Critical mass of Cotton

Can we not send him over to SkS?
He is more suited to the method and style if not the cause.

“Can we not send him over to SkS?”
He’s been there and done that a couple times. The results are somewhat entertaining: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=15&p=10#72832 Cotton actually does a reasonable job of dissecting some of their nonsense. For example that back radiation is like microwaves from a magnetron: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/waves/magnetron.html They ban his address pretty quickly at that point.

Very funny but most people wont get the humor in it.
doug is a good read at the air vent

Prior to this WUWT post and Lucia’s post exposing the commenting behavior of Mr. Cotton, I do not recall encountering him before in my skeptic blog commenting forays.
I think if I was in their place as a blog owner then my reaction would probably be parallel to theirs.
I appreciate both blog owners trying to have a free and open discussion about Mr. Cotton. Thanks.
It looks like to me that Mr. Cotton consistently failed to respectfully follow common blog rules.
John

Lew Skannen says:
March 10, 2014 at 4:56 pm
Can we not send him over to SkS?

He is five moves ahead of all of us. This is epic, Cotton threatened to take SkS down with Facebook!

John Cook: Doug Cotton threatens to rubbish SkS with ‘thousands of people on Facebook’
What’s up with this guy? An Aussie too:
“Name: Doug Cotton
Message: You are really determined not to let readers get to my site http://climate-change-theory.com because it clearly rubbishes AGW in a way you cannot defend. First you say there was a virus. So I copy the (previous version) of the text. Then you snip that and say I should post the link. (LOL) You delete all my responses because you know they are undeniable. By the time I try to post a link I find that you have blocked the whole account. If you don’t rectify this I will rubbish your site with thousands of people on Facebook reading my posts about your site and the censorship. No one has or can refure what is now stated on the above site. Don’t underestimate me or the group of physics academics I am getting together.”

Mr. Cotton spammed the hell out of Skeptical Science (he should get an award for this). The deleted Cotton files from SkS (enjoy!),
Comment 57157
DougCotton
2011-07-06 20:56:29
There is now statistically significant Fourier transform analysis which detects 60 year cycles in temperature data. There are also obvious other cycles, notably one of about 934 years. These cycles also correlate with planetary orbits as I have explained at http://earth-climate.com and so we now have proof that gravity from the sun and planets affects Earth’s climate. Predictions are for slight cooling till 2028, then warming to 2059 then long-term (934 year) cycle is at maximum and so a long term decline to Little Ice Age conditions about 450 years after that. There is a detailed explanation and reasons on my site. I am happy to answer questions to my email address thereon.
Reason: [no reason given] (Rob Painting)
Comment 57160
DougCotton
2011-07-06 21:00:45
There is now statistically significant Fourier transform analysis which detects 60 year cycles in temperature data. There are also obvious other cycles, notably one of about 934 years. These cycles also correlate with planetary orbits as I have explained at earth-climate dot com and so we now have proof that gravity from the sun and planets affects Earth’s climate. Predictions are for slight cooling till 2028, then warming to 2059 then long-term (934 year) cycle is at maximum and so a long term decline to Little Ice Age conditions about 450 years after that. There is a detailed explanation and reasons on my site. I am happy to answer questions to my email address thereon.
Reason: [no reason given] (Rob Painting)
Comment 57428
DougCotton
2011-07-09 15:14:47
See my site http://earth-climate.com re longer cyccles and reasons. Doug Cotton
Reason: Off-topic (and link only) (Daniel Bailey)
Comment 58278
DougCotton
2011-07-17 19:54:30
My detailed criticism of the assumption that anthropogenic CO2 is the major contributor to warming is at http://earth-climate.com Firstly, my key point regarding current trends from 1 Jan 2003 to 1 July 2011 as per NASA “sea surface” satellite measurements (the only years that can be plotted on their site) there is a regular pattern obviously related to the Earth’s orbits each year. The statistical probability that this regular pattern is random noise below an increasing trend comparable with that prior to 1998 is absolutely infinitesimal, so the “excuse” that it is just random noise simply does not hold for these last eight and a half (8.5) years. Now, if you calculate a 12 month running mean each 6 months (taking into account every day) you will find that a linear trend for those annual values is slightly negative. In fact a curved trend passing through a maximum fits better, but I won’t argue the toss on that. What I am saying is that, if CO2 were causing an underlying linear upward trend and no other valid physical explanation can be put forward as a REASON for (in effect) an upside down hockey stick now being observed, then you cannot validate that the data (right up to July 2011, not just 2010) has merely exhibited a random variation, because the REGULAR ANNUAL PATTERN seen here http://earth-climate.com/all-2003-2011.jpg could not happen at random with any reasonable probability. The regularity (caused by the Earth’s orbit as it passes other planets) proves that the underlying trend since 2003 is in fact what it appears to be – namely a slightly declining trend and certainly not one with a positive gradient anything remotely like the IPCC guesses. The key points relating to molecular physics (explaining why CO2 has had no noticeable effect) are in bolded paragraphs copied below and I eagerly await your attempt to refute such. The distance of the Earth from the sun currently varies by about 3.25% as the Earth follows its annual orbit. This means the radiation reaching the Earth should vary by about 6.6% over half a year. There are in fact consistent variations each year as shown here but these are only about 0.65 degrees and are not random noise. Hence the sun seems to be contributing only about 10 degrees out of the 294 degrees that the ground level temperatures have been raised above absolute zero which is about -273 deg.C. So the sun’s solar radiation is not the main cause of variations in temperature – instead over 96% of the heat must come through the surface of the crust or be generated by friction due to tides caused by gravity in the atmosphere itself. Air molecules (mostly nitrogen and oxygen) collide with molecules at the surface of the crust (or on top of the ocean) and gain heat (extra kinetic energy) in the process. They then rise by convection making space for cooler molecules to collide with the surface and repeat the process until equilibrium is achieved. The vast majority of the warming from absolute zero takes place this way, going from 0 deg.K to more than 280 deg.K with the process working on cloudy days and also at night. During the day some extra molecules get warmed by collisions with photons radiated by the sun. Most of these are water vapour, but about 1 in every 2,500 molecules in the air is a carbon dioxide molecule. Over the course of a year, the mean additional warming due to such photons is only about 10 degrees (as discussed above) and most of these photons (on a cloudless day) hit the surface and warm it. The warmer surface then starts warming the air by the processes above, but just a few extra photons are radiated back up again. So, even if one carbon dioxide molecule is warmed by a photon, how much effect is that going to have on the other 2,499 molecules in its vicinity or, in other words, how much is it going to raise the average temperature of all the 2,500 molecules? How much effect will it have on the above 10 degrees of warming we can attribute to the sun’s radiation? Very, very little I would suggest. In fact, as you cannot alter the number of photons (and thus the total energy) coming from the sun, all that will happen with additional carbon dioxide is that this very minute warming will occur at slightly lower altitudes than it would otherwise have. But even so, the warmer air will then rise by convection sooner than it would have with less carbon dioxide.
Reason: off topic (Rob Painting)
Comment 59723
DougCotton
2011-08-08 11:33:40
OK – let any Physicist prove me wrong in my argument that carbon dioxide cannot lead to accumulation of heat from one year to the next. This logic (based on quantum physics and thermodynamics) is outlined on my site http://climate-change-theory.com Carbon dioxide molecules can only capture some of the photons that are actually RADIATED from the surface. Far more heat conducts to colliding air molecules and then rises by convection, these oxygen and nitrogen molecules then emitting photons that cannot be captured by carbon dioxide. Heat “trapped” by carbon dioxide cannot return to the surface by convection. It only returns temporarily by radiation (though half also goes to space) and that radiation only temporarily slows the cooling off period each evening. The oceans offer by far the greatest potential for accumulating heat, and they did so leading up to the large El Nino at the end of last century. But, allowing time for the effects of that to pass by 2002, we now find taht NASA sea surface data shows no accumulation of heat since January 2003 as proven here: http://earth-climate.com/2003-2011.jpg It is the temperature gradient of the heat conducting from the core to the surface which determines mean temperatures above ground. Such temperatures follow cycles which explain the past and predict cooling from 2014 to 2027 for example. Several reasons are postulated as possible explanations for the cycles, but no one really knows why they appear to be related to planetary orbits as discussed on my site. Now, as Einstein said, it would only take one to prove him wrong. Out of 17,000 visitors to my site, no one has done so yet. Still waiting! But if no one from skepticalscience can prove me wrong, then your position does not hold water. … especially illogical deductions like this: ” … satellites which find less heat escaping out to space over the last few decades. This is direct evidence that more CO2 is causing warming.” What garbage – it is nothing more than evidence that temperatures were rising then – and we knew that from our thermometers.
Reason: Off-topic Gish Gallop (Daniel Bailey)
Comment 59796
DougCotton
2011-08-09 21:53:19
This is the type of fallacious argument John Cook puts forward: less radiation out than in – CO2 bands missing – hence CO2 is stopping the extra heat getting out. Garbage. More in than out tells us nothing more than what we already know – that is (was) warming (due to long term and short term cycles) late last century. Yes CO2 captures some photons – but that doesn’t mean the heat doesn’t eventually escape at other frequencies after it returns to earth and then warms non-GH air molecules. Bad logic John! Now, I lay down the gauntlet: read my site http://earth-climate.com and come back with a proof that heat from the Earth all enters the atmosphere as radiation in normal (fairly calm) conditions – because quantum physics says most will enter by diffusion (molecular collisions) and so warm oxygen and nitrogen molecules which will then emit photons that can’t be captured by CO2. See the simple experiment on my site and read the Wikipedia link about “Heat Transfer” Explain to me how it is that (supposed) radiation just happens to regulate the air we breathe to almost the same temperature as underground on a calm night. What a fluke! What if humidity changes? How come Singapore has min 25 or 26 deg.C and max 31 or 32 deg.C EVERY DAY OF THE YEAR. Pretty good radiation control! Show me evidence that, just after sundown, there is still massive radiation coming back to earth from the clouds as IPCC models show. Garbage.
Reason: Epic gibberish (Daniel Bailey)
Comment 59854
DougCotton
2011-08-10 12:14:33
I’ll leave it to you to look up Wikipedia “Heat Transfer” second paragraph. In regard to comments about emitted photons being “absorbed” higher in the atmosphere – so what? They get emitted again soon after. It is the last capture in the chain that matters, and about 50% go to space. The rest temporarily warm the surface/ocean. Again, so what? Everyone knows the warmth of the day extends into the early evening. The process repeats. At least some (probably over 80%) of the new heat gets diffused into N2 and O2. Of the rest, no more than hald can come back for another trip. Where is the heat building up these last 8 years or so?
Reason: [no reason given] (Rob Painting)
Comment 59855
DougCotton
2011-08-10 12:15:39
Secondly, I ask you, what is the probability that, if radiation is the only source of heat for the atmosphere, that (in calm conditions at night) it just happens to raise that part of the atmosphere which is very close to the ground all the way from 0 deg.K (-273.15 deg.C) up to almost exactly the same temperature that it happens to be under the ground. For example, in Singapore underground temp is about 298 deg.K and (by a complete fluke?) minimum temperatures are 298 deg.K or 299 deg.K every night of the year. Are you telling me there is no physical cause for such obvious equilibrium – that it only comes about by chance because there is just the right amount of GH gas around to absorb just the right amount of photons from just the right amount of incident solar insolation and emitted IR radiation – to arrive at just the right temperature – always within one degree.
Reason: [no reason given] (Rob Painting)
Comment 59913
DougCotton
2011-08-11 08:37:46
NASA figures and simple maths PROVE that upward radiation from the Earth’s surface (including all resulting from feedback) has energy which is no more than about 30% of the original incoming solar insolation. The IPCC diagram shows figures which amount to 114%. NASA shows that only one third of heat entering the surface is then RADIATED back upwards, the rest being diffused by conduction and then convection. This dramatically reduces the effect of feedback. You either accept NASA’s estimates or the IPCC’s exaggerations which are nearly four (4) times the actual. Prove me wrong! See http://earth-climate.com/IPCCdiag.jpg
Reason: All-caps (Daniel Bailey)
Comment 60070
DougCotton
2011-08-13 14:49:32
Of course I have taken into account basic science – eg quantum mechanics, physics, mathematical statistics – all of which I have studied at tertiary level and in ongoing private study and private tutoring at secondary and tertiary levels, development of widely used mathematics, medical and dental software etc. (My son has a PhD in actuarial studies.) Energy will be distributed among all air molecules and released by emission of infra-red photons by greenhouse gases. Oxygen and nitrogen cannot emit such (at atmospheric temperatures) but can “pass on” energy in molecular collisions which will lead to further emissions by the (very necessary) greenhouse gases.
Reason: Off-topic (Daniel Bailey)
Comment 60184
DougCotton
2011-08-15 11:33:56
PS Re #183: Whether convection takes months or hours to get to TOA does not alter my belief that it causes the temperature gradient in the atmosphere. Please supply a reference for the “hours.” But I simply cannot comprehend how radiation, travelling at the speed of light, is supposed to take “days” to get there. If it is converted to heat on the way up, then those molecules would hop on the fast moving convection conveyor belt. Those photons that are not trapped get from the surface to space in microseconds.
Reason: Acting like a bad rash [just won’t go away] (Daniel Bailey)
Comment 60187
DougCotton
2011-08-15 11:40:05
Tom, can you tell me the proportion that the CO2 notch is out of the total back radiation which I have previously indicated I fully accept as being shown in the 2008 NASA model, for example.
Reason: Just…won’t…stop…pushing buttons (Daniel Bailey)
Comment 60188
DougCotton
2011-08-15 11:45:22
Tom, can you tell me the proportion that the CO2 notch represents out of the total back radiation – which (as indicated about 2 days ago) I fully accept as currently being of the order shown on the nasa (2008) diagram, for example, and as measured.
Reason: IBID (Daniel Bailey)
Comment 60196
DougCotton
2011-08-15 12:31:45
#189 Unlike yourself, I most certainly do study the equations where relevant, having majored in both Physics and Pure and Applied Mathematics. And I also apply both disciplines rigorously where applicable to my deductions.
Reason: obnoxious, condescending bull$$$! and to adelady, no less (muoncounter, Dan Friedman)
Comment 61732
DouglasCotton
2011-09-03 13:51:23
In the article, Trenberth and Fassulo plot, among other things, an estimate of net radiation at TOA. This gives rise to their “missing energy” which was questioned by Knox and Douglass. This brings to mind the whole issue of whether or not the models are in fact accurate enough to distinguish between a net downwelling or net upwelling radiation. The plain fact is that the errors acknowledged prove that the models are not that accurate. That is understandable when you are calculating the difference of two estimated figures each over 300 and hoping to prove that such a difference is +1 rather than -1. This makes all the difference between warming and cooling.
Reason: Off-topic & Trolling (Daniel Bailey)
Comment 61754
DouglasCotton
2011-09-03 17:30:03
#200 pbjamm: I doubt that a lab experiment in the 19th century (recently debunked) really established the “science” over 100 years ago. It would have been overlooked but for that hockey stick last century. I have nearly completed analysing borehole data which you can look at yourself if you wish. The current “science” centres around “models” which have errors far too great to be able to prove that the net downwelling radiation at TOA is positive. We know from measurement that it is rarely more than plus or minus 0.5% of total incoming radiation. Taking the difference of estimated numbers (each over 300 with errors at least 5) and assuming you can be so accurate down to 0.5% with that difference is absurd. This is what 75 “scientists” have led gullible people throughout the world to believe. So, yes, I am trying to point this out and perhaps change things, though that is an uphill task in the face of mental inertia.
Reason: Gibberish (Daniel Bailey)
Comment 61755
DouglasCotton
2011-09-03 17:47:00
#205, #206, #207 I have said over and over that I am fully aware of the low heat flow from the core. I have also explained how the Sun does virtually all the warming and the temperature plot “supports” the stable base temperature. This takes more detailed explaining which I am not going to type out again here because it may seem off topic. You will find such explanation elsewhere based on solid, sound Physics. The data from hundreds of boreholes up to about 500 metres is quite sufficient to prove beyond any doubt that this is happening. The probability of correlation happening at random is billions to one against. While the coffee in a mug is close to boiling point (cf the liquid core) the outside of the mug (surface of the crust) stays much warmer than the room, though the air close to the mug starts to warm. Give the Earth billions of years, and the atmosphere has come into equilibrium with the surface temperature which was and is determined by the temperature of the core, the distance to the surface and the conductivity of the material en route. The last two are constant, but small variations in core temperatures are inevitable.
Reason: Gibberish (Daniel Bailey)
Comment 61760
DouglasCotton
2011-09-03 20:07:18
#205, 206, 207 DB: The borehole plot posted by DB is not showing a temperature gradient (as a function of depth) as is required to confirm my hypothesis, as is further explaned here.
Reason: IBID (Daniel Bailey)
Comment 61764
DouglasCotton
2011-09-03 22:01:58
#209 Tom You either haven’t read a word I have written in the link provided in #208, or you simply don’t understand. The issue of the equator v. poles, for example, is fully explained. Do you seriously think there is anything at all in what you have written that, with over 50 years experience studying and tutoring Physics, I am not fully aware? Nor anything that I have not taken into account in my hypothesis? However, your statement in bold is incorrect, because the effect of inflowing solar insolation is easily distinguished in the borehole data. The trend provides quantification. The “mystery” is that the extrapolation of the trend from data beyond the influence of the sun, continually “happens” to hit the surface within a degree or so of the stable base temperature – which could in no way have caused such. This whole AGW matter is a travesty of Physics and you are going to see Professors of Physics like Nahle rising up in unison. I quote from a personal email he wrote me today … “In general terms, we are on the same way: to smash AGW pseudoscience to pieces; therefore, I encourage you to continue your excellent work. Congratulations for your excellent article!”
Reason: Gibberish (Daniel Bailey)
Comment 61769
DouglasCotton
2011-09-04 00:00:13
#209 You, like Tom, show a lack of understanding of why it is the sun which does the warming, not the trickle of heat flowing from the core. And until you read what I say here you will continue to waste your time and mine with irrelevant posts. The “fairly large quantity in the opposite direction” is both correct and clearly explained.
Reason: Bully-pulpiting (Daniel Bailey)
Comment 65582
EarthClimate
2011-10-18 13:16:10
You deleted that post rather quickly didn’t you John. Too hot to handle – too difficult to argue against I suspect. I’ll try again … Interested to note, John Cook, that (a) you have no more physics to your name than I do and (b) you claim to be a Christian as I do – see this site for example. As such, I suggest you should have more confidence in the fact that God is in control of climate. God knew we would need fossil fuels and we would fly planes and drive petrol cars etc etc. He has created Earth in such a way that numerous factors lead to a suitable climate, air and food supply etc. Now along come pseudo-physicists in the form of climatologists and demonstrate their lack of knowledge of physics in several ways. For example, they talk about Ocean Heat Content when they presumably mean Thermal Energy Content – different thing, different units. Thermal Energy interchanges with Potential Energy as when, for example, warm water rises due to convection. And such rising means you can’t trap warmer water at great depths for very long anyway. Then they assume that all radiation from GHG molecules is spontaneous because only spontaneous emission would be in random directions, roughly 50% towards space and 50% towards Earth. In fact, much of the radiation is induced by the upward radiation from the surface, and such induced radiation will continue in roughly the same direction as the incoming radiation, that is, towards space. They go on to effectively claim that their models prove carbon dioxide must cause warming. This would require error bars well under 0.5% in their estimates of upwelling and downwelling radiation, but instead they acknowledge errors of the order of 1% to 2%, this meaning the models cannot possibly distinguish between net warming and net cooling. And as for assuming that the temperature trend must be linear and, because of short term apparent correlation with carbon dioxide levels, further assuming that carbon dioxide levels are forcing temperature levels – well that beggars belief. Try this for a trend: Global temperature predictions based on superimposed long-term (900 to 1000 year) and short-term (60 year) natural cycles fall accurately in line with observed temperatures.
Reason: This is Doug Cotton! (muoncounter, Dan Friedman)
Comment 65584
EarthClimate
2011-10-18 13:33:37
Never mind John. I’ve posted a permanent screen capture of the post – see top left at http://climate-change-theory.com and shall refer to it often when contributors to forums like The Conversation refer to Skeptical Science as if it were a source of all infallible wisdom on Climate Change. Save your time, John, ’cause you’re barking up the wrong tree. Temperatures are starting to decline because of the 60 year cycle and sea levels are following about 4 years behind due to run off times for melting land ice and other factors. Doug Cotton
Response:
[DB] Actually, I was the one to delete your previous comment, not John. This is not the proper Forum to debate theology; this website is about the Science of Climate Change and the denial of it by “skeptics”.
Reason: [no reason given] (Daniel Bailey)
Comment 66776
CarbonSkeptic
2011-11-03 16:49:24
The level of temperatures at various points more than a few hundred metres underground has virtually nothing to do with solar radiation received at the surface. In general the temperatures soon get well above any that are ever seen on the surface. At just 9Km they can be 270 degrees C for example. And what causes such temperatures? That very small heat flow from the core has done so over billions of years, not any heat coming in from the sun. Continue the argument as you get closer and closer to the surface. At what point does the sun take over? The effect of the sun falls off as the square of the distance underground (according to Fourier) and so even seasonal effects are barely noticeable over 100 metres down. Yes, the surface gets warmer during the day, but this is temporary thermal energy which flows out again at night or, in the case of the oceans, at least by the next local winter. Why doesn’t the surface cool to nearly absolute zero as on the Moon at night? The obvious difference is the atmosphere. The atmosphere acts like a dam and causes the temperature at the surface to be higher because it slows down the rate of heat escape. It does this because thermal energy takes time to move through the atmosphere by both radiation and, more slowly, by convection which involves the physical upward movement of warmer air. The rate at which such heat transfers is a function of pressure which itself depends on gravity and the density of the atmosphere. The proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (being less than 1 molecule in 2,500) makes very little difference to the average density. In general, physicists appear to have kept out of the debate on the greenhouse effect to some extent, though it is dispoved by Prof Wood’s experiment in 1909 which is repeatable and has never been disproved. Consequently, there may well not be peer-reviewed papers on all this as yet. However, interesting and apparently valid calculations have been done by Timothy Casey here and those who are genuinely interested and open-minded may wish to read some of the many papers he quotes supporting his argument. Doug Cotton, B.Sc.(Physics), B.A.(Econ), Dip.Bus.Admin.
Reason: sock-puppet (Ed)
Comment 66777
CarbonSkeptic
2011-11-03 17:06:58
27 DB: In order to determine a “net effect” I would want to see quantification of the effect of reduced transpiration versus that of increased photosynthesis. 28: Oxygen levels are approximately inversely related (though not inversely proportional) to carbon dioxide levels I understand. I suggest you read the linked summary in 22 if interested. To others: I have spent some time responding on this thread which I had only just become aware of. I really don’t wish to get into further debate thereon, nor to have to repeat what is on my sites. Doug Cotton, B.Sc.(Physics), B.A.(Econ), Dip.Bus.Admin
Reason: banned/sock-puppet (Ed)
Comment 70492
Researcher
2011-12-23 10:48:44
The big picture has now changed dramatically. The long-held scientific belief that electromagnetic radiation has a dual wave-particle modality has come under severe scrutiny and a major fallacy exposed. Particles (even without mass) have one-way motion whereas waves have two-way. The end result of detailed mathematical analysis is that a blackbody has a cut off frequency (which is proportional to absolute temperature) and only radiation with energy levels above the cut off will lead to a conversion of radiated energy to thermal energy. Those below the cut off are not absorbed at all. This is why incoming solar radiation is absorbed and yet only lower energy IR radiation is emitted by the surface. In fact, the two spectra barely overlap at all because the above cut off is between the incoming high energy (SW) radiation and the outward low energy (IR) radiation. Low energy IR coming back from the atmosphere cannot warm the surface. The huge significance of this is that the supposed greenhouse effect is a physical impossibility. There have been, and in 2012 will be more experiments which prove this reality. You can see it yourself in various ways, such as shining identical headlights into each other, or identical electric radiators which will not get warmer any faster – after all we cannot create energy. For further details and links click climate-change-theory.com/Radiation.html So the AGW hypothesis is debunked.
Reason: Doug Cotton? (Rob Painting)
Comment 70494
Researcher
2011-12-23 11:09:58
Tom. You are simply incorrect. You would do well to read Professor Johnson’s detailed analysis before commenting further. And I suggest this is very much on topic regarding the “big picture” but if not I’m happy to post it again elsewhere. For a start, the vast majority (almost all) of the thermal energy generated in the oceans and land surfaces comes from UV and visible light from the Sun. An equivalent amount of energy is then radiated out of the surface, but only at frequencies below the cut off. You will agree that UV is not radiated back upwards, for example, though some may be reflected of course – that’s different. Professor Johnson’s analysis is in total agreement with the observed laws of thermodynamics.
Reason: Doug Cotton? (Rob Painting)
Comment 70495
Researcher
2011-12-23 11:17:55
The greenhouse effect has indeed been falsified because photons do not exist. The long-held scientific belief that electromagnetic radiation has a dual wave-particle modality has come under severe scrutiny and a major fallacy exposed. Particles (even without mass) have one-way motion whereas waves have two-way. The end result of detailed mathematical analysis is that a blackbody has a cut off frequency (which is proportional to absolute temperature) and only radiation with energy levels above the cut off will lead to a conversion of radiated energy to thermal energy. Those below the cut off are not absorbed at all. This is why incoming solar radiation is absorbed and yet only lower energy IR radiation is emitted by the surface. In fact, the two spectra barely overlap at all because the above cut off is between the incoming high energy (SW) radiation and the outward low energy (IR) radiation. The huge significance of this is that the supposed greenhouse effect is a physical impossibility. There have been, and in 2012 will be more experiments which prove this reality. You can see it yourself in various ways, such as shining identical headlights into each other, or identical electric radiators which will not get warmer any faster – after all we cannot create energy. For further details and links click climate-change-theory.com/Radiation.html So the AGW hypothesis is debunked.
Reason: Doug Cotton? (Rob Painting)
Comment 70498
Researcher
2011-12-23 11:40:01
Click here and then the link “The post which Skeptical Science cannot answer and deleted immediately.”
Reason: Doug Cotton returns (muoncounter, Dan Friedman)
Comment 70621
Slayer
2011-12-26 23:31:44
Your linked note by Chris Colose claims there is 60 degrees of extra warming due to GHG in the atmosphere. Postma, however, points out that there has to be a natural temperature gradient in the atmosphere due to pressure variations which would still be the case with an atmosphere free of GHG. And he shows the gradient would be quite enough to explain the observed situation. So there is a huge difference of 60 degrees between your favoured author and Postma. To me, Postma’s argument is the more valid by a long shot, whilst Colose would not appear to be allowing for any component of the temperature gradient to be due to pressure considerations. To this I would add the obvious fact that warm air rising by convection also takes a finite time to do so – hence also contributing to the temperature gradient. Regarding the much quoted 255 deg K (with implied 3 significant figure accuracy) the fourth root of an average of two or more numbers is very different from the average of the fourth roots. When insolation varies so much between day and night, the 255 figure is nothing like the average of even just two temperatures calculated on the basis of day and night radiation. And it seems people still believe it relates to the actual surface, rather than being a weighted mean of surface and atmosphere. What do you say it is? Now you can address the new paper by Professor Claes Johnson who shows why low energy back radiation is not converted to thermal energy at all when it reaches the surface. There’s a review and link here.
Reason: More Doug Cotton (Daniel Bailey)
Comment 70623
Slayer
2011-12-27 00:28:25
Oh come on, Tom. You might pull wool over others’ eyes with such a generalisation, but not mine. He has used straight forward physics (which you ought to know about and which has nothing to do with the altitude of the tropopause) which deduces the temperature gradient from the pressure etc – for the simple reason that thermal energy interchanges with potential energy. I suggest you read his paper. It is not a paper about some single theory which falls apart if some foundation stone crumbles. There are so many points upon which AGW fails it is no longer just a joke – its serious and probably criminal. You yourself have not addressed the 255 deg/K issue which I mentioned, for example. And what about Johnson’s multi page detailed mathematical proof as to why radiation with frequencies less than the (peak) “cut off” calculated from Wien’s Displacement Law does not get absorbed at all by the surface. Have you studied Kohmson’s paper as I have? You’ll find a detailed explanation of the process on my linked page in the above post where you should also read the footnote. You should know by now that I don’t respond to verbage like “whose theories are beyond absurd” – especially when there is empirical proof that they are right. If you can’t address the mathematics and physics (which you probably can’t understand if the truth be known) then don’t bother cluttering the thread.
Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Please can BOTH sides of the discussion keep to the science and avoid personalising the issue. Any further posts containing personal comments will be deleted.
Reason: More Doug Cotton (Daniel Bailey)
Comment 70868
FutureClimate
2012-01-01 12:34:07
Some of the longest temperature records date from 1796 for Northern Ireland and show no hockey stick whatsoever.
Response: [Rob P] Please keep image width to 450 in future.
Also note that one temperature series, from one location over a period which does not include the MWP (thermometers did not exist then), is not very enlightening. We are talking about global warming afterall. However, I do note the obvious warming trend at Armagh.
Reason: Yet more, more Doug Cotton (Daniel Bailey)
Comment 70869
FutureClimate
2012-01-01 13:07:07
Indeed – a long term natural trend totally unaffected by the onset of industrial age. Northern Ireland is strongly affected by Atlantic Ocean temperatures which, together with rates of current flow, affect ice formation and melting in the Arctic Ocean. So let’s look at the whole Arctic region since 1880 where temperatures are supposed to respond to carbon dioxide more than anywhere else in the world, but don’t respond at all.
Note the higher temperatures 1935-1945 and the steep 4 degree rise 1919-1939.
Response: [Rob P] Interesting that you mention the Arctic. Note the Arctic sea ice hockey stick (blade is facing down):
There has been a dramatic, and unprecedented loss in summer sea ice cover in the last few decades. And you seem to be referring to polar amplification, which is not necessarily a fingerprint of the increased Greenhouse Effect, but of a warming Earth, due to decreased albedo (reflectivity) as ice cover decreases. Not surprisingly that is observed too.
Reason: Yet more, more Doug Cotton (Rob Painting)
Comment 70875
FutureClimate
2012-01-01 14:00:57
Whether or not there is any world-wide hockey stick, it is clear from evidence such as Arctic records that carbon dioxide has no effect. The reason it has no effect is that (as has been proved here) back radiation does not have sufficient energy to overcome the threshhold frequency (determined by Wien’s Displacement Law) which would be necessary to allow the required ionization for radiated energy to be converted to thermal energy. The low energy radiation from back radiation is returned to the atmosphere after having absolutely no effect on surface temperature.
Reason: Yet more, more Doug Cotton (Daniel Bailey)
Comment 70879
FutureClimate
2012-01-01 14:48:33
When analysing the possibilty of any “hockey stick” it should be possible to look at perhaps hundreds of trends each in a particular location. If the period since about 1950 or 1960 is considered long enough to determine any upturn, then the period from about 1880 up to 1950-1960 should be sufficient to establish the trend in the “handle” section. I can see no need for data prior to 1880 for this exercise. So, the Northern Ireland and Arctic data show no such hockey stick, and nor does United States land temperature data shown here
PS Those who may wish to see my posts which SkS could not answer (and thus deleted without comment) may read screen captures on my site. Whether they censor me or not (as they do all the time now) they still need to respond to Professor Claes Johnson’s Computational Blackbody Radiation which proves that back radiation has insufficient frequency (and thus energy) to warm the surface.
Reason: Doug Cotton at it again (muoncounter, Dan Friedman)
Comment 73974
Climate-Change-Theory
2012-02-11 17:32:59
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf “Unfortunately, there is no source in the literature, where the greenhouse effect is introduced in harmony with the scientific standards of theoretical physics.” Try debunking the Germans!
Reason: off-topic (Doug Cotton? [DB – Yup] (Rob Painting)

Okay I recognize this guy of many guises. Someone misled him early on saying that a hot body can’t absorb an IR photon from a colder object, as if radiation was the same as conduction. It that were true then a digital camera would not be able to take a photo of a snowman. Well, I have several such photos so I have cottoned onto the fact his physics are loopy.

Crispin in Waterloo says:

Okay I recognize this guy of many guises. Someone misled him early on saying that a hot body can’t absorb an IR photon from a colder object, as if radiation was the same as conduction. It that were true then a digital camera would not be able to take a photo of a snowman. Well, I have several such photos so I have cottoned onto the fact his physics are loopy.

What you say he said is the opposite of what I heard him say when I listened to his video. Maybe he’s changed his mind, maybe I misheard, but what I thought I heard him say was the correct version that you mention above, i.e. a photon can travel from a colder to a hotter body.

Ron House, if you believe his physics is sound, read “Comment 70495” posted by poptech above. He reinvents physics and launches it into forums to see how far it goes. HIs most recent postings at Spencer’s acknowledge that warmer objects can absorb photons sent from colder objects. But then he suggests that conduction speeds up to completely compensate for the increase in heat.
Just because back radiation is now an accepted theory according to him doesn’t mean we should start paying rapt attention. He still contradicts that acceptance on his own website.
Of course we should all keep in mind that back radiation is only a theory and is subject to being overturned like all other science. But it won’t be overturned by Mr. Cotton.

I keep getting this whole neverending story confused with the backradiation neverending story. Is there overlap?

In the same comments Roger (Tallbloke) weighs in,
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2012/02/18/the-cotton-war/#comment-72608
Jeff, I found the easiest way to stop Doug thread spamming was to give him his own thread to spam. Works like a charm.