to believe Mörner but I have to say it’s looking bad for his claims of no sea-level rise and no trend since 1850. See the graph below from the link you provided. OK, so the trend is 1.7 mm per year and not 3.2. But a trend is still a trend.

    http://climatesanity.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/nasa-sea-level-data-ground2.jpg

    Yes, 17mm a decade or 17 cm a century. While the alarmists warn of a meter, 5 meters, 70 meters until 2100, depending on how alarmist they are.
    Don’t you think that it’s rather easy to adapt to a sea level rise of 17 cm in a century? That’s a piece of cake compared to the meters of snow falling on the villages in Rumania right now IMHO…

    The argument of the alarmist scientists was not to fear the 3.2 mm/year but that sea level rise would accelerate. Well, it doesn’t look like it. Now, why don’t the alarmists throw some parties; humanity’s saved again! I have yet to see my first alarmist with a smile on his face, come to think of it, not one of the Waldsterben (forest death through acid rain hysteria in Germany in the 80ies) guys of the 80ies was delighted when their prophecies turned out to be wrong…

  99. Ric Werme says:

    David Ball says:
    February 12, 2012 at 10:32 am

    Ric, thanks for your response. My father has been at the forefront of this discussion from the outset and I was concerned that you had fallen for the smear campaign that would like you to believe that he is no longer at the pinnacle of the discussion. Having been at this important debate for longer than just about anyone, I would have thought that people would realize that his expertise and experience would still be of import. He is not out of the game and I implore you to give this some of your time. It would be a mistake to dismiss it outright.

    Oh, absolutely! Your father and Alan Carlin were the two people I most wanted to meet at the ICCC last year in Washington DC. We had a good chat about the state of the lawsuits and motives behind them.

    Despite my comments on Doug Cotton’s list, I don’t see the Greenhouse Effect (or whatever it should be called) as a major player in future climate change. The dichotomy between CO2 concentrations and the temperature over the last 50 years is just too great. I suspect that any decrease in heat transport due to GHGs can be offset by convection. I don’t know enough about either effect to quantify it, but given sail plane pilots and birds can use convection above parking lots and dark agricultural fields says convection is transporting a lot of heat. The IR spectrum still has plenty of space for letting heat radiate out from the surface unimpeded. I’d like to see if that could be exploited in a blackbody radiator to provide summertime cooling at night and maybe during the day. My guess is it would have to be too big to be able to shade it from the sun (and the shades) during the day.

    Learning more about radiative physics of GHGs and how they transfer energy between their molecules and to adjacent molecules of nitrogen and oxygen is at the top of list of things I haven’t had time to learn about.

  100. DirkH says:

    Very amusing alarmism from 1988. Watch the full first part to get a slew of contradicting hypotheses. Sounds exactly like the flip-flopping of the alarmists from today.

  101. Roger Knights says:

    JC says:
    February 11, 2012 at 5:16 pm
    I have heard an argument claiming to refute the greenhouse effect itself on the basis of basic thermodynamics: The surface of the earth is warm; space is cold. Therefore, CO2 molecules can’t reradiate toward the surface. This argument seems sensible on its face. Is it easily refuted?

    Individual particles can flow from a colder to a warmer source, it’s just that more of them will flow the other way, so there’s no net heating. But the warmists’ point about reradiation isn’t refuted.

  102. Smokey says:

    Dirk H,

    Amazing video, thanks for posting. I liked the part where they say that CO2 = global warming must be mistaken.☺

    Stephen Schneider was on the imminent ice age bandwagon back then, and he was quoted a couple of times. Climate alarmists will say anything if there’s something in it for them, and honest science be damned. Just like today.

  103. Al Gored says:

    Apparently this site is little more than a source of viruses:

    http://notrickszone.com/2012/02/12/leftist-german-taz-daily-article-on-vahrenholt-climate-skeptics-are-like-viruses/

    Tis actually a poor choice of extreme metaphors as viruses are rather difficult to stop and the term ‘viral’ does describe how far and wide sites like this have spread the message.

    But responses like this tell us that somebody is getting more desperate. Next up I suppose we’ll hear about lizard-brained Big Oil-fed planet-hating viruses that prey on ‘the children.’

  104. Al Gored says:

    DirkH says:
    February 12, 2012 at 1:02 pm

    Thanks for post that video!!! Too much. So the greenhouse effect should be greater in the tropics than in the Arctic? And it causes global cooling!

    This thing is such a classic that it really needs to be spread far and wide.

  105. John says:

    The wheels of Real Climate are beginning to come off – they are starting to consume their own. Too funny.

    [Moderator's Note: John, this does not seem to be a response to anything else on this thread. Could you elaborate, perhaps, and supply a link to whatever it is you are referring to? -REP]

  106. j.pickens says:

    On the subject of catastrophic methane gas releases.
    CH4 is much lighter than CO2, which the History channel shows erupting in Africa.
    If the same thing happened in the lake with CH4, it would have risen skyward, and nobody would have suffocated.
    If it had ignited, it would have made an explosion, but most likely a fireball. It is hard to get methane gas to ignite explosively in an open environment. Too close to the source, and there isn’t enough oxygen, too far away, burning, but no explosion.

  107. David Ball says:

    Anthony Scalzi says:
    February 12, 2012 at 11:14 am
    Hmm. Was just reading about this.
    http://www.astrobio.net/pressrelease/3546/oxygen-moves-from-enceladus-to-titan

  108. Doug Cotton says:

    Ric Werme says:
    February 12, 2012 at 6:41 am

    I thought I was clear that I was talking from heat from solid ground to gaseous atmosphere

    __________________________________________

    Well I knew I was clear that I was talking about the opposite, so it was yourself who went off on a tangent.

    You have not addressed the set of “10 steps” that I made at all.

    Maybe you can state why you and the IPCC believe that while solar radiation is warming a certain area of the land surface or the ocean on a sunny morning (so the temperatureof the surface is increasing and there is net radiation going into the surface) then the additional backradiation from a cold atmosphere (also going into the surface) is claimed to do more warming and so transfer additional heat.

    Answer that my friend, bearing in mind that the Second Law of Thermodynamics says it cannot because heat cannot be transferred from cold to hot. (Heat transfer is not radiation transfer, by the way.).

    Then I suggest you read the first two pages of my website http://climate-change-theory.com and the linked page to Prof Claes Johnson’s Computational Radiation Theory.” as well as all the paper by Prof Nahle regarding the invalidity of backradiation measurements.

    Note also another post I am about to write below this.

  109. David Ball says:

    Anthony Scalzi says:
    February 12, 2012 at 11:14 am
    Of course Mr. Scalzi is correct. There is not enough oxygen for the methane to ignite. Interesting that there is oxygen there at all, however.

  110. Doug Cotton says:

    I have posted my “10 steps” post http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/11/open-thread-weekend-7/#comment-890609 on many other forums (both for and against AGW) with a genuine desire to see if anyone can raise a valid counter argument. The following may help explain and reinforce what I have written there.

    Firstly, the actual amount of backradiation must be grossly overstated because the emissivity of the atmosphere is only about 20% I understand and it is colder than the surface and emitting in all directions into a full sphere rather than a hemisphere. So how could NASA’s energy diagram possibly be right in showing similar values for emission from the surface as from the atmosphere. I postulate that the instruments calculate the radiative flux from the temperature assuming emissivity is unity and emission into a hemisphere.

    But, whatever the amount of backradiation, it cannot transfer thermal energy from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface as this would imply a heat transfer from cold to hot, which is against the Second Law of Thermodynamics. When the surface is warming on a sunny morning, for example, and net radiative flux is into the surface, how can additional heat be transferred from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface against the Second Law. It can’t and all such radiation is reflected or (mostly) scattered and thus leaves no energy behind.

    It follows that, since backradiation cannot add thermal energy to a warmer surface, then it cannot increase the rate of warming in the morning or slow the rate of cooling in the evening.

    Backradiation is after all low energy radiation spontaneously emitted from a cold source. The peak frequency of the strongly attenuated spectrum is proportional to the absolute temperature (Wien’s Displacement Law) and such frequencies are usually lower than those in the radiation from the surface. Surface molecules “recognise” this and reject the low energy radiation which does not have enough energy to be converted to thermal energy. (See Prof Claes Johnson Computational Blackbody Radiation) http://www.csc.kth.se/~cgjoh/blackbodyslayer.pdf

    We see examples of this in radio broadcasts where we know the radiation is even lower frequency than that in backradiation. It is of course artificially generated, but its frequency corresponds to much lower temperatures than normally experienced on earth or in the troposphere. For this very reason it is scattered by the surface and by the atmosphere and is not converted to thermal energy because it is “colder” even than the backradiation. If this were not the case, then it would have been quickly quenched as all its energy would have been used up warming whatever it struck. So it would not travel the distances that we know it does. Basically the same happens to backradiation and it just keeps getting scattered off molecules in both the atmosphere and the surface until it happens by chance to escape to space.

    So the (latest version of) the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is (like the first version) a physical impossibility.

  111. London247 says:

    As it is an open thread,,
    There was an article a couple of weeks back on WUWT about lunar temperatures. There was some discussion and arguement about the observed temperatures. My point is that with a body with no atmosphere and no free water and the only influences being
    1- Solar radtaion
    2- Radiactive decay
    3- Heat emiited by the core
    how can it be so difficult to expain the temperaure of the moon?
    If this is a problem then measuring the temperature of the Earth and the degree of influence due to specifc factors is of insurmountable complexity. However we do know if the Sun diminshes, the Earth will be an iceball.

  112. George E. Smith; says:

    I’m under the impression that the CO2 (hint CO2 is NOT methane, and is not explosive; having allready done that) in that African lake was ejected from some volcanic vent under the lake, which lake is not that deep. CO2 takes something like 56 atmospheres of pressure to turn into a solid at around room Temperature or whatever (I’ll let you wikigigglers find the real numbers), so that would take say 56 times 34 feet of water or 1904 feet of water pressure to condense the CO2. So naturally CO2, which incidently is NOT methane, would of course escape quite naturally as it came from the volcanic vent, and most certainly as it exited from even a thousand feet of lake, it would do so with some considerable kinetic energy from the expansion, and buoyancy.

    But then methane is not CO2, so it wouldn’t really do the same thing. So what is the liquifaction or solidification pressure of CH4 at around 4deg C or whatever they say the deep ocean Temperature actually is away from sulphur vents or black smokers.

    The good professor doesn’t know where these CH4 deposits are, so how does he know what they arechemically or physically, and what is their state.

  113. George E. Smith; says:

    “”””” JC says:

    February 11, 2012 at 5:16 pm

    I have heard an argument claiming to refute the greenhouse effect itself on the basis of basic thermodynamics: The surface of the earth is warm; space is cold. Therefore, CO2 molecules can’t reradiate toward the surface. This argument seems sensible on its face. Is it easily refuted? “””””

    Yes it is JC.

    Electromagnetic radiation IS NOT HEAT. Thermodynamics and the laws of thermodynamics relate to macroscopic scale systems. No matter what the wavelength of the EM radiation, whether power line, 60 Hz radiation, or 1 micron wavelength near infra-red radiation, or one angstom gamma radiation, EM radiation is not heat, and it can go anywhere it darn well pleases.

    The sun and the moon both subtend the same solid angle as seen from earth even though they are of different sizes, so the mean radiation from earth, going in all directions sends about the same amount of radiant energy to the sun, which is hotter than earth, as it does the moon which is colder than earth.

    It is “heat” which is a purely mechanical kinetic energy of physical massive particles, which cannot unaided flow freely from cold to hot, as restricted by the second law, and the second law relates to cyclic systems, so there is a presumption that there is a bi-directional path possible, and the net heat flow will be from hot to cold, sans any other interference; like a refrigerator for example. Work must be done to transport heat from cold to hot.

    “No cyclic machine can have no other effect, than to transport heat from a source at one Temperature to a sink at some higher Temperature.”

    That is a crude English translation from the German, of Rudolph Clausius statement of the second law of thermodynamics. The “other effect” would be doing work to get heat to go from cold to hot..

    But CO2 will radiate isotropically in any direction; that is the emitted photon has no directional bias, so it can go back to the surface just as easily as being lost to space. The key point is if the surface is hotter (it may not be), then the surface is also radiating, and likely more than the CO2, so there won’t be a net flow of EM radiation from the CO2 to the surface either, but a flow from the CO2 to the surface is a sure thing; but less than comes backup from the surface.There are some complications, like the CO2 emission is 4pi isotropic, while the surface emission is just 2pi and likely more Lambertian than isotropic. But no matter, the CO2 can’t warm the surface; but the sun can, and does.

  114. littlepeaks says:

    Read a strangely worded item in “Earthweek”, a Warmist section in our Sunday newspaper. Under “Amped ocean influence” it talks about about a writing in the journal “Natural Climate Change”, saying that El Nino and La Nina will have an ongoing increased role in causing weather disasters … . It also said New Zealanders … should expect more extreme events, such as flooding and drought. But the last paragraph states, “The intensity and frequency of such occurrences are likely to be at least similar to what had been seen over the past three decades.” Earthweek doesn’t even agree with itself here.

  115. George E. Smith; says:

    Diamond has about twice the thermal conductivity of silver or copper at room Temperatures.

    Type II-a diamond has a low Temperature thermal conductivity of 100 W degC^-1.cm^-1 which is much higher than at room Temperature.

    if you take a rod of type II-a diamond that is say 93 million miles long; 1.5 E16 cm and one squ cm crossection, and you put one end on the sun at 6,000 K and the other on earth at 300 K you have a Temperature difference of 5700 K so the heat conduction would be:-

    100 x 5700 / 1.5 E 16 = 3.8 08 E -8 W / cm^2, or 380 microWatts per square metre
    Well if it was copper it would be 1/25th of that since copper is only 4 W k^-1 cm^-1 at room temperature.

    So even with the very best thermal conductance known, and ignoring a few practical problems you cannot get any amount of “heat” from the sun; so we make it all here on earth out of good solar energy by wasting it all.

  116. Ric Werme says:

    Doug Cotton says:
    February 12, 2012 at 3:09 pm

    > Ric Werme says:
    > February 12, 2012 at 6:41 am

    I hope this formats ok at WUWT with no wordwrapping. If not, I might
    recast things to have a single response block. Lines prefixed with 0 or
    2 angle brackets are my typing.

    >> I thought I was clear that I was talking from heat from solid ground to
    >> gaseous atmosphere

    > Well I knew I was clear that I was talking about the opposite, so it was
    > yourself who went off on a tangent.

    I’m happy to take your word for it.

    > You have not addressed the set of “10 steps” that I made at all.

    Quite right, and I won’t have time to do them justice any time soon.
    Besides the talk next weekend I hope to have time to write a post on the
    50th anniversary of a nor’easter that destroyed my grandparent’s summer
    home.

    > Maybe you can state why you and the IPCC believe that while solar
    > radiation is warming a certain area of the land surface or the ocean on
    > a sunny morning (so the temperature of the surface is increasing and
    > there is net radiation going into the surface) then the additional
    > backradiation from a cold atmosphere (also going into the surface) is
    > claimed to do more warming and so transfer additional heat.

    As an electrical engineer (at least according to the diploma),
    ultimately I’ll fall back to looking at electrons. Similarly, radiative
    flux is all about photons. The back radiation, like the Sun, is a
    source of photons, and when the photons hit an object they either
    reflect, refract, or get absorbed.

    So on a sunny morning, solar photons hit the ground and most get
    absorbed. GHG molecules release photons in all directions, but some of
    those reach the ground and most of those get absorbed. However, the
    ground is radiating a much higher IR flux and is a lot more effective at
    heating the GHGs (or at least raising them to an excited state, you may
    have to explain exactly what happens when a GHG molecule captures a
    photon, I’ve seen several different accounts).

    About the only effect of the GHGs is to add a little flux to the solar
    radiation and the morning temperature will rise very slightly faster than
    it would without the GHGs.

    I have no idea what the IPCC thinks, except that it’s not pretty.

    In another regime, I can feel the same sort of effect when I come home
    after a winter vacation. The house has sat for a week or so at, say 50F
    or 10C, and even after the thermostat is satisfied it’s back to a normal
    temperature, the house still feels cold because the walls are still cold
    and not radiating their normal flux. When they do warm up, I still
    radiate more to them than they do to me, but the extra flux means I’m
    not cooling as quickly as before.

    > Answer that my friend, bearing in mind that the Second Law of
    > Thermodynamics says it cannot because heat cannot be transferred from
    > cold to hot. (Heat transfer is not radiation transfer, by the way.).

    Of course net heat cannot be transferred from cold to hot (without heat
    engines an other devices that are compliant with physical laws). I’m
    not sure about your heat versus radiation, but I’ll note that the heated
    ground heats the surface air by conduction (ground molecules and air
    molecules bouncing off each other), and that’s really the primary way
    surface air warms up in the morning.

    Well, some days it’s obvious on my temperature traces that a cold front
    blows through in the morning and scours out the inversion, so in that
    case the surface air warms as it mixes with warmer air advecting in.
    The air behind a cold front is often warmer than the air below a morning
    inversion. Warm fronts generally don’t have enough “grip” to break up a
    decent inversion.

    > Then I suggest you read the first two pages of my website
    > http://climate-change-theory.com and the linked page to Prof Claes
    > Johnson’s Computational Radiation Theory.” as well as all the paper by
    > Prof Nahle regarding the invalidity of backradiation measurements.

    I looked at some of that this morning, and want to get back to it when I have
    time. What’s the difference between http://climate-change-theory.com and
    http://earth-climate.com/ ?

    I just took a quick look at
    http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2011/08/how-to-fool-yourself-with-pyrgeometer.html
    He seems to think differently than I do, perhaps it’s because Kirchoff’s
    laws of current and voltage are easier to grok than Kirchoff’s law of
    thermal radiation. (The former are first day items in an electrical
    engineering curriculum. Most students will have known them for the
    previous decade.) Perhaps physicists have trouble breaking net flow of
    a flux into its component parts. Seems unlikely, you guys have vector
    math down pat. Perhaps part of the confusion is that this isn’t really
    a vector math problem. EEs with a physics mindset can treat current
    flow in a wire as a vector, and either vector or scalar currents all add
    up to zero. Hmm, I may be all wet on the vector analogy. Not worth
    analyzing tonight.

    I think the issue is much less a disagreement about the physics than it
    is a perception of how to describe the physics.

    > Note also another post I am about to write below this.

    You seem to think the same way Johnson does. You say:

    > It follows that, since backradiation cannot add thermal energy to a
    > warmer surface, then it cannot increase the rate of warming in the
    > morning or slow the rate of cooling in the evening.

    Part of the problem may be deciding what is and what isn’t part of
    the system. Engineers do systems. In the morning, the system is at
    least the GHG (source of backradiation), the ground (source of
    radiation) and the Sun (6×10^-5 steradians of a lot of radiation). And
    the rest of the sky, otherwise we’ll only get hotter until we reach the
    Sun’s temperature, and that assumes the Sun stops generating heat!)

    I would say:

    Although backradiation delivers thermal energy to a warmer surface, the
    warmer surface must radiate more thermal energy and will cool. Back
    radiation can increase the rate of warming in the morning where the
    Sun’s input overwhelms the cooling, or slow the rate of cooling in the
    evening, however, for the system to reach thermal equilibrium, the warmer
    objects must cool and the colder objects must warm.

  117. jabre says:

    Congratulations Anthony Watts! Perhaps I’m the only one who overlooked this?

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmichaels/2012/01/27/watts-up-who-killed-climated-change/

    [REPLY: Thank you for noticing. It was discussed here at WUWT. -REP]

  118. Ric Werme says:

    George E. Smith; says:
    February 12, 2012 at 5:57 pm

    if you take a rod of type II-a diamond that is say 93 million miles long; 1.5 E16 cm and one squ cm crossection, and you put one end on the sun at 6,000 K and the other on earth at 300 K you have a Temperature difference of 5700 K so the heat conduction would be:-

    Bummer. How about if use isotopically pure diamond? Wikipedia says

    The 12C isotopically pure … diamond gives a 50% higher thermal conductivity than the already high value of 900-2000 W/(m·K) for a normal diamond, which contains the natural isotopic mixture of 98.9% 12C and 1.1% 13C. This is useful for heat sinks for the semiconductor industry.

    Nothing about transporting solar heat. Oh, well.

    I’ve always wanted a rod of that stuff, can you save me about 25 cm worth? And what happens if I stick one end in a candle flame, anyway? :-)

  119. Doug Cotton says:

    > Ric Werme says:
    > February 12, 2012 at 6:41 am

    (1) when the photons hit an object they either reflect, refract, or get absorbed.

    (2) About the only effect of the GHGs is to add a little flux to the solar radiation and the morning temperature will rise very slightly faster than it would without the GHGs.

    (3) Of course net heat cannot be transferred from cold to hot
    _________________________________________________________

    In (1) you demonstrate the basic flaw in the GH conjecture. Radiation can also be scattered without leaving any energy behind, rather like reflection, but a different process. That is what happens to radiation from a colder source when it meets a warmer target. That is how and why the Second Law (that no heat transfers) works in nature.

    Your (2) and (3) are self-contradictory, with (2) being wrong and (3) being right.

    Have you ever thought about why radio waves are not absorbed and converted to thermal energy within a few hundred metres of the broadcasting tower, rather than travelling maybe even around the world? See the end of my post today for the reason – which is closely related to why backradiation is also not converted to thermal energy.
    .

  120. Doug Cotton says:

    To everyone:

    George E. Smith; says:
    February 12, 2012 at 5:25 pm

    the CO2 can’t warm the surface; but the sun can, and does.
    _________________________________________________

    George, whilst I do of course agree with your conclusion above, the reasons you give are not correct. It is important that all we physics people get the right message across.

    Thermal energy is not radiated energy. Radiation can go in all directions, but “heat” is not energy itself and does not actually travel itself or in any way cancel out due to opposing radiation as will be explained below.

    When two bodies at different temperatures radiate towards each other they are of course converting thermal or other energy into radiation. Assuming the bodies are not transparent to each other’s radiation, that radiation will be either converted to thermal energy or scattered without leaving any energy behind.

    Thus “heat” only appears to travel, rather like sound being broadcast on radio waves. You see the temperature increase and say heat has travelled, but in fact thermal energy has just been “produced” on the spot by conversion of radiated energy- and we then say “Ah, we have heating happening.” We attribute some of it to what appears to be a particular hotter source, but of course the target body already has a temperature resulting from lots of radiation, conduction etc from lots of warmer sources.

    The conversion to thermal energy only happens if the peak frequency of the received radiation is (significantly) greater than the peak frequency of the target. As these peak frequencies are proportional to the absolute temperatures (by Wien’s Displacement Law) we only observe conversion to thermal energy when the emitter was warmer than the target.

    The important thing is that it does not matter what radiation was being sent the other way. If you could block the radiation from the cooler body with a filter that still allowed the other radiation from the warmer body to pass through you would still see the same amount of warming..

    This is the correct reason why radiation from a cooler atmosphere cannot be converted to thermal energy in a warmer surface.

  121. Doug Cotton says:

    Ric Werme:

    If you care to read my posts above to your meeting, especially this last one http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/11/open-thread-weekend-7/#comment-891159 I would be very happy to respond through a phone hookup to any questions, laughter or genuine interest from any attendees, whatever the time may be (day or night) here in Sydney. Just advised the expected Sydney DS time and I’ll let you know the phone number. Invite the media to report too if you wish.

  122. Doug Cotton says:

    If radiation from cooler bodies could warm warmer ones, then all the radiation from all the planets would warm the Sun a little. So the Sun would then radiate more back to all the planets, and they would get warmer from the backradiation from the Sun. So they would radiate more to the Sun and so it would radiate more back again because it got hotter stil, etc, etc ….. Sure it’s just a little bit at a time, but in billions of years who knows just how hot it’s going to get.

    The only thing is, this doesn’t happen because of course the hockey stick had a level handle once upon a time. /sarc

  123. Ric Werme says:

    > Ric Werme says:
    > February 12, 2012 at 6:41 am

    (1) when the photons hit an object they either reflect, refract, or get absorbed.

    (2) About the only effect of the GHGs is to add a little flux to the solar radiation and the morning temperature will rise very slightly faster than it would without the GHGs.

    (3) Of course net heat cannot be transferred from cold to hot
    _________________________________________________________

    In (1) you demonstrate the basic flaw in the GH conjecture. Radiation can also be scattered without leaving any energy behind, rather like reflection, but a different process. That is what happens to radiation from a colder source when it meets a warmer target. That is how and why the Second Law (that no heat transfers) works in nature.

    Your (2) and (3) are self-contradictory, with (2) being wrong and (3) being right.

    Have you ever thought about why radio waves are not absorbed and converted to thermal energy within a few hundred metres of the broadcasting tower, rather than travelling maybe even around the world? See the end of my post today for the reason – which is closely related to why backradiation is also not converted to thermal energy.

    (1) I had always figured that scatter was essentially reflection, with surface roughness the main determinant. (Stuff like forward scatter in aerosol might be a bit different.) Is reflection based on the ratios of indexes of refraction and scatter is not? Your concept of photons emitted from an object of one temperature bouncing off a hotter object sounds really bizarre. If we consider objects hot enough to glow in visible light, you’re saying that something like an oven heating element glowing red emits photons that can’t be absorbed by an incandescent light. What about blue photons emitted from a (cold) blue LED? can those be absorbed by a hot tungsten filament?

    How can that be? Kirchoff’s law of thermal radiation says that emissivity equals absorptivity, I assume at each wavelength. Am I misreading that?

    That would be enough to make my (2) be false. What happens when the blackbody spectrum of the cold object overlaps that of the warm object? Would only the shorter wavelength photons be absorbed? If so, the GHGs would be able to deliver some energy to heat the ground. IIRC, there’s a fair amount of overlap in the blackbody spectra in a column of the atmosphere.

    No, can’t say I’ve ever worried much about radio waves thinking the atmosphere is not transparent. (*) I have been regaled with stories about friends in the Navy claiming they could drop steaks through high energy radar beams and catch them cooked beneath. I don’t have any trouble thinking that steak is not completely transparent.

    (*) Well, not entirely true. One of the problems with UHF analog TV channels is that atmospheric absorption was a problem, also they weren’t as prone to skip. I remember one day in Ohio picking up low VHF (channels 2-6) stations broadcasting from Texas. That was with a “box” antenna, a very poorly directional antenna.

    (*) And microwave signals get absorbed by clouds and other things that medium wave signals sail through.

    Also, EEs worry about radiation patterns of antennae, e.g. the FCC often mandates that AM stations not transmit toward some other area served by a station on the same frequency. That’s usually dealt with by having multiple “sticks” to create a moire pattern to protect the other station and to deliver a stronger signal toward their target market. We should add diffraction to reflect/refract/scatter/absorb.

  124. Ric Werme says:

    Doug Cotton says:
    February 12, 2012 at 9:24 pm

    Ric Werme:

    If you care to read my posts above to your meeting, especially this last one http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/11/open-thread-weekend-7/#comment-891159 I would be very happy to respond through a phone hookup to any questions

    The talk won’t be anywhere near this deep. I didn’t get much at all done on it today, this discussion, bill paying, grocery shopping, and dog walk ate up most of the day.

    I’ll be lucky if I can update my talk from three years ago, which basically introduced http://wermenh.com/climate/climate2009.pdf

  125. Doug Cotton says:

    Ric Werme:

    If you just want to write “hand-waving” ideas such as you do, rather than reading, for example, http://www.csc.kth.se/~cgjoh/blackbodyslayer.pdf then I have no time to keep repeating the truth of what does happen in the real world. Go argue with Johnson (Professor of Applied Mathematics) abou this mathematical proof of what I have said. Then confirm in your own backyard, as I have, that ground which is shielded from backradiation at night cools at exactly the same rate as unshielded ground. And yes, you do not understand the conditions required for SBL and KL to apply.

    Regarding the “overlap” I have used the word “significantly” to imply the two narrow spectra are not significantly overlapping.

    Scattering in the sense I have used it is not the same as reflection where angles of incidence equal angles of reflection even if the surface is rough. Totally different processes are involved. If you prefer, just say “not converted to thermal energy”

    For radio waves to go around the curve of the Earth it is well known that they “bounce” off the surface and the atmosphere. They are not reflected, however. So why are they not converted to thermal energy?. The answer lies in what I have explained.

  126. Doug Cotton says:

    Ric Werme:

    Well I’m glad you use NASA’s net energy diagram that doesn’t show any backradiation. That solves your problem for you, unless there’s someone in the audience who challenges you on that.

    Don’t forget to update Spencer’s plot and the sunspot projection.

    Maybe instead of quoting someone’s out of date post at the end, you could quote those of mine here. After all, you do declare that you are seeking the truth, so why promulgate fictitious cogitations.

    Didn’t I kind of warn you at the beginning that this would take time – yes mine too, and I have to finalise my book Greenhouse Land for the publishers .

  127. Agile Aspect says:

    George E. Smith; says:
    February 12, 2012 at 5:25 pm

    “”””” JC says:

    Electromagnetic radiation IS NOT HEAT.
    ;————————————————————————————————-

    False.

    Electromagnetic radiation is heat (or energy.)

    All thermal radiation is electromagnetic radiation.

    It’s a question of wavelength.

    And all matter radiates.

    So how does UAH measure the temperature of the troposphere by looking at oxygen?

  128. Doug Cotton says:

    Those who believe that thermal energy “moves” in the direction of net radiation should consider what happens when a blackbody faces another body, say, 10 degrees warmer but with much lower emissivity out in space, say. Suppose S-B calculations are such that the warmer body emits less than the cooler one because the warmer one’s flux is reduced by the lower emissivity. Hence the direction of net radiative flux is from the cooler one to the warmer one.

    (1) What happens to the extra radiation that the warmer body does not absorb because of its low absorptivity?

    (2) Does the warmer body convert to thermal energy any of the remaining radiation from the cooler body? If not all, what happens to that radiation?

    (3) Is the Second Law of Thermodynamics obeyed or does the warmer body get warmer still?

    (4) Does heat transfer from the cooler one to the warmer one, or vice versa?
    .

  129. Doug Cotton says:

    Agile Aspect says:
    February 12, 2012 at 11:24 pm

    Sorry, but electromagnetic radiation transmits radiative flux energy – that’s not “heat” as explained in one of my posts above. Net heat transfer can be in the opposite direction to net radiative flux – see my other post above with those 4 questions.

    You are assuming instruments are looking at oxygen, but in fact they take an average over a large area of the atmosphere that is visible and tend to detect warmer globules of hot air which include water vapour and other radiating molecules.*

    That said, oxygen does in fact radiate at low levels, not by quantum steps but by generation of a field due to the acceleration imposed on electrons in collision processes.

    * http://principia-scientific.org/publications/New_Concise_Experiment_on_Backradiation.pdf

  130. Jessie says:

    See – owe to Rich says:February 12, 2012 at 12:40 am

    For your entertainment, here is an excerpt from a letter I wrote to my son’s geography teacher, answering some of the questions she put in a pamphlet to encourage students to continue with geography studies to age 16.

    4. Is Toowoomba a victim of climate change?
    Where? Oh, that town near Brisbane which was deluged in January 2011. Now this is actually quite an interesting question. But these are not the climate changes you are looking for.
    The second aspect is an awful human culpability bordering on the criminal, because it probably cost lives.

    While not Toowoomba, but an example of town planning or lack of infrastructure expenditure or auditing of actual assets or assessing risk management correctly….
    Perhaps pges 21, 30-31 are of interest?
    http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/86595/cif-landue-s-reid-g-doolan-s-20050209.pdf

  131. Doug Cotton says:

    Ric Werme at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/11/open-thread-weekend-7/#comment-891194
    ________________________________

    Just in case you think lasers or microwave ovens or radar prove me wrong, the reason lies in other unique mechanisms to do with such things as stimulated emission (rather than spontaneous emission) and resonance in just certain molecules (mainly water molecules in the food) caused by microwaves which don’t heat everything as you know. So these are very different from so-called “blackbody” (spontaneous) radiation such as occurs naturally.

    Anyone not knowing what stimulated (or induced) emission is can look up Wikipedia. Basically a laser beam is produced by stimulated emission and it will cause stimulated emission in a target such as sheet metal. Stimulated radiation arrives at such an intensity that additional radiation is generated in the same direction as the incident beam, and so more radiation penetrates deeper and such is more than the material can scatter to regions outside its boundaries, so it converts this unnatural surplus to thermal energy. (Whilst it might not fully penetrate the sheet, a cut can be made using holes that are first cut and filled with special materials.) This is not usually a natural process having been generated artificially.

  132. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Doug Cotton on February 12, 2012 at 9:36 pm:

    If radiation from cooler bodies could warm warmer ones, then all the radiation from all the planets would warm the Sun a little. So the Sun would then radiate more back to all the planets, and they would get warmer from the backradiation from the Sun. So they would radiate more to the Sun and so it would radiate more back again because it got hotter stil, etc, etc ….. Sure it’s just a little bit at a time, but in billions of years who knows just how hot it’s going to get.

    Thanks for posting this, saves me from scouring through your long list to gauge how sensible your claims can be.

    I’ll crank out some numbers for just the Earth and the Sun:

    Info:
    Area of sphere = 4*pi*radius^2
    Area of circle = pi*radius^2
    Mean distance Earth to Sun 1.496×10^8 km
    Mean radius of Earth 6,371.0 km
    Mean diameter of Sun 1.392×10^6 km, thus mean radius 6.960*10^5 km
    Calculated values:
    Area of sphere with Earth-to-Sun radius: 2.812*10^17 km^2
    Earth cross-sectional area (flat disk) 1.275*10^8 km^2
    Sun CSA 1.522*10^12 km^2

    The longwave radiation from Earth is going out in all directions. For your mechanism, a photon leaving Earth would have to hit the “target” of the Sun. Dividing the disk area of the Sun by the area of the Earth-Sun sphere yields the amount of radiation from the Earth that’d hit the Sun.
    1.522*10^12 / 2.812*10^17 = 5.413*10^(-6)
    Of the radiation leaving Earth, only 0.000005413 (0.0005413%) of it hits the Sun.

    For that radiation coming back from the Sun, we use the disk area of the Earth.
    1.275*10^8 / 2.812*10^17 = 4.534*10^(-10)
    0.0000000004534 which is 0.00000004534%, of the radiation leaving the Sun, only that much hits the Earth. Well, that’s the longwave radiation under consideration, for this it’ll be assumed that all of it hits the Earth rather than reducing the figure with incidence angles on the edges and other figuring. Which shouldn’t matter anyway, since we’re considering that energy as going right back out into space again, same as with the longwave hitting the Sun, so using flat disk areas for the amount received is acceptable.

    For a single Earth-to-Sun-to-Earth transit, the amount of longwave radiation leaving the Earth that returns to the Earth after hitting the Sun is 5.413*10^(-6) * 4.534*10^(-10) = 2.454*10(-15).
    0.000000000000002454 which is 0.0000000000002454%.

    For two round trips, we square that. Three trips, cube it. Etc.

    You should be able to note how quickly the longwave radiation is lost to deep space, the remainder becoming infinitesimal. Heck, you could add in everything else to figure out the “local” solar system heating, like longwave going from Jupiter to the Sun to Europa to the Earth and back to the Sun, etc. The result would still be infinitesimal.

    You specified such warming as evidence that colder bodies can warm warmer bodies. Well, such warming could very well be there. But the amount would be so tiny, far less than a rounding error, that it’s currently undetectable and likely will remain so. So if you’re looking for something to disprove that by radiation a cooler object can warm a warmer one, well, you better pick something else.

  133. Doug Cotton says:

    kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    So if you’re looking for something to disprove that by radiation a cooler object can warm a warmer one, well, you better pick something else.
    ____________________________________________________________________

    You’ll find plenty else if you actually read my sites and all the above posts – start with answering the four questions at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/11/open-thread-weekend-7/#comment-891251

  134. Doug Cotton says:

    kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    February 13, 2012 at 2:49 am

    which is 0.00000004534%, of the radiation leaving the Sun, only that much hits the Earth
    ______________________________________________________________

    I don’t care how small your finite answer is or how much energy that represents over 4 billion years in the past .. the point is your wrong assumption has led you to claim incorrectly that energy has been created.

    The correct answer zero.

    The reason is that the spectrum of emitted radiation from the Earth has frequencies which are below those in the spectrum of emitted radiation from the Sun. Thus none of the radiation from the Earth that strikes the Sun is converted to additional thermal energy in the Sun. [Explained with links to proof in my website and other post.]

    You cannot prove otherwise, just as you cannot prove in any experiment that radiation from the atmosphere is actually slowing the rate of cooling or increasing the rate of warming of the surface. There is no empirical evidence of such in any published experiment because it cannot happen: it would be in breach of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the reasons being explained in my previous posts which I suggest you read before replying.

    .

  135. Ric Werme says:

    Doug Cotton says:
    February 12, 2012 at 10:55 pm

    Maybe instead of quoting someone’s out of date post at the end, you could quote those of mine here. After all, you do declare that you are seeking the truth, so why promulgate fictitious cogitations.

    Look, I know the whole page is out of date, that’s why I wanted to work on it yesterday!

    I was thinking of replacing the the old comment

    With Typhoon’s from http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/04/andrea-rossis-e-cat-fusion-device-on-target/#comment-713494

    Not only do you not have any clue about the subject you’re posting about, it’s painfully clear that you don’t have a clue that you don’t have a clue.

    You haven’t been able to improve on that yet. :-)

    I was thinking about noting GHGs are import radiators at the top of the atmosphere, but given my precious convection only reaches the tropopause, it would likely take some work to figure out how readily CO2 radiation makes it through the stratosphere. The stratosphere is dry, maybe I’ll just talk about the top of water vapor. Don’t have time to check that either.

  136. Myrrh says:

    Agile Aspect says:
    February 12, 2012 at 11:24 pm
    George E. Smith; says:
    February 12, 2012 at 5:25 pm

    “”””” JC says:

    Electromagnetic radiation IS NOT HEAT.
    ;————————————————————————————————-

    False.

    Electromagnetic radiation is heat (or energy.)

    All thermal radiation is electromagnetic radiation.

    It’s a question of wavelength.

    And all matter radiates.

    =============================

    This is getting to be really ridiculous.

    Electromagnetic radiation is electromagnetic radiation. These come in discrete packages with their own distinct properties and processes, distinct ways they interact with matter. They are neither not all heat nor not all heat.

    Those who say they are all heat are talking nonsense, they are not all thermal energy, thermal infrared is thermal energy, it is heat.

    Those who say they are not heat are talking nonsense, thermal infrared is the Sun’s thermal energy on the move, which is heat.

    Those saying that it’s ‘all the same electromagnetic energy and then converted to heat on meeting matter’ are talking nonsense. That’s like saying, say, that gamma rays are just electromagnetic radiation and then the body receiving them converts them to gamma rays which then wreck the DNA.

    Am getting more and more amazed at how widespread the disinformation about this, through all the education system from kindergarden to university to scientific bodies and associations, all put in place to stop rational science thinking in the promotion of AGW. Has it only taken so few decades to destroy all the hard earned knowledge we’ve gained about the differences between Light and Heat?

    What an amazing con.

    Here’s something I’ve posted on this – if you can get your heads around what traditional well tried and tested and used in countless real world applications differences are between Light and Heat, you’ll be able to see through the scam.

    Important, I think because of the confusion, that you get your heads around HEAT first, then you’ll see why that isn’t LIGHT.

    “Heat” and “Light” are the traditional physics category differences, thermodynamics and optics.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/12/argo-and-the-ocean-temperature-maximum/#comment-890886

    “Ridiculous. Tim don’t bother with such utter codswallop – the direct heat from the Sun warms the oceans. The direct heat from the Sun is thermal infrared, if this didn’t heat the oceans because it couldn’t penetrate more than a few microns there would be no such thing as swimming in really warm tropical waters – it would be cold water with a thin layer of heat on it! Utter nonsense.

    “Ocean Regions
    Heat from the sun warms the world’s oceans near the Equator. This heat is gradually circulated through the oceans by currents. Since these waters are always being warmed, they maintain high year round temperatures (21° – 30° C, 69.8° – 86° F) and are known as the Tropical Regions of the world’s oceans.” http://oceanofk.org/tag/Tagmigrate/ddisttemp.html

    My bold.

    The heat we feel direct from the Sun is thermal infrared, this is the same radiated heat energy used in countless applications to heat water, including us, as in infrared saunas because we are so much water – It penetrates out skin and into the body by inches! And it can’t get past the surface tension of the ocean!?

    Thermal infrared, heat has the ability to move the molecules of water into vibrational resonance, this is kinetic energy, which is also heat. Water is a very great absorber of heat, it has a very high heat capacity, it takes in a lot of heat before it shows temperature changes and it takes longer to heat up than land and so takes longer to lose heat, from this we get the inshore and offshore breezes.

    http://thermalenergy.org/heattransfer.php
    Heat Transfer
    “Thermal energy and heat are often confused. Rightly so because they are physically the same thing. Heat is always the thermal energy of some system. Using the word heat helps physicists to make a distinction relative to the system they are talking about.”

    http://thermalenergy.org/
    Thermal Energy Explained

    “What is thermal energy ?
    Thermal Energy: A specialized term that refers to the part of the internal energy of a system which is the total present kinetic energy resulting from the random movements of atoms and molecules.
    The ultimate source of thermal energy available to mankind is the sun, the huge thermo-nuclear furnace that supplies the earth with the heat and light that are essential to life. The nuclear fusion in the sun increases the sun’s thermal energy. Once the thermal energy leaves the sun (in the form of radiation) it is called heat. Heat is thermal energy in transfer. Thermal energy is part of the overall internal energy of a system.
    At a more basic level, thermal energy comes form the movement of atoms and molecules in matter. It is a form of kinetic energy produced from the random movements of those molecules. Thermal energy of a system can be increased or decreased.
    When you put your hand over a hot stove you can feel the heat. You are feeling thermal energy in transfer.”

    An ordinary incandescent lightbulb produces around 95% heat, and 5% light.

    http://www.commonsensepress.com/GSA-sample_lesson/lesson_ocean.htm

    The direct heat from the Sun, the direct thermal energy of the Sun in transfer, is what directly heats the oceans and lands.

    NASA: “Far infrared waves are thermal. In other words, we experience this type of infrared radiation every day in the form of heat! The heat that we feel from sunlight, a fire, a radiator or a warm sidewalk is infrared.
    Shorter, near infrared waves are not hot at all – in fact you cannot even feel them. These shorter wavelengths are the ones used by your TV’s remote control.”

    Stand in front of a fire, it’s the invisible thermal infrared, invisible heat, you feel. That’s exactly what we get from the Sun at the speed of light, heat, thermal energy in transfer. You cannot feel visible light! It doesn’t heat you up!

    The junk energy budget you’re (generic) working to is junk because it has given the properties of real heat which thermal infrared, the thermal energy on the move direct from the Sun – to visible light and shortwave!

    Until you can see the difference here, and so realise what has been done to science education, you won’t really get a grip on the enormity of this greenie/watemelon/military/industrial agenda.

    At least reclaim the real science for yourselves, give your heads something real to work with and continue the traditions of real science, observation and testing.

    And then you can put back the water cycle too….

  137. Ric Werme says:

    Doug Cotton says:
    February 13, 2012 at 4:11 am

    kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    February 13, 2012 at 2:49 am

    which is 0.00000004534%, of the radiation leaving the Sun, only that much hits the Earth
    ______________________________________________________________

    I don’t care how small your finite answer is or how much energy that represents over 4 billion years in the past .. the point is your wrong assumption has led you to claim incorrectly that energy has been created.

    Now, now, be kind – you started the thought experiment, KD was just trying to point out how little of the extra radiation would get back to the planets. (Feedback less than one, in the EE sense.) You opened the thought experiment with:

    Doug Cotton says:
    February 12, 2012 at 9:36 pm

    If radiation from cooler bodies could warm warmer ones, then all the radiation from all the planets would warm the Sun a little. So the Sun would then radiate more back to all the planets, and they would get warmer from the backradiation from the Sun.

  138. John says:

    John says:
    February 12, 2012 at 2:25 pm
    The wheels of Real Climate are beginning to come off – they are starting to consume their own. Too funny.

    [Moderator's Note: John, this does not seem to be a response to anything else on this thread. Could you elaborate, perhaps, and supply a link to whatever it is you are referring to? -REP]

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/02/free-speech-and-academic-freedom/

    This article wishes to defend Pachauri post 14 for example is a great starting point – accountability is the gist.

  139. Agile Aspect says:

    Doug Cotton says:
    February 13, 2012 at 12:34 am

    Agile Aspect says:
    February 12, 2012 at 11:24 pm

    Sorry, but electromagnetic radiation transmits radiative flux energy – that’s not “heat” as explained in one of my posts above.
    ; —————————————————————————————————————-

    False.

    To calculate the energy from the flux, you simply multiply the flux by the area and time interval. Look at the units.

    Flux falls off as 1/r^2 and is not conserved but energy is always conserved.

    See textbook “Heat and Thermodynamics” by M. Zemansky and R. Dittmann.

    They can even show you how to calculate the flux for a non-blackbody object.

  140. Agile Aspect says:

    Myrrh says:
    February 13, 2012 at 5:34 am

    This is getting to be really ridiculous.

    ;——————————————————————–

    See “Heat and Thermodynamics” by M. Zemansky and R. Dittmann.

  141. Doug Cotton says:

    Ric Werme says:
    February 13, 2012 at 5:57 am

    KD was just trying to point out how little of the extra radiation would get back to the planets.
    ___________________________________________________________________

    And I was just trying to point out why “little” is too much. My “zero” was meant to imply “none” gets back, but it seems I was still not making myself clear. This is basic physics supported by empirical results and computational proof, all of which is supported on the ‘Radiation’ page of my website.

    (1) Thermal radiation from a cooler atmosphere to a (significantly) warmer surface does not transfer any thermal energy to the warmer surface.

    (2) Thermal radiation from a colder planet to a (significantly) hotter Sun does not transfer any thermal energy to the hotter Sun.

    Neither of you can possibly produce any empirical evidence to the contrary, for such would be in breach of the Second Law of Thermodynamics which explains that heat flows flows only from hot to cold.

    Before you say, “Ah but it is net flow that matters” I suggest you read my “10 steps” post which I am happy to discuss if you don’t understand it. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/11/open-thread-weekend-7/#comment-890609

  142. Doug Cotton says:

    Myrrh (and others who don’t understand what physics says “heat” means, should consider the fact that, when EM radiation (UV, visible or IR, for example) goes from Point A to Point B it does not necessarily mean that Point B will experience a rise in temperature.

    See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/11/open-thread-weekend-7/#comment-891159

  143. Doug Cotton says:

    Myrrh.

    You have a lot to learn about physics. You say “The heat that we feel from sunlight … is infrared.” Well, I tend to get sunburnt from the UV part of solar insolation more than the IR.

    But it is true that about half of the solar spectrum is indeed in the IR spectrum, which a lot of climatologists don’t seem to realise, because they never mention the fact that carbon dioxide absorbs some of this incoming solar insolation and thus has a cooling effect. It is a small effect, however, because there is more energy in UV and visible light photons than in IR photons due to the higher frequencies. Physics tells us that photon energy increases with frequency – which is why UV causes sunburn much more than IR.

    The IR radiation coming from a cooler atmosphere is incapable of transferring thermal energy to a warmer surface – meaning that there is no atmospheric greenhouse effect.

  144. Doug Cotton says:

    Agile Aspect:

    Did I ever say there was no energy in radiative flux? See the ‘Radiation’ page of my website http://climate-change-theory.com and read my posts above, starting from http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/11/open-thread-weekend-7/#comment-890609

  145. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Doug Cotton on February 13, 2012 at 4:11 am:

    I don’t care how small your finite answer is or how much energy that represents over 4 billion years in the past .. the point is your wrong assumption has led you to claim incorrectly that energy has been created.

    What Ric Werme said. Your thought experiment dealt with retained longwave energy and I made no assumption of energy being created.

    The correct answer zero.

    Essentially zero, currently undetectable. So with your proposed thought experiment, we are unable to prove or disprove the effect, thus your thought experiment isn’t a good one.

    The reason is that the spectrum of emitted radiation from the Earth has frequencies which are below those in the spectrum of emitted radiation from the Sun. Thus none of the radiation from the Earth that strikes the Sun is converted to additional thermal energy in the Sun. [Explained with links to proof in my website and other post.]

    Thus I know you must be full of it, which can be easily seen by looking at a graph of blackbody radiation spectra at different temperatures.
    .
    http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/122/lecture-3/stellar_spectra.html (Also note the Solar Spectrum graph below.)
    http://www.egglescliffe.org.uk/physics/astronomy/blackbody/bbody.html Figure 2.

    As the temperature increases the intensity increases and the peak wavelength gets shorter, but there remains the long tail going off into the longer wavelengths. Thus the blackbody spectrum of a cooler object is contained within the spectrum of a warmer object. Thus the spectrum of emitted radiation from the Earth does not have frequencies that are below those of the emitted radiation from a warmer blackbody, and the Sun, for all general intents and purposes, is a blackbody radiator.

    You could try arguing that specific frequencies (wavelengths) are not in the observed solar spectrum, which match certain emitted frequencies from the Earth. Except those would be the Fraunhofer lines, which are absorption lines. Those gaps are there because chemical elements in the solar atmosphere are absorbing those wavelengths so they are not in the emitted spectrum. Thus if radiation from Earth of those wavelengths would hit the Sun, those “missing frequencies” would be absorbed by those chemical elements in the solar atmosphere.

    So all in all, your “reason” is junk.

  146. Myrrh says:

    Agile Aspect says:
    February 13, 2012 at 11:25 am
    Myrrh says:
    February 13, 2012 at 5:34 am

    This is getting to be really ridiculous.

    ;——————————————————————–

    See “Heat and Thermodynamics” by M. Zemansky and R. Dittmann.

    ==========

    Go outside when the SUN is shining, bask in its warmth – that’s heat and thermodynamics. That’s heat you’re feeling direct, beam, from the Sun, it is HEAT, it is the Sun’s thermal energy on the move, it is heat, it is invisible thermal infrared, it is heat, it is warming you up because that’s what heat does.

    It reaches the surface because you can feel it – AGW junk energy budget says it doesn’t reach the surface!

    Visible light direct from the Sun can’t warm you up.

    Heat, the invisible thermal infrared direct from the Sun is what warms up land and oceans, because it CAN.

    Water is transparent to visible light, visible light is transmitted through without being absorbed, visible light cannot heat the oceans. You cannot feel visible light from the Sun, because it isn’t thermal energy on the move from the Sun. You can’t even feel near infrared because it isn’t thermal. Thermal – of Heat.

    Visible light is Light.

    You’re working to a junk energy budget of fictional fantasy fisics.

    And you’ve missed out the Water Cycle completely.

  147. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Doug Cotton on February 13, 2012 at 11:58 am:

    Neither of you can possibly produce any empirical evidence to the contrary, for such would be in breach of the Second Law of Thermodynamics which explains that heat flows flows only from hot to cold.

    Why bother? We’re talking about longwave infrared radiation, which is photons. Thus you’d have to expand over the electromagnetic spectrum, and say that gamma rays (x-rays) from a less-intense emitter wouldn’t be absorbed by a more-intense (with a shorter peak wavelength) gamma ray emitter, same for radio waves, ultraviolet, etc. It’d expand across the usual band groupings, and you’d have to show that radiation from a primarily radio wave emitter would not be absorbed by a primarily shortwave infrared and visible emitter. Best of luck showing the tungsten filament of a glowing light bulb won’t absorb radio waves.

  148. Doug Cotton says:

    Kadaka:

    You are talking about disributions of wavelengths v. temperature. I suggest you look up typical plots of frequency v. temperature as shown under “Wien’s Displacement Law” in Wikipedia for example. No doubt you know that peak frequency is proportional to absolute temperature, but the distribution is strongly attenuated and does in fact have a maximum cut-off frequency that can be accurately determined.

    Considering the worldwide average effect, the atmosphere is certainly sufficiently cooler than the surface to ensure no significant overlap of the frequency distributions of the two.

    As proven by Claes Johnson (Professor of Applied Mathematics) in his Computational Blackbody Radiation” there can be no conversion of radiated energy to thermal energy in such circumstances. Hence there is no atmospheric greenhouse effect.

    Your argument about which molecules might or might not “absorb” radiation says nothing about whether additional thermal energy will be the result, or just immediate re-emission of radiation which thus has no effect on temperature, any more than reflection would have.

    As I have explained in earlier posts, net radiative flux in one direction does not mean that net heat transfer has to be in the same direction. Regardless of the direction of net flux, heat will only ever “flow” from warm to cool as per the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Every sunny morning there is net flux into the surface from the Sun. Extra flux from the atmosphere cannot increase the rate of warming. So please now read my “10 steps” post above before responding further. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/11/open-thread-weekend-7/#comment-890609

    If cooler bodies could warm warmer ones (as in my example of the “backradiation” from the Earth to the Sun) then energy would be created out of nothing in the process.

    If you wish to argue about Johnson’s mathematical computations (with which I find no fault) then I suggest you communicate with him directly. A link to his paper is on the second page of my site http://climate-change-theory.com and you will easily find his blogs.

  149. Doug Cotton says:

    So, Myrrh, why are they closing down solariums which kill people by burning their skin with ultra-violet light. Does it need any heat to burn something? Have you never heard about UV light causing sunburn. Here in Australia the weather reports tell us the UV index each day in summer so we know on which days we need to keep out of the sunlight because it has dangerous levels of UV light.

  150. IAmDigitap says:

    The other day in my job as a two way telecommunications maintenance, troubleshooting-repair-calibration-instrumentation-“please invent us a ______________ so we can _______ or control ____________ by _______________” guy,

    I sat down as any mere mortal would, near the door to the climatology department, down at the University.
    Since I’m not a – a climatologist, and I know it, I feel inadequate with a mere electronic engineering/troubleshooting-of-all-things-with-a-dial-or-place-to-install-ANYTHING-with-ANY-kinda bell, buzzer, button, or other appliance to help keep the people who use it from hurting/embarrassing themselves/their equipment/humanity@large
    background, I’m going to put it into the terms I THINK I heard. You might know more, hence be able to understand it all.
    I paraphrase but as nearly as possible, I quote:

    “Hay.”
    “Wat.”
    “Yew think thim Hockie Stik Prognostifukashus iz poW’r’FUL?”
    “WaYYYL, YEW bETCHA!!11! Thay’z REEL AS A T.R.E.E.M.O.M.I.T.ER. an YEW NO THAIR AINT NUTHIN KIN MAYZUR uh TREEMOMiTER but tha moST POWWWWER’fUL uv Prognostufukashuns.”
    “Yeah. Hay.”
    “Wat.”
    How Yew no wat tree yews’about’tuh dreel, so yew kin look in yer borehole, an’ tayl wat time it wuz ‘zakly wat temperchur a hunnerd yeerzago?”
    “Caws.”
    “Caws wat.”
    “CAWS THISN’S uh’WUN IMAFIXIN tuh BE BORIN, BOY, NOW GIT BACK!11!! Git BACK!!1″
    “wOW.”
    “wOW waT.”
    “‘eMz sum POW’eR’Ful Prognostifukashuns tuh ‘terpritize thim’AIr CLIMIT tungs.”
    “Shore is. Now gimme sum borehole greece, i caint see whut ima doin down heeyur tah muh BOREHOLE.”

    Then to my utter surprise, something I felt scantily knowledgeable about-the power of the largest heater ever heard of, cooking the atmosphere by force of one of, a class of gases, the main constituent of which class is of course water – the atmospheric-pressures phase-change REFRIGERANT –
    covering in it’s liquid/solid formes some 70+ percent of the earth’s surface – well anyway we all already know about that but the point they discussed you see, was this …magic gas, CO2, which somehow, comprising a T.I.N.Y. FRACTION of all these gases of this one class – the ones which most well accept/re-radiate the spectrum of light in the low-power, infrared class –

    this magic gas of course, is going to make all the water evaporate and the sky will, most certainly father Gore, has told us, catch on fire. To put it mildy and assuming, there’s no REAL critical problem like someone’s prius being damaged by falling flaming birds.

    Anyhow I digress and these two um, ‘fellERs uv CLIMITAWLUGIE’ were discussing the relative merits, of carbon sin, vs. carbon virtue.

    A vision of Al Gore just appeared to me warning me that
    (1)I’m not a climatologist
    (2)this heeyur aint no peer ruhvew
    (3)I caint reed a thermomuhter without sum hayulp
    (4)shut up Gaia was having – and I quite – ever more urgent hotness and wetness enough without me makin her feel worse from me makin her ‘time-of-the-month’ worse from self indulgence in USING FIRE, to do things like feed my kids, heat my dog, wife, kids, and friends at night, etc

    so I’m not allowed to reveal more about our cherch but lemme tayl yew: thim thair climit prognostifukashuns dun by al thim sintists?

    Thays fer reel. And the Sasquatches, and thuh Abominable Snowmen? Thay ar cryin.

    And I just felt so overwhelmed right thin in thuh climatologie unaversatee that I ruhpentid an i meen right now. And so shud yew.

    Amen
    Tuh muhsayulf.
    Aynd to thuh sky helpin Gaia wipe yew all out so me and my prius can go to werk and not see no extra peeple.
    Oh: also Al Gore told me “THEEZ HEEYUR IS SUM UV tha SMARTIST MINN ON ERTH, FOLKS!1!!”

    Now yew caint fake that.
    No sir yew caint.
    Caws global warmin is reel evun if there aint no tropusferic hotspot and evun if thuh atmosferic downwelling of infrared has DROPPED in the last 15 years.
    And even if the instrumental record hasn’t warmed for more than 15 years.
    And even if .it aint reel it’s reel so thair i sed it. So i buhleave yew shud to.

    Thank yew I am going to skeptikuhl sints and git me a carbon sin online anxiety jr pastor of apocalypse counseler
    sertifuhkit.
    So I can cownsul all yew wat wont buhleave.

  151. IAmDigitap says:

    And my new pastor over at ‘Kooks@Cooks@Kweenslund’

    says yew awtuh ruhpent uv yer sin
    to.

    Thin
    ALL thuh THERMOMITERS’LL START WERKIN RIGHT AGIN.

  152. Doug Cotton says:

    Myrrh and others:

    It is important when we argue that there is no greenhouse effect that we get our facts right.

    (1) Only about half the radiative flux energy in solar insolation is in the infra-red spectrum.

    (2) This does indeed cause about half the warming on the surface, and that is why carbon dioxide has a slight cooling effect when it absorbs some IR from the Sun and sends it back to space. It is a deliberate “oversight” on the part of the IPCC that they do not mention this. The frequency of virtually all IR radiation from the Sun is well above the peak frequency of IR radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface, and so the solar IR radiation can be converted to thermal energy in the surface.

    (3) But the other half of the solar insolation (in the visible and UV spectra) does also contain about as much energy and that energy will also be converted to thermal energy when it penetrates the oceans and land surfaces because its frequency is also higher than the peak frequency emitted by the surface. So indeed we do have heat transfer from the Sun to the surface.

    (4) But radiation at lower IR frequencies which comes from a cold atmosphere will not normally be converted to thermal energy when it reaches a warmer surface. This is the major error made in the greenhouse conjecture. The Second Law confirms that heat transfer cannot be from cold to hot. Some radiation certainly does go from the atmosphere to the surface, but the energy it contains does not get converted to thermal energy unless it travels at a low angle to the horizon and strikes an area (perhaps in Antarctica) which might be colder than that part of the atmosphere from which it originated – fairly unlikely.

    Read my book Greenhouse Land when it is published soon.

  153. Macbeth says:

    How does the Magnesium ion in chlorophyll figure into this? Is a percentage of the light converted into heat? I remember something Willis had done about vegetation affecting heat on a large scale.

  154. Doug Cotton says:

    Prof Claes Johnson has proved in Computational Blackbody Radiation* that energy in radiation only gets converted to thermal energy if the peak frequency of the radiation from the source is above the peak frequency of the radiation from the target.

    This essentially provides a mechanism which explains why the Second Law of Thermodynamics also applies for radiative heat transfer, as it does for heat transferred by conduction.

    It is not the net radiative flux (or even its direction) which determines whether (and in which direction) thermal energy is transferred. For example, if the emissivity of two bodies is very different, there can be more radiative flux from the cooler one. But all that flux will be scattered by the warmer one and not converted to thermal energy. Only the flux from the warmer one (no matter how weak) will be converted to thermal energy in the cooler one. This “ensures” that the Second Law is valid in all cases because it depends on peak frequency which is proportional to absolute temperature – see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien's_displacement_law

    * http://climate-change-theory.com/RadiationAbsorption.html

  155. DirkH says:

    Too funny. The realclimate post begins with whining over alleged death threats; way down the comments someone mentions the misbehaviour of that “We know where you live” Greenpeace director, and Gavin replies: “… But mainstream climate science is not the world’s policeman, nor is it responsible for what any individual says….”

    You don’t say!
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/02/free-speech-and-academic-freedom/comment-page-2/#comment-227760

  156. Myrrh says:

    Doug Cotton says:
    February 13, 2012 at 12:12 pm
    Myrrh (and others who don’t understand what physics says “heat” means, should consider the fact that, when EM radiation (UV, visible or IR, for example) goes from Point A to Point B it does not necessarily mean that Point B will experience a rise in temperature.

    Well, that’s not really saying anything. For example, water has a really high heat capacity, it can absorb huge amounts of heat, whether that’s transmitted by conduction, convection or radiation, so is slow to raise its temperature all the while taking in large amounts of thermal energy, it is therefore also slow to release heat, this is why it is used in central heating systems, for example. Carbon dioxide which has even less heat capacity than oxygen and nitrogen, can’t ‘trap’ heat, it releases it practically instantaneously. And then there’s visible and UV you mention, these are Light energies, not thermal, not heat. They are not hot and don’t have the power to move molecules and atoms to kinetic energy, and please, don’t go into nit picking ‘it’s not zero’, and ‘it’s maybe somewhere in the shash’, – these are claimed to be THE MAIN SOURCE OF DIRECTLY HEATING LAND AND OCEANS IN YOUR JUNK ENERGY BUDGET. So, where are the figures for each of these and details of their ability to heat land and water? Please fetch. This isn’t a rhetorical question.

    See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/11/open-thread-weekend-7/#comment-891159

    You mean this?: You have a lot to learn about physics. You say “The heat that we feel from sunlight … is infrared.” Well, I tend to get sunburnt from the UV part of solar insolation more than the IR.

    You can’t feel UV, it isn’t hot. It does not warm you up as thermal infrared does – thermal infrared warms you up inside, because it has this thing going with water molecules, they resonate together….

    Look, for goodness sake, it won’t take you long to actually look at UV and find how it gives you a tan, you get a tan because the melanin in your body acts to try and stop it burning your skin by damaging your DNA. YOU CAN’T FEEL IT BURNING YOU. Because its not heating up your skin. UV is TINY! It may well be highly energetic, even more so than Visible light, but the scale it works on is TINY. Sorry, I’ve had a long day… But it is so frustrating that none of you has any sense of scale.

    UV doesn’t even get through the first of the three layers of our skin – highly energetic?? Put on a shirt and you STOP IT. That’s how not powerful it is. It is tiny, it works on the DNA level. It’s energy is used to create Vitamin D. It is not a thermal energy, it does not heat, doesn’t move the molecules of matter. Rub your hands together, that’s mechanical energy creating heat, moving the molecules in your skin into vibration, kinetic energy, that’s what thermal infrared does – especially to the water in you because it penetrates the body and has a special affinity with water – this is the real source of heating the oceans by the Sun.

    The claim of your energy budget is that it is the shortwave, Solar, which is Visible and the two shortwaves either side or UV and Nr IR, which directly heat ALL the land and oceans.

    So, where are the figures for these individually? Where is the mechanism by which these heat water and land, rocks, soil? Come on now – step up to the plate all of you who claim this, produce the evidence.

    Water is a transparent medium for Visible, this means that the energy isn’t absorbed, it is transmitted through, but, Visible is absorbed by the electrons of the molecules of nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere…

    Here, the basic difference between HEAT and LIGHT:
    ======================
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transparency_and_translucency

    Electronic: Transitions in electron energy levels within the atom (e.g., pigments). These transitions are typically in the ultraviolet (UV) and/or visible portions of the spectrum.

    Vibrational: Resonance in atomic/molecular vibrational modes. These transitions are typically in the infrared portion of the spectrum.

    UV-Vis: Electronic transitions In electronic absorption, the frequency of the incoming light wave is at or near the energy levels of the electrons within the atoms which compose the substance. In this case, the electrons will absorb the energy of the light wave and increase their energy state, often moving outward from the nucleus of the atom into an outer shell or orbital.

    The atoms that bind together to make the molecules of any particular substance contain a number of electrons (given by the atomic number Z in the periodic chart). Recall that all light waves are electromagnetic in origin. Thus they are affected strongly when coming into contact with negatively charged electrons in matter. When photons (individual packets of light energy) come in contact with the valence electrons of atom, one of several things can and will occur:

    *An electron absorbs all of the energy of the photon and re-emits it with different color. This gives rise to luminescence, fluorescence and phosphorescence.
    *An electron absorbs the energy of the photon and sends it back out the way it came in. This results in reflection or scattering.
    *An electron cannot absorb the energy of the photon and the photon continues on its path. This results in transmission (provided no other absorption mechanisms are active).
    *An electron selectively absorbs a portion of the photon, and the remaining frequencies are transmitted in the form of spectral color.

    Infrared: Bond stretching
    etc.
    ===============

    That’s what Visible light from the Sun does, it’s tiny, highly energetic may well be, but look at the second of those, this is what visible does in the atmosphere – it gets bounced around by the electrons of the molecules of nitrogen and oxygen – like trying to get through a pin ball machine – they’re reflected/scattered, all over the sky – blue visible, more highly energetic, gets bounced around even more as the electrons spit it back out again, hence our lovely blue sky.

    Yes, really powerful peak energy visible! OK, so this is absorbed by the electrons of the molecules in the atmosphere – your junk energy budget say the atmosphere is transparent to it, fibs again, now tell us how much Blue Visible is heating the Sky since y’all claim that absorption means heating?

    Now look at the third one. That’s what happens when visible meets water, it is transmitted through, it is not absorbed, not even by the electrons of the water molecules, because water is a transparent medium for visible, (and not, look in the next section for infrared vibrational, it is not big enough to move the whole molecules of water into vibration).

    “A transparent material is one in which the charged particles
    can’t permanently absorb any photons of visible light. While these
    charged particles all try to absorb the visible light photons, they
    find that there are no permanent quantum states available to them when
    they do. Instead, they play with the photons briefly and then let them
    continue on their way. This playing process slows the light down.” http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/may98/893732585.Ph.r.html

    In photosynthesis, the energy of Visible light is used for a chemical energy process, creating sugars, it does not create heat. Carbon dioxide plus water plus visible light makes sugar. Green visible isn’t used, is reflected back out. Check out an optics page or two, we see the world and colour because visible is reflected differently from objects around us, and that comes into our eyes and registers.

    Doug Cotton says:
    February 13, 2012 at 12:28 pm
    Myrrh.

    You have a lot to learn about physics. You say “The heat that we feel from sunlight … is infrared.” Well, I tend to get sunburnt from the UV part of solar insolation more than the IR.

    You haven’t even begun to learn anything about physics, you, and you generic, don’t even know what the different wavelengths do – to you they’re all the same and all magically creating heat. Learn the difference between heat and light.

    UV is not a thermal energy, it does not move your molecules into vibration, you might get enough Vitamin D out of it if you get enough sunlight – there’s been a spate of rickets among children here, Britain and Ireland, because parents have been frightened by the cancer scares about being out in the sun and by the ads for sun creams which urge using higher and higher blocking power against UV..

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_tanning
    http://www.mcgill.ca/reporter/33/17/white/

    UV is not a thermal energy, its energy is used in chemical processes, working on the small DNA level. It’s also very good for sterilising water, by wrecking the DNA of the microbes. Highly energetic, certainly, but on a tiny scale of matter.

    But it is true that about half of the solar spectrum is indeed in the IR spectrum, which a lot of climatologists don’t seem to realise, because they never mention the fact that carbon dioxide absorbs some of this incoming solar insolation and thus has a cooling effect. It is a small effect, however, because there is more energy in UV and visible light photons than in IR photons due to the higher frequencies. Physics tells us that photon energy increases with frequency – which is why UV causes sunburn much more than IR.

    You can’t even feel yourself getting sunburnt, it is not hot, and it isn’t heating you up, ‘increased energy with frequency’ is giving you the wrong impression. In overdose more than your personal levels of melanin can cope with, your skin will fry, just as it would with gamma rays. Gamma rays are thousands of times as energetic as Visible – and still they won’t heat you up! They’ll destroy your DNA. Enough of it in huge amounts and it will vaporise you completely, that’s why they called the point of impact in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, ground zero – because there was nothing left.
    http://www.ehow.com/about_5554168_gamma-radiation-health-effects.html

    The IR radiation coming from a cooler atmosphere is incapable of transferring thermal energy to a warmer surface – meaning that there is no atmospheric greenhouse effect.

    Something we agree on.

    I really think this has to be taken back to the real differences between light and heat. I can only suggest that you re-read what I posted above about heat, and compare that with what you now know about UV.

    Heat direct from the Sun is the Sun’s thermal energy on the move.

    Thermal Energy Explained
    http://thermalenergy.org/
    http://thermalenergy.org/heattransfer.php

    Thermal energy and heat are often confused. Rightly so because they are physically the same thing.

  157. Doug Cotton says:

    Myrrh: You exhibit a complete lack of understanding of physics when you say “And then there’s visible and UV you mention, these are Light energies, not thermal, not heat. They are not hot and don’t have the power to move molecules and atoms to kinetic energy”

    Perhaps if and when you have 50 years of studying physics behind you, as I have, you may have learnt that UV light can burn your skin and give you skin cancer. I hope you don’t have such cancer by then because you didn’t believe me. Please keep out of those UV solariums!

    I could read no further into your post as you are obviously not interested in learning, but you may do well to remember that IR radiation does not penetrate 100 metres into the depths of the oceans, like UV and visible light does. Have you never seen sunshine lighting up the floor of a river or lake?

  158. Doug Cotton says:

    PS Myrrh

    The amount of warmth you feel depends on the intensity of the radiation as well as the frequency . You don’t feel much from the IR backradiation at night, or even the upward IR radiation at night. You won’t however get sunburnt standing in front of an electric radiator, but you will under a UV light.

    What do you suppose happens to the energy in UV and visible light when it penetrates and eventually gets absorbed in the oceans? You can’t destroy energy.

    People with 50 years experience in Physics like myself, who have done university degrees majoring in physics like myself and who have tutored university students and marked university assignments like myself do know that most energy in UV and light gets converted to thermal energy when it strikes a surface or penetrates an ocean. What other type of energy do you suppose it ends up as? Even the potential energy in your car rolling down a hill gets converted to thermal energy when you apply the brakes – the same stuff the radiative flux energy in all that IR radiation gets converted to when it strikes your skin.

  159. Doug Cotton says:

    Myrrh:

    Less than 5 minutes on Google and I found this NASA site which might help you understand how light etc. can be converted to thermal energy. http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_classroom/light_lessons/thermal/heat.html

    Please do your own research and be prepared to learn from accepted physics because I don’t like to see people like yourself trying to argue the same point of view as myself – that AGW does not exist – but stating such incorrect “physics” that it reflects on all of us and all “skeptics” get a bad name for pseudo-physics such as you conjecture.

    Do spend some time learning what physics really says before writing more garbage.

  160. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Doug Cotton on February 13, 2012 at 3:33 pm:

    You are talking about disributions of wavelengths v. temperature. I suggest you look up typical plots of frequency v. temperature as shown under “Wien’s Displacement Law” in Wikipedia for example. No doubt you know that peak frequency is proportional to absolute temperature, but the distribution is strongly attenuated and does in fact have a maximum cut-off frequency that can be accurately determined.

    There you go again. That Wikipedia entry shows a graph just like the ones I linked to, which tells me you didn’t even bother to look. You’re arguing the wrong end, talking about maximum frequency (highest frequency, shortest wavelength) when I’m discussing minimum frequencies (longer wavelengths). As I mentioned, those long tails into the longer wavelengths are still there. You’re still wrong.

    So not only is your understanding of physics still whack, you’ve shown you can’t be bothered to read a reply well enough to intelligently respond, resorting instead to dismissal with an amount of extraneous verbiage representative of the burgeoning size of your ego as you pedantically attempt educating the ignorant unwashed masses without seriously considering the arguments presented.

    Thanks for notifying us about your eventually-to-be-published book, so we know it’s not worth buying and we should look for real science elsewhere.

  161. Doug Cotton says:

    Myrrh: (and others)

    I don’t want to give the impression I disagree with many of the processes you describe, about why the sky is blue etc.

    The most relevant point you obviously have copied from somewhere is “An electron absorbs the energy of the photon and sends it back out the way it came in. This results in reflection or scattering

    The “scattering” in this process is what Science of Doom did not acknowledge when I argued on the Backradiation threads on that site until they could no longer answer me and thus banned me – several times in fact.

    This scattering (rejection in effect) leaves no energy behind. Thus none of the scattered radiated energy is converted to thermal energy and so no heat is transferred. This is why and how the Second Law of Thermodynamics operates for radiation. Warmer bodies scatter radiation from cooler bodies (if not already reflected) and so cooler bodies don’t warm warmer ones. So heat only “flows” from hot to cold, regardless of how much radiation is going backwards and forwards or in any direction around the place. Heat transfer is always betwwen two points, as is light transfer. You only “see” the effect of light when it strikes something.

    So this is why the IPCC is wrong. They assume that, even when an area of the surface is warming up on a sunny morning that they can just send more IR radiation from the cold atmosphere and increase the rate of warming of the surface. They are wrong because, as you have seen in the above quote, there is another alternative to warming, namely scattering.

    Finally, please remember that you do not “feel” much IR warmth from the Sun when you dive deep underwater, but even UV and visible light do not penetrate to the very bottom of the deep oceans. They get absorbed little by little and converted into thermal energy as they go deeper. In other words, they warm the oceans. Theyalso warm the soil, the rocks and sand on the beach (about as much as the IR component), and all that energy flows back out at night in the form of IR radiation.

  162. Doug Cotton says:

    Kadaka – yes, sorry, Wikipedia does only show a wavelength plot and comments underneath that it does not show Wien’s Displacement Law like a frequency plot does. A bit sloppy of them – it was a while since I’d read their page and probably forgot that the best plot actually showing how peak frequency is proportional to absolute temperature is the left hand one on this site: http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/WiensDisplacementLaw.html

    However, I take it that you accept that Wien’s Displacement Law is valid.

    All your “tails” don’t have a significant impact in the mean observed results in the real macro world. Otherwise the Second Law of Thermodynamics (which with very low probability may be slightly out due to the tails) would not be generally observed to apply. But it does, so no significant warming can happen, especially when the atmosphere is generally at least several degrees cooler than the surface. There can be nothing like the 100% warming effect that IPCC conjectures for “backradiation.” The very vast majority (say, >98%) of backradiation is merely scattered. I don’t think we need worry about any temporary warming from the rest.

    I realise this is new ground-breaking computational physics as derived by Prof Claes Johnson, so if you wish to argue with him go to his blog.

    It is however the only plausible explanation for the observed Second Law of Thermodynamics for radiation.

    Give me an alternative explanation, considering two bodies with very different emissivity. You can’t, can you?

  163. Doug Cotton says:

    The frequency distribution for a cooler emitter (the atmosphere) is fully contained within the frequency distribution of an emitter at a higher temperature (the surface), and it is shifted towards lower frequencies because the peak frequency is proportional to the (absolute) temperature.

    Hence any radiation from the cooler emitter can potentially resonate with the warmer emitter and be re-emitted immediately without any conversion to thermal energy. This is what Prof Claes Johnson has proved does happen and it is the only plausible explanation for the veracity of the Second Law of Thermodynamics applying to radiation.

    In contrast, the frequency distribution of the warmer emitter does extend into higher frequencies than that of the cooler emitter. The area between the curves in this region gives a measure of the probability of conversion of such radiation to thermal energy. Thus this probability is nil when there is no temperature difference, and then increases as the temperature difference increases.

    We see that virtually all solar radiation reaching the surface (UV, visible and IR) will be converted to thermal energy because there is virtually no overlap between the spectra of incident solar radiation and that of emitted radiation from the surface.

    Hence the surface absorbs solar radiation, converting it to thermal energy which can subsequently exit the surface layer (usually at night, but even months later in local winter) by diffusion, conduction, evaporation, radiation and chemical processes, followed by convection once the energy is into the air. There is subsequently negligible probability of any of that energy returning to the surface or remaining in the surface layer of the atmosphere for longer than it would otherwise have done just because of carbon dioxide, methane or similar trace gases.

  164. edbarbar says:

    I think the lesson here is “Better drill it out and use it.” Seriously, I don’t see anything wrong with the theory. The term “Regularly,” could mean merely periodically. Life has been around a long time. I like this guy’s idea, though I wouldn’t waste trillions on stopping it. I suppose that’s the point.

  165. Doug Cotton says:

    Furthermore, the emissivity of the atmosphere is only about 20% and the radiation towards Earth is half that. Then the temperature of the atmosphere is colder, so even less radiation.

    So “backradiation” can only be less than ~10% of upwelling radiation from the surface.

    Nothing at all like those energy diagrams which fly in the face of SBL.

    Elementary calculations you cannot fault, now can you?

  166. Brian H says:

    See – owe to Rich says:
    February 12, 2012 at 12:40 am

    For your entertainment, here is an excerpt from a letter I wrote to my son’s geography teacher, answering some of the questions she put in a pamphlet to encourage students to continue with geography studies to age 16.

    1. Does it matter that 1998 was the warmest year on record, since 1861?

    Not even. Quietly, 1934 (or so) has been re-instated. IAC, 1998 was a one-off super-El Nino “anomaly”. Ignore it.

  167. Brian H says:

    kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    February 13, 2012 at 2:49 am

    But the amount would be so tiny, far less than a rounding error, that it’s currently undetectable and likely will remain so. So if you’re looking for something to disprove that by radiation a cooler object can warm a warmer one, well, you better pick something else.

    Same problem as with the homeopathists: the successive dilutions operate on a power law basis, and you quickly get down to less than a molecule — individual photon in this case — making the cut. At which point there’s nothing but a tiny percentage of bupkis left for the next cycle. End of positive feedback cycle, with little or nothing to show for it.

  168. Agile Aspect says:

    Doug Cotton says:
    February 13, 2012 at 12:40 pm

    Agile Aspect:

    Did I ever say there was no energy in radiative flux?
    ;——————————————————————————————————–

    Flux is the result of a measurement with an associated uncertainty, requires a well defined surface, and the measurement occurs after the radiation has arrived at the surface.

    Your statement “electromagnetic radiation transmits radiative flux energy” violates causality and has units of Watts/m^*Joules.

    If you drop the word “flux”, then it would read “electromagnetic radiation transmits radiative energy” which makes sense and has units of Joules.

  169. Agile Aspect says:

    February 13, 2012 at 12:40 pm

    Your statement “electromagnetic radiation transmits radiative flux energy” violates causality and has units of Watts/m^*Joules.
    ;—————————————————————————————————————-

    Opps – ignore the causality part of that statement (I was carrying on two conversations at once.)

    IMHO, it’s ambiguous but this post has degenerated into nitpicking.

  170. Doug Cotton says:

    How about addressing these issues ..

    (1) The direction of net radiative energy flow can be the opposite of the direction of heat transfer. if you have a warmer object (say 310 K) with low emissivity (say 0.2) and a cooler object (say 300 K) with much higher emissivity (say 0.9) then net radiative energy flow is from the cooler to the warmer object. Yet the Second Law says heat transfer is from hot to cold.

    (2) Any warming of a warmer surface by radiation from a cooler atmosphere violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Consider the situation when the surface is being warmed by the Sun at 11am somewhere. Its temperature is rising and net radiative energy flow is into the surface. How could additional thermal energy transfer from the cooler atmosphere to make the surface warm at a faster rate?

    Clearly radiation from a cooler atmosphere cannot add thermal energy to a warmer surface. The surface molecules scatter radiation which has a peak frequency lower than the peak frequency of their own emission, and so no radiative energy from that radiation is converted to thermal energy. (This was proved in Johnson’s <Computational Blackbody Radiation.), So the atmospheric radiative greenhouse effect is a physical impossibility.

  171. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Doug Cotton on February 13, 2012 at 9:46 pm:

    Furthermore, the emissivity of the atmosphere is only about 20% and the radiation towards Earth is half that. Then the temperature of the atmosphere is colder, so even less radiation.

    So “backradiation” can only be less than ~10% of upwelling radiation from the surface.

    Huh? As previously presented here on WUWT in the Ira Glickstein, Phd series of guest posts, Visualizing the “Greenhouse Effect” (one, two, three, four, five), the important longwave infrared wavelength bands when contemplating “back radiation” (see #2) are around 7 microns (micrometer, 10^(-6) meters, 5 to 8𝜇 range, centered at about 7𝜇), 10𝜇 (8-13𝜇), and 15𝜇 (13-30𝜇). 10𝜇 is the “atmospheric window” through which the longwave is given a free pass on the way to outer space. 7𝜇 is a water vapor absorption band, and 15𝜇 is where both water vapor and CO₂ absorb. After absorption, energy can be emitted in the 7, 10, and 15𝜇 bands, irregardless of whether it was 7 or 15𝜇 that was absorbed (with the different possible modes of molecular vibration, multiple lower-energy longer-wavelength photons can be absorbed before the emitting of a higher-energy shorter-wavelength photon, a higher-energy photon can be absorbed with multiple lower-energy photons released, although it’s most likely there’ll be an absorption/re-emitting of a single photon at the same wavelength). Only 15 to 30% of the upgoing (upwelling) thermal radiation is transmitted through the atmosphere, nearly all through the 10𝜇 window.

    I found a definition of emissivity here, pretty well matches the one in the Wikipedia entry:

    One of the ways to describe the infrared energy emitted by molecules is in terms of radiance: watts of energy per unit of area. With changes in temperature, come changes in radiance. For example, the radiance from a mineral at one temperature will be different from that at another temperature. In order to make comparisons of emission from materials at different temperatures, we need to remove the temperature effect. This is done mathematically by dividing the radiance spectrum of a selective emitter by that of a blackbody (perfect emitter) at the same temperature. The result is called an emissivity spectrum. Because it results from dividing one radiance spectrum by another, the units of watts/area cancel. Emissivity then, is a fractional representation of the amount of energy from some material vs. the energy that would come from a blackbody at the same temperature. The places in an emissivity spectrum that have a value less than one are the wavelength regions that molecules are absorbing energy. (…)

    I then dug up a paper, E. Péquignot et al, 2008, Infrared Continental Surface Emissivity Spectra Retrieved from AIRS Hyperspectral Sensor, pdf here. It looks at emissivity spectra from 3.7 to 14𝜇 in 11 selected regions in Africa. The emissivity spectra graphs are presented in Fig. 7 spanning pages 1630-31 (pdf pages 12 and 13). Emissivity values for the different wavelengths are generally around 0.95 with a noted dip roughly around 8.3 to 9.3𝜇, the deepest one being zone 03 which goes down to around 0.65 emissivity.

    Since the paper is looking at thermal radiation going from the surface through the atmosphere as detected by satellites, your much-lower value of 20% emissivity through the atmosphere doesn’t make sense. As mentioned in the Wikipedia emissivity entry, you might be specifying the total emissivity (the “gray body assumption”) rather than that of the thermal radiation wavelengths under discussion. “20%” as a number is inline with Ira Glickstein’s presented value of 15 to 30% of the upwelling thermal energy being transmitted through the atmosphere, except as you’ve used the value it appears you believe 1 minus 20% (=80%) of the thermal energy is lost to space, in opposition to what he said.

    Thus I must conclude that when you state “…the emissivity of the atmosphere is only about 20%…”, you really don’t know what the heck you’re talking about.

  172. Doug Cotton says:

    I was quoting a Professor of physics and of course was using the term as the fraction that is emitted v. that emitted by a perfect blackbody. If you wish to continue to believe that those white clouds and thin atmosphere act like a perfect blackbody producing 100% “cavity” emission, then keep to your beliefs and just consider the two points in today’s post which are independent of the amount of radiation from the atmosphere. But you would do well to remember that a perfect blackbody has to be perfectly insulated from its surrounds so that there can be no transfer of thermal energy by diffusion, conduction, convection, phase change etc. That means your carbon dioxide molecules can’t share their thermal energy with any other air molecules, because then they won’t have that energy to re-emit.

    In the real atmosphere there is plenty of thermal energy transfer by diffusion and convection for a start. So it is totally impossible that a layer of the atmosphere acts like a perfect blackbody with emissivity 1.0.

    Furthermore, if there is a warmer layer below it, then correct application of SBL (including multiplying by the emissivity) means that net radiation would be from the warmer layer to the cooler one above.

    In short, there is no way that the atmosphere can radiate downwards anything like the amount shown in energy diagrams. No actual experiments have ever found any warming effect from backradiation. You cannot point me to one, yet the IPCC should have tested such before going off into Greenhouse Land – the title of the book I’m now publishing.

    So, if you treat the atmosphere’s emissivity as being 1.0 (highly improbable) then absolutely no energy is left up there to do any warming of other air because you are calling it a perfect blackbody. In reality it is no more like a true blackbody than is the surface, which also sheds energy by all the above processes, as well as what’s left by radiation.

    Your problem is that you work with formulas for which you don’t fully understand the prerequisites and conditions necessary for such formulas to apply. You appear to be indoctrinated by climatologists who do the same when they assume they can apply Stefan-Boltzmann Law to the Earth’s surface.

    If you had had 50 years experience in studying and teaching physics as I have, then maybe you’d have a better feel for things.

    For the moment, though, you have a lot to learn, so I suggest you start by thinking about the two issues in my earlier post today. I’m only trying to help you and others understand reality.

  173. Doug Cotton says:

    PS Kadaka: Your statement Since the paper is looking at thermal radiation going from the surface through the atmosphere as detected by satellites, your much-lower value of 20% emissivity through the atmosphere doesn’t make sense. shows me that you don’t think clearly about a physical situation. Sure, when you look at any planet from space it radiates very close to a perfect blackbody with emissivity 1.0. But that radiation includes some from its surface, plus all the reflection from its atmosphere and its surface. If reflection is, say, 30% then emissivity is reduced 0.7. But that includes all the elements in the surface radiating away, plus water vapour and at least 50 gases in the atmosphere. It is highly unlikely that the atmosphere would radiate with emissivity as high as 0.7, but even if it did at least half would be space-bound.

  174. Gary Hladik says:

    Doug Cotton says (February 14, 2012 at 1:59 pm): “How about addressing these issues ..

    (1) The direction of net radiative energy flow can be the opposite of the direction of heat transfer. if you have a warmer object (say 310 K) with low emissivity (say 0.2) and a cooler object (say 300 K) with much higher emissivity (say 0.9) then net radiative energy flow is from the cooler to the warmer object. Yet the Second Law says heat transfer is from hot to cold.”

    If emissivity is less than 1, then so is aborbance. Why not make it easy and calculate for black bodies, emissivity = 1?

  175. Gary Hladik says:

    Aaaargh! The word “aborbance” above should be “absorbance”.

    Although “aborbance” does have a certain ear appeal…

  176. Doug Cotton says:

    Gary Hladik says:
    February 14, 2012 at 6:51 pm

    Aaaargh! The word “aborbance” above should be “absorbance” (sic)
    _____________________________________________________________

    Actually it should have been “absorptivity.” But we already know that you don’t know much physics. Your post also indicates you don’t understand my point, as others will realise.

    .

  177. John Andrews says:

    @JDN says:
    February 11, 2012 at 12:09 pm

    “I keep reading that India is going to try thorium-based nuclear reactors. However, I don’t think GE or Westinghouse even have a prototype under design. This makes me think it’s not workable for some reason, even though India & China have allegedly approved construction. I did a little searching and couldn’t find much. Does anyone have something that looks like a technical analysis of a prototype thorium reactor?”

    General Atomic in San Diego built the Fort St Vrain HTGR in Colorado. This high temperature gas cooled reactor used fuel containing both uranium and thorium. The reactor has been shut down and the fuel has yet to be reprocessed. Someday… thorium will power the world.

  178. Gary Hladik says:

    Doug Cotton says (February 14, 2012 at 7:35 pm): “Actually it should have been “absorptivity.” But we already know that you don’t know much physics. Your post also indicates you don’t understand my point, as others will realise.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorptivity

    Doug, I don’t think God Himself understands your point.

    Or should that be “pointity”?

  179. Doug Cotton says:

    Gary Hladik says:
    February 14, 2012 at 10:11 pm

    Doug, I don’t think God Himself understands your point.
    __________________________________________________

    Well I’ll try to explain it better to you, or God, or whoever.

    For the “hot” and “cold” bodies respectively, insert these values for temperature (310K and 300K) and emissivity (0.2 and 0.9) into the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. Then explain how we can have a situation in which the colder body radiates more energy than the hot one (as you should have calculated) but heat transfer has to be the other way from the hot body to the cold one in order to obey the Second Law of Thermodynamics

    Whenever AGW proponents post their “explanation” as to why it’s OK for a colder atmosphere to warm the surface, or slow the rate of cooling, they assume that net radiative flux is always in the same direction as net heat transfer, and I have just shown you why it may not always be so. They say something like, “We know the flux from the atmosphere to the surface is positive but the surface is cooling and so net flux is outwards and heat transfer is outwards so the Law has not been broken.” You have only to ask them what happens every sunny morning when the surface is already warming. When you add more flux from the cold atmosphere does that then cause extra warming? If it did it would break the Second Law.

    You see, they can’t get out of their heads the concept that “heat” always flows in the direction of (most of) their lovely little mass-less photons which can’t help but heat up anything they collide with. That is not what the laws of physics say will happen, and there is absolutely no empirical evidence showing it happen anywhere in the World.

    And that’s why the atmospheric radiative greenhouse conjecture is mistaken.

  180. Doug Cotton says:

    Gary Hladik says:
    February 14, 2012 at 10:11 pm

    Doug Cotton says (February 14, 2012 at 7:35 pm): “Actually it should have been “absorptivity.”
    _____________________________________________________________

    I stand by my statement because it is preferable to use “absorptivity” as the opposite of “emissivity.”

    Absorbance (with a “b”) has a different meaning altogether, so the item in Wikipedia which you linked is in error. In fact it is contradictory to the Wikipedia entry they linked which reads…

    Absorptance[5] (not absorbance) is defined as: The ratio of the radiant flux absorbed by a body to that incident upon it. Also called [absorption] factor. Compare absorptivity.

    Note the all-important “p” in absorptance which gives it an altogether different meaning to absorbance. (See Wikipedia “absorbance’)

  181. Gary Hladik says:

    Doug Cotton says (February 15, 2012 at 1:26 am): “Absorbance (with a “b”) has a different meaning altogether, so the item in Wikipedia which you linked is in error.”

    OK, I stand corrected.

    Doug Cotton says (February 15, 2012 at 1:08 am): “Well I’ll try to explain it better to you, or God, or whoever.

    For the ‘hot’ and ‘cold’ bodies respectively, insert these values for temperature (310K and 300K) and emissivity (0.2 and 0.9) into the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. Then explain how we can have a situation in which the colder body radiates more energy than the hot one (as you should have calculated) but heat transfer has to be the other way from the hot body to the cold one in order to obey the Second Law of Thermodynamics”

    I used the calculator here:

    http://www.endmemo.com/physics/radenergy.php

    1 m^2 radiator at 300 degrees K, emissivity 0.9 radiates 413.343 W
    1 m^2 radiator at 310 degrees K, emissivity 0.2 radiates 104.727 W

    Assuming for simplicity that all of each body’s radiation is directed toward the other,

    Cooler body of emissivity 0.9 absorbs 0.9 x 104.727 W = 94.254 W
    Warmer body of emissivity 0.2 absorbs 0.2 X 413.343 W = 82.669 W

    i.e. the cooler body does not transfer more energy to the warmer than it receives, and God and I still don’t understand your point.

  182. Eric (skeptic) says:

    Doug Cotton’s 4 questions are (1) What happens to the extra radiation that the warmer body does not absorb because of its low absorptivity? (2) Does the warmer body convert to thermal energy any of the remaining radiation from the cooler body? If not all, what happens to that radiation? (3) Is the Second Law of Thermodynamics obeyed or does the warmer body get warmer still? (4) Does heat transfer from the cooler one to the warmer one, or vice versa?

    As pointed out above for (1), the absorption is based on the spectrum of the radiation and the surface of the body that the radiation is impacting. Extra radiation is reflected which does not depend on the temperature of the body. For (2) some is absorbed and some reflected. (3) the Second Law is obeyed since the warmer body does not warm but cools more slowly. (4) Net heat transfer is from warmer to cooler, but slower transfer due to the cooler body being above 0K.

  183. Eric (skeptic) says:

    Doug Cotton says “You have only to ask them what happens every sunny morning when the surface is already warming. When you add more flux from the cold atmosphere does that then cause extra warming? If it did it would break the Second Law.”

    The flux from the warm atmosphere (relative to space) lowers the net heat outflow from the surface.

  184. Doug Cotton says:

    Eric (skeptic) says:
    February 15, 2012 at 3:42 am

    The flux from the warm atmosphere (relative to space) lowers the net heat outflow from the surface.
    _____________________________________________________________

    What “net heat outflow” from the surface? How can there be a net heat outflow when the surface is getting hotter at 11am? Go for a walk on the beach and see if the sand gets hotter and hotter on a warm sunny morning. It does in my part of the world.

    Next time, when you don’t understand my points, don’t bother to write about something different and irrelevant. I think like a physicist – obviously you don’t.

    The Second Law of Thermodynamics cannot work anywhere where there is matter in the universe unless the radiation from cold to hot has absolutely no effect and only the radiation from hot to cold leads to the conversion of the energy in that radiation to thermal energy in the colder body. There is no such conversion when radiation from a colder body meets a warmer one. “Heat” does not “travel” in the direction of net radiative flux, as I have demonstrated above, and because it does not do so, the veracity of the first statement is confirmed.

  185. Doug Cotton says:

    Gary Hladik says:
    February 15, 2012 at 3:14 am

    1 m^2 radiator at 300 degrees K, emissivity 0.9 radiates 413.343 W
    1 m^2 radiator at 310 degrees K, emissivity 0.2 radiates 104.727 W

    _____________________________________________________________

    And yet you can’t subtract these two values and see that there is net radiation from cold to hot?

    My point was just that. It is possible to have a situation like this where net radiation is in the opposite direction to heat transfer. The energy diagrams always assume heat transfer is in the direction of net radiative flux, now don’t they? So they are wrong. Simple as that.

    I don’t dispute that heat transfer is from hot to cold, but I do dispute your subsequent calculations, because there is no component of heat transfer due to the radiation from cold to hot. If you blocked that radiation with some filter somehow, the radiation from hot to cold would still be as great and the hot body would cool just as fast and no faster – as does the Earth’s surface when I block “backradiation” in my backyard experiment. You may not like my experiment, but you cannot point me to any contrary empirical evidence, and you could always try it yourself with sand in two identical wide necked vacuum flasks, one shielded from the sky at night and the other not,

    You will note that in my earlier post today (which I now refer you to) I am careful to talk about conversion of radiated energy to thermal energy, rather than use the word “absorb.” It may well be debatable as to whether “scattering” amounts to absorbing and immediately re-radiating, but the effect is the same, and no extra thermal energy is left behind.

    When considering heat transfer, as I have explained in the first post today, only the radiation from hot to cold is relevant and the following is the physical process (which Prof Claes Johnson also confirmed in a different way computationally):-

    Look at the first plot here http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/WiensDisplacementLaw.html
    and note that the distribution for a lower temperature is always contained within that for a higher temperature. Thus radiation from a cooler object will always be able to resonate with a warmer object and it does so. It is scattered by this resonating process and no energy left behind. In contrast, when radiation from a warmer body hits a cooler one, there will always be frequencies above the upper limit of those which will resonate in the cooler one. Because of this, the energy in those higher frequencies is converted to thermal energy, as happens when solar insolation hits the surface. (There will be more in my book, Greenhouse Land but this is a brief outline.)

    If this were not so the Second Law of Thermodynamics could not operate in all cases.

  186. Eric (skeptic) says:

    Doug, I think like an engineer. There is not much point in discussing a warm sunny morning since back radiation doesn’t really matter then. The better example is at night. Do you agree that clouds generally make it warmer at night? The clouds are almost always colder than the surface. The sign of that difference never matters although the cloud temperatures matter. If downward radiation is not what is keeping it warmer, what is?

  187. Doug Cotton says:

    When solar radiation (UV, visible and IR etc) travels through space we do not know what its end effect will be until it strikes something. We will observe its effect and say – there’s some light from the Sun – but it may be more light if it hits a white surface than a dark surface, as a camera exposure meter will confirm. It may generate thermal energy (more or less depending on what it strikes) or it may appear as light as it starts to penetrate the oceans, but end up as thermal energy in the deeper depths. Of course some will be reflected or scattered and strike another target sooner or later, and another etc.

    My point is, “heat” is the transfer of thermal energy, but thermal energy is not a fixed amount of energy travelling along with radiation. The energy in the radiation has to go through a physical process of being converted to thermal energy. This happens only for those frequencies in the radiation which are above the natural frequencies that can be emitted by the target. (The hotter the source of spontaneous radiation, the higher will be the peak frequency.) So solar radiation can be converted to thermal energy in the Earth’s surface, but radiation emitted from a cooler atmosphere cannot be converted to thermal energy in a warmer surface. “Heat” only appears to be transferred (and only from hot to cold) because only radiation from hot to cold will be converted to extra thermal energy in the target.

    It does not matter whether you are increasing the rate of warming in the morning or decreasing the rate of cooling later in the day, you still need extra thermal energy to do this. You cannot get this extra thermal energy from a cooler atmosphere, morning or evening. You cannot say the Second Law is not broken because of the direction of net radiation or net heat flow. All that matters is, what actually happens between any two points – one point on the surface and one point in a cooler atmosphere. What goes on between other “points” – a point on the Sun and another point on the surface is irrelevant. The Second Law must apply between any two points.

  188. Eric (skeptic) says:

    Doug, regarding your statement “This happens only for those frequencies in the radiation which are above the natural frequencies that can be emitted by the target. (The hotter the source of spontaneous radiation, the higher will be the peak frequency.)”

    What happens when a frequency from the source exactly matches the natural frequency of the target? What happens when the source frequency is 0.000001% above the natural frequency of the target and what happens when it is 0.000001% below? Will there be a discontinuity?

    Also please answer if clouds at night will keep the surface warmer and if so, how.

  189. Gary Hladik says:

    Doug Cotton says (February 15, 2012 at 2:26 pm): “And yet you can’t subtract these two values and see that there is net radiation from cold to hot?”

    Um, you mean “from cold toward hot”. The warm body only absorbs 20% of the incident radiation, so the net flow is warm to cool. Your experimental conditions, not mine.

    “You will note that in my earlier post today (which I now refer you to) I am careful to talk about conversion of radiated energy to thermal energy, rather than use the word “absorb.” It may well be debatable as to whether “scattering” amounts to absorbing and immediately re-radiating, but the effect is the same, and no extra thermal energy is left behind.”

    It doesn’t matter if you used the word “absorb” or not. You specified emissivities in your thought experiment, and thus specified absorptivities. Your own experiment requires that the warm body absorb 20% of the incident radiation, after scattering, reflection, etc. Once the energy is absorbed, you’re telling us that it has no effect on the warm body. You have, in fact, destroyed energy. Not good, Doug.

    “…and you could always try it yourself with sand in two identical wide necked vacuum flasks, one shielded from the sky at night and the other not,”

    Except that I have nothing to gain by proving (again) what (nearly) everybody already knows. You, on the other hand, have everything to gain. Why not perform Dr. Spencer’s “Yes, Virginia” thought experiment for real? If it comes out as you predict, it’s pretty much a guaranteed Nobel Prize. I look forward to your upcoming publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

  190. Doug Cotton says:

    Eric (skeptic) says
    February 15, 2012 at 4:36 pm

    What happens when a frequency from the source exactly matches the natural frequency of the target? What happens when the source frequency is 0.000001% above the natural frequency of the target and what happens when it is 0.000001% below? Will there be a discontinuity?
    _______________________________________________________________

    Good question. There is resonance or near resonance. The concept of near resonance is explained in more detail by Prof Claes Johnson – see link to his paper on the ‘Radiation’ page on my site http://climate-change-theory.com

    Basically that’s what it’s all aboout. The radiation resonates with the target and is not absorbed in the sense that there is no conversion to thermal energy. Higher frequencies that cannot resonate cause a type of “chaos” which leads to conversion to thermal energy, rather like when x-rays cause ionization.

  191. Doug Cotton says:

    Gary Hladik says:
    February 15, 2012 at 5:27 pm

    it is you who assumed absorptivity = emissivity in this case, but there is no equilibrium while the objects are both still cooling.

    In any event, the empirical measure of absorptivity in any particular situation already takes into account the fact that the portion of incoming radiation which is from a cooler source is scattered if not already reflected. You are assuming you can apply the ratio which applies for the total of all radiation (SW and LW) to just the LW from a cooler source. But that is a portion of the total which has already been deducted in determining the absorptivity.

    If the source of radiation is cooler there is resonance and no energy from that radiation is converted to thermal energy. (See post above re resonance and near resonance.)

    You may consider it absorbed and re-emitted with the same energy and frequency spectrum if you wish. I will consider it just scattered. But either way there is no effect on thermal energy levels in the target.

    Your concept of absorbing implies conversion to thermal energy. This only happens if the source is warmer than the target. How many times do I have to repeat this? If you disagree with the mathematical proof of this (by a Professor of Applied Mathematics) then go and argue with Claes Johnson on his website blog.

    The Earth’s surface absorbs incident solar radiation and converts it to thermal energy. That energy is not necessarily re-radiated immediately by the surface. In fact it may never be radiated because it may exit by evaporation, diffusion, conduction etc.

    The surface converts SW to thermal energy (but not LW from a cooler atmosphere) and then some of that thermal energy subsequently exits as LW radiation if it hasn’t already done so by other processes, which more than half does.

  192. Doug Cotton says:

    The conjecture that “backradiation” (or even reflected radiation sent back to its source) can warm the original source (which is warmer than the source of the backradiation) is not to be found anywhere in conventional physics papers or textbooks.

    It is something invented by climatologists. Yet, despite its lack of status as any kind of established theory, the IPCC launched it upon the world without so much as a single empirical experiment to confirm it happened. Yet they call it science, and say the science is settled.

    Now even if people like Gary are not prepared to test it themselves (as I have and found it failed) then at least you would think there ought to be some experiment somewhere that the IPCC was hanging its hat on. But there isn’t.

    End of story. End of Greenhouse fantasy.

  193. Doug Cotton says:

    PS Gary: This paper found a temperature dependence for absorptivity of 1% / K … http://icecube.berkeley.edu/~bprice/publications/T-dependence.pdf

  194. Gary Hladik says:

    Doug Cotton says (February 15, 2012 at 8:49 pm): ‘[snip more handwaving than the Rose Parade]

    If you disagree with the mathematical proof of this (by a Professor of Applied Mathematics) then go and argue with Claes Johnson on his website blog.”

    Math isn’t proof. Experiments are proof. Do the experiment, Doug, or help Johnson do it, and put an end to the arguments. Publish the results, and claim your Nobel Prizes. Until then you’re just flapping your gums.

  195. Doug Cotton says:

    I have done the experiment, Gary, and it failed to show any slowing of the cooling process due to backradiation. It will be published in an Appendix in my book, but Johnson hasall the credit and I am not taking anything away from him. He has solved a problem which baffled Planck and Einstein.

    Now, you try it. Fill two wide necked identical vacuum flasks with sand and, throughout the night, shield one from nearly all the backradiation – just allowing air to escape by convection around the edge of the shield which should be at a slight slope to ensure this. My temperatures were measured to 0.1 deg.C and were identical just before dawn.

  196. Doug Cotton says:

    P.S. Gary: The IPCC conjecture and all their models are only mathematical. So surely they should have done an experiment to see if backradiation really does warm anything or slow its rate of cooling. So go and write to them, or show me a link to any such experiment already published.

    As far as I’m concerned , if you want to promulgate their garbage in my direction you will have to show me an experiment which backs it up. I bet you can’t, even if I come back to this thread in a year from now.

  197. Eric (skeptic) says:

    To do the experiment, the shield would have to be as cold as possible otherwise it will radiate and nullify the experiment.

  198. Myrrh says:

    it warmer, what is?

    Doug Cotton says:
    February 15, 2012 at 4:18 pm
    When solar radiation (UV, visible and IR etc) travels through space we do not know what its end effect will be until it strikes something. We will observe its effect and say – there’s some light from the Sun – but it may be more light if it hits a white surface than a dark surface, as a camera exposure meter will confirm. It may generate thermal energy (more or less depending on what it strikes) or it may appear as light as it starts to penetrate the oceans, but end up as thermal energy in the deeper depths. Of course some will be reflected or scattered and strike another target sooner or later, and another etc.

    ==========

    Doug, sorry, I couldn’t get back to this earlier, but I’ll pick up from the above you wrote because this clearly shows the problem which creates the confusion, as I see it.

    The meme, and it is a meme, produced by the AGWScience Fiction meme producing department, has reduced all electromagnetic energy to a non-differentiated something to better sell it’s propaganda that carbon dioxide has supermolecule powers to change the climate and it’s therefore human’s fault for overproducing it, etc. From this, and from this meme alone, we get the reasoning you’ve given here. Please, take a bit of time to think about, I’m not the cleverest here at explaining such subtleties, so bear with me.

    What you are saying is that there is no differences in electromagnetic energy from the Sun, which means that you would have to show how each subject converts that into the particular wavelengths which have the effects these have, this is nowhere shown as happening in the physical world.

    For example, a plant that takes in red and blue visible light for photosynthesis would have to take in all that elecromagnetic spectrum and first convert it to the red and blue energies it required for chemical changes to create sugar, where is the mechanism in the plant which does this? If that isn’t clear enough, then, the plant would also need to convert some of it to green light which it would then release somehow through its form – but, the reason we see green light is because green light is not absorbed by the plant, it is reflected back out. If you say, well, the plant itself isn’t creating the green light out of this undifferentiated electromagnetic energy which is as the meme goes “all the same”, then there must be something else in the world that is doing this which then has to direct it towards plant life which would then not absorb it and so reflect back. Do you see where this reasoning of yours leads? You have created a completely different world from that which we observe around us. Where are the mechanisms in plant and animals and rocks which create the different effects from this ‘one all the same electromagnetic energy’?

    Now, bog standard physics well understood that the electromagnetic energy we get from the Sun comes in packages that have their own particular properties and processes, a gamma ray is not the same as a radio wave, it will affect matter differently because of what it intrinsically is in itself.

    WE DO KNOW, how these different packages of energy will interact with the world of matter around us.

    We do know, for example, that the package categorised UV itself comes in slightly different forms which are DISTINCT as properties one from the other, some UV is so highly energetic that it will not only move an electron of a molecule, but will cause it to be ejected from the molecule – this is the difference between ionising and non-ionising. WE KNOW, what the properties are of visible light packages, how they interact with matter, we know, how some packages are invisible and the actual thermal energy of the Sun on the move, thermal infrared, which is heat. WE KNOW these things.

    I’m insisting that before you dare to continue spouting the fictional fisics you are doing here regarding these points, that you produce the mechanisms in all the range of matter which changes this meme ‘all electromagnetic energy from the Sun is the same’ to its particular wavelengths as shown by its different effects.

    You are right about backradiation – and you are quite right to insist on experimental, empirical proof that this is what is actually happening, and you are right that you will never be provided with this because it doesn’t exist – now, as shocking as this is to you, you are doing the same thing with regard to the claims for electromagnetic energy. You cannot prove your scenario, it has never been observed, there are no such mechanisms in place in which matter first creates the particular wavelengths before using them, or before they can have a particular effect on matter.

    I’ll say this again, it really is worth repeating, that the claims made by the AGWSF department to further its fictional science about AGW are varied, they take in the whole range of science disciplines and just because someone is a ‘scientist’ doesn’t mean that they will understand the physics of another discipline, and they are just as vulnerable because of this, to being fooled by the meme targetting a different discipline.

    All electromagnetic energy is not the same! For goodness sake, you only have to look at all the many many descriptions and pictures of the differences to see that, they all have different names even! But, once a fictional meme is ‘fixed’, the blindingly obvious becomes invisible..

    UV rays direct from the Sun are distincly different from visible light and thermal infrared. There are some overlaps in this, some packages will have properties that are similar to another otherwise completely different package, wavelength, of properties. UV and Visible both work on the electron scale on meeting matter – for one reason because of their size. SIZE is a distinct property and varies with the different packages, do you know how big radio waves are, how small gamma rays are? Until you can appreciate the differences, you cannot say anything about them or how they react on meeting matter.

    UV is not a thermal energy. The Sun’s thermal energy, the great movement of the Sun’s matter which is heat, is being radiated out from the Sun, actually this thermal energy moving from the Sun to the Earth, to us, and heating us up. Just as we get heated up by standing in front of a fire, we can feel the direct rays, beamed, they travel in straight lines, our backs could still be cold. This is the same energy, thermal energy which is heat, which is radiating out from a hot stove which is isn’t hot enough to also create any visible light – thermal energy, heat, is invisible. This is the thermal infrared package from the Sun, near infrared isn’t hot! Near infrared is in the ‘same set’ here as visible light, it is reflective in matter rather than absorptive as these are designated in the specific category difference between HEAT and LIGHT.

    You can see this in how different infrared cameras work. The near infrared which is reflective works just as does a visible light camera, it takes a picture of the near infrared being reflected off the subject; the camera catching what are eyes can’t, just as a visible light camera catches the light we can see refecting off subjects, colour. Thermal infrared cameras capture the heat that is being radiated out from a subject, the internal heat radiating out on reaching the surface.

    So, unless you can show in all matter the different mechanisms in place which convert this AGW meme ‘non-differentiated electromagnetic energy’ into its constituent parts and properties and processes, then I suggest you go back to traditional physics on this and see this as the Sun producing different product packages each with their own effects on meeting the diversity of matter around us.

    UV ‘burns’ the skin, like a high speed drill burns wood, it does not move the molecules into vibration which is what it takes in the real physical world to heat something up, because, it can’t physically do so. It works on changes in the DNA, it works on the electronic transition level – the reason you get a tan isn’t because UV is burning you, it is because melanin, a dark substance, is being produced by your body to stop it drilling your DNA, your body is quite happy to take in loads of UV for vit D production, it just doesn’t like it when it is too intense.

    Heat, conversely, is the energetic movement, kinetic energy, of molecules moving. Read that again. Read the differences between electronic transitions of light and uv which interact with the electrons of atoms and molecules, and the actual thermal vibration of atoms and molecules which is heat, of the whole molecule being moved, more rapidly as more heat is applied. See the wiki page I’ve referred to earlier.

    When solar radiation (UV, visible and IR etc) travels through space we do not know what its end effect will be until it strikes something.

    Wrong! We do know, we have tons and tons and tons of knowledge about how the different properties of the different wavelengths interact with all the diversity of matter around us.

  199. Gary Hladik says:

    Doug Cotton says (February 16, 2012 at 1:50 am): “I have done the experiment, Gary, and it failed to show any slowing of the cooling process due to backradiation.”

    I’m shocked…shocked, I tell you! :-)

    “It will be published in an Appendix in my book, but Johnson hasall the credit and I am not taking anything away from him. He has solved a problem which baffled Planck and Einstein.”

    (Yawn) Get back to me when it’s published in a peer-reviewed journal. Get back to me when you’ve received the Nobel Prize for solving “a problem which baffled Planck and Einstein”. Get back to me when you’ve done Dr. Spencer’s “Yes, Virginia” experiment. Anything less is mere handwaving.

    Doug Cotton says (February 16, 2012 at 1:55 am): “As far as I’m concerned , if you want to promulgate their garbage in my direction you will have to show me an experiment which backs it up. I bet you can’t, even if I come back to this thread in a year from now.”

    And a year from now I bet you’ll have no definitive experiment to prove your bizarro physics. Until then, scientists on both sides of the CAGW issue are laughing at you.

    The more I think about it, the more baffled I am that you, Johnson, and Latour haven’t performed a definitive experiment to prove your claims. You’d get a Nobel Prize, save the world from wasting trillions of dollars, get invited to the best parties, and wipe that smug grin off Al Gore’s face. What’s stopping you, Doug?

  200. Gary Hladik says:

    Eric (skeptic) says (February 16, 2012 at 2:14 am): “To do the experiment, the shield would have to be as cold as possible otherwise it will radiate and nullify the experiment.”

    It might be possible to use a solar cooker/cooler in the experiment:

    http://solarcooking.org/plans/funnel.htm

    To cool effectively, the makers say it must be pointed at the empty night sky, away from IR sources like trees, buildings, clouds (!), etc. In this experiment, four identical ovens with “payload” at ambient air temp could be pointed at:

    1) Melting ice, 0 degrees C
    2) The night sky, say -20 degrees C(?)
    3) Dry ice, -78.5 degrees C
    4) Liquid nitrogen, -196 degrees C

    Assume night ambient air temp remains well above freezing. According to conventional physics, the fastest temperature drop and lowest final temp should be found in oven #4, the slowest cooling and highest final temp in #1. According to bizarro physics (as I understand it), all 4 should behave identically.

  201. Eric (skeptic) says:

    Gary your experiment makes sense. For more precise readings it would have to be dry air and other conditions for thermal equilibrium of the cold objects. For example as ice melts it’s absorption will not exactly match its emission. It could probably be automatically replenished from a freezer but it might be better to use chillers behind metal surfaces with constant temperature. Dry air would preclude lots of condensation and state changes on the surfaces.

    But even without out those conditions your experiment should show the relative differences.

  202. Doug Cotton says:

    Gary Hladik says:
    February 16, 2012 at 10:37 am

    The more I think about it, the more baffled I am that you, Johnson, and Latour haven’t performed a definitive experiment to prove your claims.
    ___________________________________________________________________________

    Prof Nahle is doing the experiments for us with more to be published this year. You may start with this one: http://principia-scientific.org/publications/New_Concise_Experiment_on_Backradiation.pdf

    Meanwhile I note that you are not able to point me to any experiment which demonstrates backradiation actually warming anything or slowing its rate of cooling as is claimed in the “explanation” of the radiative greenhouse effect.

    Where I choose to publish my own experiment is my prerogative. I act with my own money and marketing expertise, and my motives are directed towards influencing those who make decisions. I am not the slightest bit interested in Nobel Prizes, thank you.

  203. Doug Cotton says:

    Myrrh and others

    I will continue on this week’s Open Thread, but note my ten points again at
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/11/open-thread-weekend-7/#comment-890609

    The concept of radiation merely resonating with molecules in a target which is warmer than the source of the radiation has been proved computationally by Prof Claes Johnson in his Computational Blackbody Radiation. Such radiation is in effect just scattered without leaving any energy behind.

    I have picked up from there and explained when such resonating happens. It happens because all the frequencies in radiation from a cooler source are contained in the spectrum for the warmer body, but not vice versa. This explains how and why the Second Law of Thermodynamics operates for radiation. No other mechanism would satisfy that Law. When calculating the warming effect of two-way radiation between a hot and a cold body, you need to disregard the radiation from the cold body, and only consider that from the hot body. Otherwise the result of your calculations can be wrong in some situations, such as the funnel experiment I have outlined in another post wherein more radiation from a larger body is focused onto a smaller body at the same temperature.

    All of this explains why, when you examine spontaneous radiation passing through a gas, the gas will not absorb if the emitting body is cooler than itself, but will absorb when the emitter is warmer. If you don’t believe this, do the experiment yourself. Seeing is believing.

  204. Doug Cotton says:

    Gary Hladik says February 16, 2012 at 10:37 am

    Until then, scientists on both sides of the CAGW issue are laughing at you
    _________________________________________________________________

    And I would be laughing at them if it weren’t such a serious blunder that has been made by what was initially a small number who, perhaps like yourself, did not have a proper understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Anyway, my current post is on the next Open thread, so feel free to continue there, but next time some appropriate discussion based on physics would be more desirable, because comments such as you have made in this post are like water off a duck’s back.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/19/open-thread-weekend-8/#comment-897342

    The linked post was originally one written for Leonard Weinstein, and below is a further one if he happens to read this. It won’t hurt for those who are laughing to read this as well …

    PS Leonard

    If the warming in the morning were increased by the addition of extra thermal energy (which had been converted from radiation from a colder atmosphere) then that extra thermal energy can remain in the surface for hours or even days or months.

    When it does exit (usually by that evening) it may do so by other processes such as evaporation, conduction or diffusion followed by convection. So there has indeed been a warming effect and it is not just cancelled out by subsequent radiation that evening.

    And so there are two scenarios …

    (a) If you say the warming does happen in the morning then it is a clear cut violation of the Second Law at that time.

    (b) If you agree with me that warming by the atmosphere does not happen on a sunny morning, then you are in effect agreeing that the whole conjecture that backradiation can do anything at all is wrong, and thus the whole concept of the radiative greenhouse effect is wrong, as are the models..

    Don’t sit on the fence, Sir! Take a stand one way or the other!

  205. Doug Cotton says:

    Gary and Eric:

    It is good to see you discussing experiments. However, there is no need to get liquid nitrogen etc. The whole point is to emulate the surface. Hopefully you can both do this one and compare results.

    The main aim is to compare one object which receives backradiation and one identical one which does not.

    Because the ground itself varies a bit and there is subsurface conduction, I used two identical wide necked vacuum flasks (the type used for hot soup) filled to the brim with sand from the same bag. Of course the lids were left off. Make sure no rain is forecast for 24 hours. Allow them to stabilise all day long in the Sun about 4 or 5 metres apart and equal distances from fences or walls of houses etc Hopefully you have access to a suitable front or back yard.

    After sunset shield one with two car windscreen shields which are silver on each side. These have low emissivity and will generally disperse most upward radiation from the surface because of their rough surface. Tape the screens together (along the long sides) to make a large square and suspend them (eg with piles of bricks in the corners) so they are only about 15cm above the top of one of the the flasks and centrally positioned of course. There should be a slight dish effect in the screens so warm air can escape by convection around the sides. Your aim should be to shield at least 80 to 90% of the sky. You can use a small mirror when reading the meat thermometer which has a metal spike.. Obviously you need to take comparison temperatures of the sand in each flask before and soon after covering one, and at least three pairs of measurements during the night. Set your alarm to be sure you get the final measurement about 45 to 60 minutes before dawn. Tell me if you perceive any serious problems with this.

    If the initial temperatures before covering are not within 0.2 deg.C you may wish to ascertain why and perhaps start again with different locations on another day. My results will be published in my book, as I wish to repeat it several more times first, but I can tell you there was no difference exceeding 0.1 deg.C at any measurement, that being the limit of reading of the thermometer I used..

    So the backradiation had no effect, as is predicted by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Comments are closed.