John Holdren Competes With John Cleese For Science Comedy

A few years ago, Obama’s science czar John Holdren predicted we would have ice-free winters in the Arctic. This year he said that the melting Arctic caused the record Great Lakes ice.

So global warming makes the Arctic ice-free, and also makes the Great Lakes have record ice.

Someone turned Holdren’s brain into a newt, and it didn’t get better.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

102 Responses to John Holdren Competes With John Cleese For Science Comedy

  1. She’s a witch! Palin’s a witch!

  2. Steve Case says:

    Holdren also said that because of global warming we can expect a pattern of extreme cold;

  3. omanuel says:

    It would be comical if these same comedians did hold powerful public offices and control over the lives of ordinary citizens.

  4. Robertv says:

    They don’t understand climate like they don’t understand economics. And in both cases the poor are the hardest hit.

  5. It almost getting ready to evolve into CO2 emissions will cool the climate. No matter the type of change, it’s our fault.

    • gymnosperm says:

      Back to the future, except that in 1970 I think it was Nitrogen.

    • squid2112 says:

      At TOA (top of atmosphere) CO2 does help to cool our atmosphere. Albey a tiny and probably insignificant amount, but theoretically it certainly does.

    • geran says:

      “It almost getting ready to evolve into CO2 emissions will cool the climate. No matter the type of change, it’s our fault.”
      >>>>>>

      But, for years they have put out the false science that CO2 warms. They are on record. And, that record is in STONE. They have fooled many with their “Bad Science”.

      So, if global temps continue to fall, they will have to come up with NEW “Bad Science”. They will have to claim that CO2 warms, and that warming makes the planet colder.

      And, again, they will fool many.

      • There is no question that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and produces warming. Comments like this are not helpful.

        • geran says:

          CO2 can NOT “produce” warming! You need to study your physics books more. You are a talented programmer, but you obviously do not understand the science. You have been duped, and appear unwilling to do the work to learn.

          If you believe CO2 can “produce warming”, then you believe in IPCC BS. If you believe in IPCC BS, then you are NOT a skeptic.

          Your choice: Learn, or be a “Luker”.

          And, if you choose to be a Luker, what happens if Earth’s temps rise again? We are in a cooling phase, and the IPCC BS’ers have to “adjust” the data, which you regularly report. But what happens if the cycle reverses and we start heating again? What if the liars no longer have to “adjust” the temps?

          Well, then that means you are now a “Warmist”, by default. You already believe in their science, and then the temps would support the BS. You have allowed yourself to be duped.

          Programmers are a “dime a dozen”, just ask Mosher. You need to move to a higher level of understanding. Don’t be afraid of physics, and don’t be afraid of TRUTH.

          (Will you just insult me, or delete this?)

        • geran says:

          What about all your efforts to find betrayal in the historical temps? Do you just walk away from that? What is your ploy?

          CO2 is rising, yet temps are dropping. Let me repeat. CO2 is rising, yet temps are dropping.

          You and Mosher, and most of the WUWT crowd cling to CO2.

          You say “CO2 is a greenhouse gas and produces warming”.

          Either learn science, or continue over the AGW cliff.

          Get your butt in gear and learn something!

        • At risk of provoking more insults (which I’d just as soon do without), you have raised a false dichotomy. There are other options besides adopting your view that CO2 doesn’t cause any warming, or rejecting all of Tony’s past research. Atmospheric physics is not nearly as settled as you are portraying it — quite the contrary, in fact. But you don’t seem to want to discuss that possibility. Your mind is made up, therefore the rest of us are all expected to fall in line. What a pity.

        • I’m into science and facts, not bullshit.

        • geran says:

          “I’m into science and facts, not bullshit.”
          >>>>>>>>>

          Well, then—-

          The IPCC claims that the Earth is SUPPOSED to be at an average temperature of 255K. Is this science or BS?

        • geran says:

          RTF–I will answer your comment in the language/style you use:

          At the risk of provoking rambling disjointed, incomplete thoughts, I will attempt, however emphatically rejected, to dissuade further prominence of disjointed utterance. You seem to want to enter into some type of argument, or just pontificate, or just bask in your own ignorance, irregardless of your ability to provide any coherent practical logical illuminating justification for your interjection. You prefer obfuscation and juvenile debate tricks such as “red herrings”, as in “…Atmospheric physics is not nearly as settled as you are portraying it…” There are other options besides you jumping in a lake or admitting that you have no clue. But, your mind is made up.

          (I see you have not yet changed your first name to Wilbur, what a pity.)

        • geran, CO2 produces warming but it only takes around 50 ppm to produce almost all the warming that it can. That’s because the first 50 ppm makes the atmosphere nearly opaque to the small band of IR that CO2 absorbs (14 to 17 microns). That means adding CO2 above current levels does very little to increase warming. These are facts that nobody can dispute. For you to say CO2 causes no warming at all, that’s just as dumb as when the alarmists say “carbon pollution will flood the world up to Saint Louis”. Either extreme is just plain stupid. Please stop with your CO2 can’t warm idiocy.

        • Your endless straw man arguments are annoying, to say the least.

        • Geran, it seems all you want to do is insult and mock. You don’t want to try to understand what I or others are trying to tell you. All you are doing with that reply to me is revealing your own ignorance and apathy. Even if your physics are correct, It wouldn’t matter because you won’t do anything but mock those who disagree with you or who show any uncertainty. I’d ask you to please stop, but it looks like that wouldn’t have any effect on you. You are just one of these kinds of people who would rather mock than get to the bottom of your differences with someone else. It’s just very sad.

          RTF

        • geran says:

          RTF–Please read your comment at 11:48 am. It is all about your perceptions, bias, opinions and interpretations. I am talking about “science”. My argument is that IPCC science is WRONG. My argument is based on science. The science is RIGHT, IPCC is WRONG. I support Steven’s work, and have commented many times to that point. I consider myself an ally, but I do not want him to go down the IPCC road, which is clearly NOT science.

          I have NO interest in anything but getting the truth out. You have a blog, and are interested in getting people to go to it. That’s why your comments are mostly about you. My argument is NOT about me. I don’t even use my real name. So, if all you have to offer against me is your own prejudices, opinions, and interpretations, then, you might get “mocked”.

          Here, let me spread your initials around a little more for you.

          RTF RTF RTF RTF RTF RTF RTF RTF RTF RTF RTF RTF RTF RTF RTF RTF

          Feel better now?

        • geran says:

          stevengoddard says:
          October 28, 2014 at 9:31 am
          Your endless straw man arguments are annoying, to say the least.
          >>>>>>

          Please identify the “straw man” that annoys you, so I can fix it, as necessary. I do not mean to use such tactics, if I did. Thanks.

        • geran says:

          Morgan–You are still thinking of CO2 as a “heat source”. Just because it absorbs IR does not make it a source within a system. You must back track and find the “source”. Then, you need to also realize that a low energy photon cannot warm a hotter molecule.

          I use the simple analogy of two cups of coffee. Both cups are hot, say 150 ºF. Now, pour one cup into a large bowl. Then, pour the second cup into the bowl. The temperature of the combined coffee remains at 150 ºF. It does NOT increase to 300 ºF (150 + 150 = 300). In this analogy, IPCC science says the coffee in the bowl goes up, “because you have added energy” to the bowl with the second cup.

        • Blankets are not a heat source, but they keep you warm. Please end your idiotic comments about this topic geran.

        • geran says:

          Steven, your body has an internal heat source. If you were able to completely block any cooling, you would die. That is the kind of analogy the IPCC wants you to believe.

          A “blanket” , as an analogy to our atmosphere, is NOT “real science”.

          (I know many folks are confused about this. But, many get it. They understand why IPCC is “Bad Science”. This is a huge topic, and difficult to explain in comments. With your permission, I would prepare some posts. Your readers are an excellent source of “peer review”. Some will learn, some will agree, and some will disagree, but they will have, at least, seen some “real science”. Help get the truth out, please. Email me if you agree, and I will start preparing some articles.)

        • The Earth’s surface is heated by sunlight. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere slow the escape of this heat, which causes the temperature of the atmosphere to increase. This is basic, third grade science and is not in dispute.

        • Geran, you’re just being absurd. I don’t function the way you think I do. When I make comments about physics, they are generally misunderstood. So I don’t make a whole lot of them. But when I do, the goal is to get folks to understand. It’s not about me, it’s not even about you. It’s about the audience. And the audience is predominantly average folks. We’re on a stage right now. And there are human lives on the line with these discussions. People will live or die, based on what exactly we discuss here. You’d do well to think on that. Now since our host has asked you stop talking about this, if you have an ounce of civility in you, you’ll stop.

        • geran says:

          It’s been almost 4 hours, and no email from Tony. So my conclusion is that Tony, and others, are opposed to discussing the science. I won’t force it on you guys. I’m willing to let you believe whatever you want to believe.

          Thanks for putting up with me this long.

          “There is no question that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and produces warming.”
          —-Tony Heller, Oct. 2014

        • My next mail to you will be :

          “you are now spam”

        • Curt says:

          geran: Take (and pass) introductory thermodynamics and heat transfer classes, in an engineering department if you like, then come back to participate in the discussion.

          The most basic energy balance calculations, of the type you would learn to use in the opening weeks of these classes, would show you that you could not come close to explaining the present earth temperature levels without radiatively active gases. You would be out of balance by way over 100 W/m2, integrated over the entire earth’s surface.

          The real debate is over differences of less than 1 W/m2 and their effect. Here, we do not have consistent measurements of the accuracy and coverage to determine this concretely, so we must use all sorts of indirect measurements, and these are subject to “adjustments”, selection bias, measurement changes, etc.

          Your inability to comprehend these basic points just allows the alarmists to claim that skeptics don’t understand science at all (and in your case, they’re right).

        • Brian G Valentine says:

          I regret to say Mr Geran is correct.

          The problem is the failure to distinguish an open from a closed system.

          In a closed system like a radiant furnace, CO2 most certainly will increase the internal temperature above an air internal composition.

          In the open system of the atmosphere CO2 will cool the upper atmosphere (stratosphere), and if CO2 has any warming effect on the lower atmosphere the corresponding increase in temperature difference will increase the heat transfer rate from the lower to the upper atmosphere.

          This is the summary of what Gerlich and Tscheuschner elaborated upon and few interpreted correctly. Unfortunately G&T went on too long and the argument was lost on everyone trying to follow it.

          Rebuttals please respond to what is said and not your interpretation of “greenhouse” effect

        • Curt says:

          Brian – You say: “The problem is the failure to distinguish an open from a closed system.”

          I’m afraid the failure is yours. Please consult the opening chapters of any thermodynamics textbook to learn the difference between open, closed, and isolated systems.

          The earth is as much a closed system as an electric furnace, exchanging energy, but not mass, with its surroundings. (A gas furnace is an open system.) Many industrial furnaces use radiative insulation to obtain higher temperature levels for a given power input. The underlying principle is the same as the effect of radiatively active gases between the earth’s surface and space.

        • geran says:

          Hi Tony,

          I really do want to be an ally, not an enemy. I’m just trying to help you understand the science. You are talented and witty, but you are not a scientist. That’s okay, few people are. But, you should know enough not to make terrible mistakes, especially if you operate under the banner “real science”.

          Anyway, feel free to contact me with questions. I love teaching this stuff, and if time allows in the future, may even want to start my own blog.

          OT, but I’m guessing I know the “Corp” you are working for? I probably know a few that still work there–small world!

          geran

          PS Do you know where the word “spam” comes from? Spam is the meat product developed for canning. The word is composed from SPiced hAM.

        • Curt says:

          geran: When I teach engineering at the university level, one of the things I have to do is figure out which students don’t have the foundational conceptual background needed for the material. These students need either special help or to be told that they need to find a less demanding major. Thermodynamics is a classic “washout” course at many universities.

          Your comments here are a big bright flag indicating that you have no grasp of the most basic thermodynamic and heat transfer concepts. Your idea that you have anything to teach others is complete hubris.

          I don’t agree with our blog host here on everything, but he does have a solid understanding of the fundamentals of thermo and heat transfer. You, on the other hand…

        • geran says:

          Curt, whenever someone attacks me because I have offended their belief system, I know immediately that they have no interest in the science, or thinking like a scientist.

          Just keep believing in your own superiority, I’m sure you believe it will work for you.

        • geran says:

          PS (to curt) I got an “A” in thermo….

        • squid2112 says:

          Morgan Wright says:

          That’s because the first 50 ppm makes the atmosphere nearly opaque to the small band of IR that CO2 absorbs (14 to 17 microns).

          Question for Morgan, what is the temperature for LWIR at 14u to 17u bandwidth?

          Question for Tony, at the temperature of LWIR at 14u to 17u, how does DWLWIR “slow down” the cooling of the surface of the earth?

          Question for Tony, how does a blanket keep you warm?

          Question for Tony, what known gas can act as a blanket, what known gas can “trap” thermal energy?

          After all of the things that I continue to read on this blog, all the remarkable posts presented by Tony, all of the incredible evidence that Tony presents, that the world is indeed not heating, despite significant rises in atmospheric CO2 concentrations, I am just astounded that I continue to hear this ridiculous argument how CO2 contributes to a magical “greenhouse effect”, when all evidence contradicts. Not only does the evidence contradict, but after billions upon billions upon billions of dollars wasted on this junk science, not a single person in the world has been able to demonstrate this “greenhouse effect”, despite at least half a dozen revisions and incarnations of the hypothesis (it changes about as often as the name for “global warming” does). And yet, still we get people clinging to the ridiculous notion of a process that is simply impossible. Reminds me of all the attempts by people trying to sell perpetual motion machines.

          Geran, I would submit to you that these folks are in incapable of understanding fundamental physics and the Laws of Thermodynamics and associated radiation physics. I will continue to browse this blog from time to time, just to peek at the climate fraud taking place, but when I see Tony make proclamations like “… this is not in dispute …” .. all I see are the very same people that Tony (and others here) rail against, which in itself is rather ironic. How many times have you all heard the alarmists (the climate con artists) claim that ” the science is not in dispute ” … ” the debate is settled ” … ” this is settled science ” … Give me a break…. What complete and utter bullshit. Until you can empirically prove to me, through measurable and repeatable experimentation that a so-called “greenhouse effect” exists … until then … a “greenhouse effect” is not possible … period. The science contradicts it!

        • Brian G Valentine says:

          Curt if an insulated furnace is not a closed system I don’t know what to call it. Make a name up for it yourself.

          You have not addressed the argument that was put forth, you have addressed your own analogy.

        • Curt says:

          Squid: You ask “what is the temperature for LWIR at 14u to 17u bandwidth?”

          Radiation, even of a particular wavelength, does not have a temperature. That is a completely meaningless question. It’s as silly as “how big is blue?” or “how hot is happy?”

          Then you ask “at the temperature of LWIR at 14u to 17u, how does DWLWIR “slow down” the cooling of the surface of the earth?” Even ignoring your confusion about radiation having a temperature, a surface’s ability to absorb a certain wavelength of radiation (i.e. its absorptivity for that wavelength) is not at all dependent on the temperature of the substance emitting the radiation of that wavelength. It does not matter if it is from the longer-wavelength portion of a warmer substance or from the shorter-wavelength portion of a cooler substance. And virtually everything on the earth’s surface has 90+% absorptivity to these wavelengths.

          Next you ask “what known gas can “trap” thermal energy?” How about H2O and CO2 for starters? This is easily demonstrable in controlled and repeatable experiments and has been well quantified for nearly a century of spectroscopy. The US military has spent decades measuring these effects for programs like its heat-seeking missiles. All of this was well known and understood before the present climate scares.

          Until you can get these very, very basic concepts straight, you have nothing to contribute to the discussion.

        • Curt says:

          Brian: You say “Curt if an insulated furnace is not a closed system I don’t know what to call it.”

          Please re-read what I wrote. I explicitly agreed that a furnace is a closed system. (At least an electric furnace — a gas furnace has exhaust gas.) But the earth as a whole is also a closed system.

          Most of these furnaces are designed with multiple layers of radiative insulation that allows them to achieve higher temperatures for a given power input. The earth also has the radiative insulation of its absorptive gases that yields higher surface temperatures than would be possible without them.

          In both cases, the higher temperature differential that results results in more heat transfer through other means from the inner to outer layers — conductive through the furnace walls, convective through the atmosphere — that moderates, but does not eliminate, the increased temperature differential. But the principle is the same in both cases.

        • Brian G Valentine says:

          Curt, the Earth loses heat via radiation on clear nights to an upper atmosphere at an average temperature of about 200 K as measured by the heat transfer rates. That temperature decreases because of CO2. So the heat transfer rate via radiation increases over all wavelengths even though some is absorbed and re-radiated. If you don’t believe the 200 K, call it 3 K or zero K or whatever you like. The heat transfer rate still increases.

          Very evidently heat transfer via convection from the troposphere to the stratosphere is marginal (the stratosphere is stratified), heat transfer via conduction is minimal through air (but is still present)

        • Curt says:

          Brian: When you put on an extra layer of clothing on a cold day, does that increase the heat transfer from your body to cold ambient? That is the equivalent of what you are arguing, and it is just completely wrong. (Yes, clothing mainly inhibits conductive/convective transfers, and “greenhouse gases” inhibit radiative transfers, but the overall principle is the same.)

          When you add that extra outer layer of clothing, it will be colder than the previous outer layer, but that does not mean the overall heat transfer from your body to the cold ambient is increased — precisely the obvious is true.

          Without any radiatively active gases in the atmosphere, the earth’s surface would radiate directly to the effective 3K of deep space. The absorptive gases in the real atmosphere, at temperatures far higher than 3K reduce the radiative transfer from the surface, resulting in higher surface temperatures necessary to maintain the overall energy balance.

        • geran says:

          Curt–Squid has not answered your question yet, and I don’t want to steal his thunder, so I will only give you a general answer. (I don’t want you to miss Squid’s “thunder”.)

          🙂

          Curt says: “Radiation, even of a particular wavelength, does not have a temperature. That is a completely meaningless question. It’s as silly as “how big is blue?” or “how hot is happy?””
          >>>>>>>
          No, Curt, it is NOT a “completely meaningless question”. But, your response shows you have little, or no, understanding of quantum physics. Quantum physics teaches the connection of temperature to photons. When Squid asked Morgan for the temperature of wavelengths, he was referring for the QP associated temperature of emission. If you do not understand how temperatures relate to photons, it explains why you think CO2 can warm the planet. My analogy of an ice cube heating a hot cup of coffee goes right over your head.

          Curt says: “Then you ask “at the temperature of LWIR at 14u to 17u, how does DWLWIR “slow down” the cooling of the surface of the earth?”
          >>>>>>>
          Curt, Squid’s question is trying to make a point. Think of it this way: “How does adding an ice cube to a hot cup of coffee “slow down” the cooling of the cup of coffee?” It’s a good question, and a close analogy to the quantum physics.

          Curt says: “Next you ask “what known gas can “trap” thermal energy?” How about H2O and CO2 for starters?”
          >>>>>>>>
          Curt, “absorption” can only be considered “trapping” if there is no heat energy transmitted away. That doesn’t happen. That is Squid’s point.

          Curt says: “Until you can get these very, very basic concepts straight, you have nothing to contribute to the discussion.”
          >>>>>>>
          Curt, as long as you continue to be wrong, while being so confident of your superiority, you contribute plenty here. You demonstrate what we have to deal with when we try to explain science to the “Warmers”. Please keep coming back.

        • Brian G Valentine says:

          Curt, here we are again with “CO2 acts like a blanket.” CO2 is not thermal insulation like your clothing. The atmosphere has a thermal heat capacity so we all don’t freeze to death.

          I never had any success in this argument, Gerlich and Tscheuschner had very little, that’s the way it is. Only time and observation will stop the “CO2 in the air” cult mania.

          That won’t happen in my lifetime.

        • Curt says:

          geran: Your understanding is no better than squid’s. I repeat: radiation of a wavelength does not have a temperature. Photons of radiation at a given wavelength have an energy level: e=h*v, but that is very different. Substances of a wide range of temperatures can emit radiation at a given wavelength (and the photons at that wavelength carry no information about what emitted them).

          A cup of coffee with an ice cube in it will cool more slowly than if it had an equivalent chunk of dry ice in it, or an equivalent amount of liquid nitrogen. To extend your analogy, a cup of coffee surrounded by walls of ice will cool more slowly than one surrounded by dry ice, and much more slowly than one surrounded by walls at liquid nitrogen temperatures.

          And that is the key point you are missing. It’s not that the ice will slow the cooling of the cup of coffee compared to something that is at room temperature. It’s that the ice cube will slow the cooling compared to something that is much colder temperatures.

          Thermal testing of satellites is often performed inside vacuum chambers whose walls are cooled by liquid nitrogen. This is because walls at earth ambient temperatures, even though colder than the satellite electronics, slow the cooling of the electronics. At liquid nitrogen temperatures, the radiation from the walls is less than 2 W/m2.

          The earth is in incredibly cold surroundings – deep space has an effective blackbody radiation temperature of under 3K. So the earth’s surface radiating to cool gases at about 250K will “cool more slowly” than if it were radiating directly to space at 3K. For a given power input (i.e. from the sun) it will have higher temperatures.

        • Curt says:

          Brian, you say, “CO2 is not thermal insulation like your clothing. The atmosphere has a thermal heat capacity so we all don’t freeze to death.”

          CO2 (and H2O) most certainly can provide thermal insulation. As I emphasized above, the underlying mechanism is different, inhibiting radiative losses rather than conductive/convective losses, but the end effect, inhibiting heat transfer and thereby providing “insulation” is the same. And “space blankets” provide radiative insulation as well.

          N2 and O2, which have no significant absorption of the wavelengths emitted by the earth’s surface, have plenty of thermal capacitance, but do not inhibit any heat transfer to space from the surface. If the atmosphere were only N2 and O2, the earth’s surface would radiate directly to space and on average only emit as much LWIR flux as it receives, again on average, in SW flux from the sun. This would mean temperatures far below those we see now.

        • geran says:

          Curt says “geran: Your understanding is no better than squid’s. I repeat: radiation of a wavelength does not have a temperature. Photons of radiation at a given wavelength have an energy level: e=h*v, but that is very different. Substances of a wide range of temperatures can emit radiation at a given wavelength (and the photons at that wavelength carry no information about what emitted them).”
          >>>>>>

          The fact that I have to explain this to you indicates you do not understand quantum physics. A photon has an associated frequency, wavelength, and energy based on its emission. It does NOT have a temperature, as a photon is not matter. But, it has an “associated” temperature based on its emission. THAT is what Squid was talking about. Study Wien’s Displacement Law, which relates maximum wavelength energy to temperature. Also, the S-B equation relates photon flux to temperature. In simple words, an emitted photon is “defined” by the temperature of the emitter. That is why IR thermometers work.

          Info to help:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien%27s_displacement_law

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan–Boltzmann_law

          Curt says “A cup of coffee with an ice cube in it will cool more slowly than if it had an equivalent chunk of dry ice in it, or an equivalent amount of liquid nitrogen. To extend your analogy, a cup of coffee surrounded by walls of ice will cool more slowly than one surrounded by dry ice, and much more slowly than one surrounded by walls at liquid nitrogen temperatures.”
          >>>>>

          Somehow you have confused yourself again. My point, and you are welcome to re-read above, is that an ice cube CANNOT slow the cooling of a cup of hot coffee. The ice cube will INCREASE the cooling. THAT fact is what is wrong with CO2 “back-radiation”. (Trying to change my analogy by adding liquid nitrogen only indicates you are confused, or trying to confuse.)

          Study the two links above and reread my comments. I’m willing to explain more, but if you only want to confuse, or be confused, I can’t help you with that.

        • Brian G Valentine says:

          Curt, this is running on forever and is going nowhere at all.

          Water vapor will absorb IR at night to raise the night time low temperature. That heat will dissipate. That’s not a “greenhouse” effect. If the heat did not dissipate, I suppose we would all be dead.

          Next time you contemplate a trip to Mars, ask yourself, why doesn’t the CO2 atmosphere provide a greenhouse effect there. The diurnal temperature differences are governed by the thermal capacity of the soil and atmosphere alone.

          Bye Curt. Don’t forget to remind all your friends how smart you are!

        • Of course Mars has a greenhouse effect. There is no water vapor there, so the effect is small.

        • Brian G Valentine says:

          I’m not going to get into an argument about that Mr Heller because I cannot prove it.

          As far as I calculate, the diurnal temperature any where there is given by the size of the planet, the thermal capacity of the soil and the atmosphere. That is probably within 5 K. You could come back and say, that is the size of the Greenhouse effect. Since that is within the error, I can’t demonstrate the contrary.

          I’m not going to get into a “thermal equilibrium with the “Sun” argument. That thing is in “equilibrium” nowhere with anything. Neither is the Earth.

        • Curt says:

          Geran: I am very familiar with Wien’s Displacement Law, and also very aware that it does not in any sense imply what you and squid think it implies. All that it expresses is the PEAK wavelength/frequency of thermal emissions of a blackbody as a function of the blackbody’s temperature.

          You and squid seem to think that you can invert this relationship — given a wavelength, calculate the temperature of the emitting body. This is simply — what’s the word l’m looking for — WRONG! Blackbodies, and real-world graybodies have broad emission spectra, as the SB page YOU linked to shows.

          So the fact that one body is receiving 15um radiation from another tells us nothing about the temperature of the emitting body. It could be at the peak wavelength of the emitting body, or shorter than the peak wavelength, or longer. The radiation contains no information about that. And the percentage of the power of the radiation of this wavelength absorbed is completely independent of the temperature of the emitting body, whether colder or warmer than the receiving body.

          On the coffee cup analogy, you say, “an ice cube CANNOT slow the cooling of a cup of hot coffee. The ice cube will INCREASE the cooling.” Since you are using relative terms, the relevant question is “compared to what?” I pointed out that the earth is surrounded by space that is colder than liquid nitrogen, so a relevant comparison is “compared to the cooling caused by liquid nitrogen”.

          Can we agree that a cup of coffee would cool more slowly with an ice cube in it than it would with an equivalent amount of liquid nitrogen in it? I would think that is obvious.

          Of course, the cup of coffee will cool faster with the ice cube in it than without it, but that is not the appropriate analogy to the earth, which is in radiative exchange with a space that is below liquid nitrogen temperatures.

          The fact that the earth’s surface is in radiative exchange with “greenhouse” gases at the effective emitting height that are about at the same temperature (-18C, 255K) as an ice cube out of your freezer rather than with space with an effective temperature below that of liquid nitrogen makes my modification of your example completely relevant. I’m sorry that you find it confusing, but that’s your issue, not mine.

        • Curt says:

          Geran: This has gone beyond ridiculous. Your reading comprehension is as pathetic as your scientific comprehension. Nowhere did I challenge Wien’s or SB. In fact, I used them together to show that the conclusions you drew from them were incorrect.

          You and squid repeatedly assert that radiation of a given wavelength has a temperature. Let’s say we detect radiation of 15um wavelength. You are asserting that you know the temperature of the emitting body. How do you calculate that?

      • geran says:

        Curt, you have “shot yourself in the foot” several times on this thread, but in this last comment, you took a shotgun and blew off both your own legs!

        Both of these two equations (from S-B Law and Wien’s Displacement Law) are valid. They have been around for over 100 years. They are NOT anything new. They have been verified again, and again, and again, in lab experiments. No credible scientist questions them. That is why they are called “LAWS”. The fact that you do not understand them in no way discredits them, it only shows your lack of understanding.

        Look at the two equations. In Wien’s, you see “lambda” (wavelength) and you see “T” (temperature). In S-B, you see “j*” (photon flux) and you see “T” (temperature). In both equations, emitted photons are DIRECTLY related to temperature.

        You cannot disagree with these two equations!

        Curt, photons are DEPENDENT on the temperature of the emitting body!

        (Please confirm that you now understand this basic point, before we continue. Thank you.)

        • Curt says:

          My response is directly above.

        • geran says:

          (Mis-represent my statements all you want. You are only fooling yourself.)

          Until you can respond intelligently to the following, you have lost all credibility: “Curt, photons are DEPENDENT on the temperature of the emitting body!”

          (Please confirm that you now understand this basic point, before we continue. Thank you.)

        • Curt says:

          Geran: You state, “Curt, photons are DEPENDENT on the temperature of the emitting body!”

          I’m not exactly sure what that scientifically meaningless statement is supposed to imply, because you are showing yourself to be incapable of expressing yourself clearly. I will make an attempt to answer what I think you are trying to claim.

          The energy (and therefore related wavelength/frequency) distribution of thermally emitted photons is certainly dependent on the temperature of the emitting body (which is what I think you are trying to say) – and of the emissivity at the wavelengths over the relevant spectrum. I have understood this well for the 40 years of my technical career, and I have never said anything that could reasonably interpreted otherwise.

          But for anything approaching a blackbody, it is a broad spectrum of photons for a given temperature, and this spectrum greatly overlaps that of other temperatures.

          This dialog started when I objected to squid’s question: “what is the temperature for LWIR at 14u to 17u bandwidth?”I pointed out – correctly – that radiation of a given wavelength does not “have” a temperature.

          You claimed that Wien’s Law justified his claim. Wien’s Law specifies the PEAK wavelength/frequency of emission for a blackbody of a given temperature. But Wien’s law is simply a derivative of the SB law for the full blackbody spectrum, finding where the derivative is 0. It in no way implies that you can calculate the temperature of the emitting body given a single wavelength of radiation. Just because you can invert an equation mathematically does not mean you can reverse the direction of physical causality.

          I’m curious — how would you answer squid’s question: “is the temperature for LWIR at 14u to 17u bandwidth?”

          Also, do you really believe that you can calculate the temperature of the emitting body just from a single wavlength of radiation?

        • geran says:

          One of your many problems is that you continue to misinterpret what others are saying. I do not want to do that to you. So, there are only two answers:

          “Photons are DEPENDENT on the temperature of the emitting body.”

          1) Yes. I agree.
          2) No. I do not agree.

          Please choose 1) or 2), so that I can not possibly misinterpret your endless rambling.

          (This is NOT a trick question. If you had really “understood this well for the 40 years of my technical career”, you would not have had to take days to research an answer. You could have answered quickly and succinctly.)

        • Curt says:

          I’ve told you before that “photons are DEPENDENT on the temperature of the emitting body” is a scientifically meaningless statement. Therefore, I cannot agree or disagree with it. (Dependent for what? Money, emotional support? Yes, that’s sarcasm, but you deserve it!)

          In past comments, I have tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, assuming you were making something close to a meaningful assertion, but you always claim that I am misrepresenting you, so I will give that up.

          You will need to write with more precision and accuracy before I can respond. Make a scientifically precise and meaningful statement, and I will respond. Otherwise, I will assume it’s the nonsense that I now believe it to be.

        • Brian G Valentine says:

          Here’s a scientifically precise statement, Curt: The atmospheric greenhouse effect is a myth.

          Seriously, read Gerlich und Tshcheushner, the first few sections of it anyway. They show it is impossible to “define” it, let alone ascribe it any significance.

          People will do anything to keep the greenhouse idea alive. I can’t blame them, they have been inculcated in the idea since forever

        • geran says:

          Curt, I’m happy to comply with your request to rephrase the question. I know learning can be frustrating at times. Hang in there, we’ll get through this. I suspect you were not able to find the answer on-line. Search on the key words in the re-phrase and see if that helps.

          ********
          QUESTION: You have a “perfect” black body emitter. Does the electromagnetic energy emitted from the black body depend on the temperature of the black body?

          Choose the best answer.
          a) Yes
          b) No
          c) I’m just a “climate clown”. I really know nothing about science. Leave me alone.

          ********

          Take your time, and let me know if you need any more hints. You can phone a friend, if necessary.

        • Curt says:

          You still can’t do it! WTF does “depend on” mean? What aspect(s) of “the electromagnetic energy” are you talking about. I am becoming more and more convinced that you are incapable of expressing yourself scientifically at all.

          If you look at my above responses, I probably already have answered the questions you are trying (but failing) to ask.

        • Curt says:

          Brian: G&T make so many basic errors that would get them flunked out of an introductory undergraduate engineering thermodynamics or heat transfer course that it is impossible to take them seriously. But first you have to get past pages and pages of them complaining about how the term “greenhouse effect” is an imperfect metaphor.

          One idiotic quote from them: “In any case, a larger portion of the incoming sunlight lies in the infrared range than in the visible range. In most papers discussing the supposed greenhouse effect this important fact is completely ignored.”

          This just shows they are not at all familiar with the most basic issues. There is virtually no overlap between the “near” (SW) IR of the sun’s spectrum and the “far” (LW) IR of the earth’s spectrum. This fact is not ignored – it is simply assumed that anyone competent understands it.

          Later they say: “In summary, the factor 0.7 will enter the equations if one assumes that a grey body absorber is a black body radiator, contrary to the laws of physics. Other choices are possible, the result is arbitrary.”

          The factor 0.7 is the fraction of solar radiation absorbed by the earth and its atmosphere (1.0 minus Bond albedo). They object to that fact that climate calculations use an emissivity of about 0.95 for the earth’s surface, because “absorptivity equals emissivity”. They simply do not understand that there can be different absorptivity/emissivity coefficients at different wavelengths.

          I could go on (and on and on), but when they make such fundamental mistakes, it is a waste of time to go in deeper.

        • Brian G Valentine says:

          Curt, do you think they don’t know what Kirchoff’s law is and where it applies?

          Did you ever bother to look at the definition of “albedo”?

          If they didn’t know Curt nobody should have graduated them 40 years ago out of grad school.

        • Curt says:

          Brian: G&T themselves spend most of their paper asserting that hundreds of scientists with graduate degrees have not idea what they are talking about.

          Seriously, start rereading that paper. They start by calculating that added CO2 only gives a negligible change in the conductivity of air. True, but a complete strawman. Nobody is claiming that any significant atmospheric heat transfer occurs due to conduction. (You can have great arguments about the relation between radiation vs convection.)

          Next, they don’t realize the convention is to express concentrations are in parts per million by volume (ppmv) so they claim those figures are in error.

          Not an auspicious start…

        • geran says:

          Curt asks: “WTF does ‘depend on'” mean?
          >>>>>
          Seriously Curt? You’re going with a semantics issue? You’re trying to claim you don’t understand the question, or that you don’t like the phraseology? Seriously Curt?
          Did you miss the part about choosing the BEST answer? Do you not understand the word “best”?

          You tried to misrepresent science. You have been caught. You know you have been caught, and you are trying to wiggle out of it. All you have is the “what is the meaning of ‘is'” defense. You are playing word games with yourself because you got caught spouting false science.

          You have trapped yourself. This comment thread is your own stained “blue dress”.

          Wear it well….

        • Curt says:

          Geran: You repeatedly make ill-posed assertions and questions (e.g. “photons are DEPENDENT on the temperature of the emitting body!”). While I try to respond to what I think you mean, you angrily accuse me of mis-representing you. So I ask for clarifications.

          As I stated in my last post, I have already answered what I think you are trying to ask. Several days ago, I said, “The energy (and therefore related wavelength/frequency) distribution of thermally emitted photons is certainly dependent on the temperature of the emitting body (which is what I think you are trying to say) – and of the emissivity at the wavelengths over the relevant spectrum.”

          Now, I think that counts as (a) “agree” — but since I do also believe you are a climate clown, I’m torn between (a) and (c).

    • Tom Bakert says:

      I’ve been away for a while. Has this wanker geran been trolling this blog a lot recently? I just skimmed the thread, but his entire harangue seems to be over the use of the word “produce”. By the way, geran, web developers and script kiddies may be a dime a dozen, but guys like me who have worked in technical specialties such as electronic warfare, avionics, space time adaptive processing, applied probability theory and cyber ops are not, and I found your remark to be obnoxious. Tony Heller has more than demonstrated his acumen and expertise here. If Mr. Heller has not yet told you to “piss off”, I just have. I apologize if I over-stepped my (complete lack of) authority here, Tony.

      • geran says:

        Tom, I just noticed your comment. It was good for a laugh. Obviously you are a highly skilled professional that just likes to pretend he is a juvenile brat using his mom’s keyboard.

  6. The Ol' Seadog. says:

    John Cleese is an intelligent person pretending to be an idiot.
    John Holdren is an idiot pretending to be an intelligent person.

    • Robertv says:

      I don’t think Holdren is an idiot. The problem is he is an evil person.

      • Big JMT says:

        I think an idiot is fairer – e do have to give him the benefit of the doubt. In Ireland we have an expression for people like that; Educated Idiots.

        • jdseanjd says:

          I’d better be clearer here. + 1, he’s evil.
          Back in the 70s, Holdren was calling for mass culling of Human population, because of the feared coming ice age, which didn’t happen.
          Now he’s calling for massive depopulation because of global warning, which isn’t happening.
          The man? is not an idiot, he’s a monster.
          http://www.drtimball.com
          Put overpopulation in his search box & read his essay : Overpopulation : The Fallacy behind the Fallacy of global warming.
          Please do not mistake this man? for a clown.

  7. Cheshirered says:

    Have any of their ‘precise’ predictions come true? Any at all? I don’t mean vague stuff that my neighbours dog could guess at – I mean ‘proper’ predictions. I can’t think of a single serious, substantial disaster that was correctly predicted by these clowns. Not even one. CO2 my arse.

  8. tom0mason says:

    I believe Neil Innes wrote a song about Holdren back in the 1970 –

  9. AGW Kool Aid Tastes Bad says:

    I’m still waiting for any AGW kool-aid drinker to explain on how the UN plan for combatting global warming is to siphon off billions $$$$$, from the West and given to 3rd world countries, is going to work? Since we all know that not one dime sent to Africa, Asia or South America is going to be spent on anything other than lining the pockets of the powers that be. I’ve asked this question for the past 4 years and all I ever hear in reply is a) stop watching Fox news and/or b) stop listening to Rush.

    You know, the typical reply of the intellectually bankrupt AGW supporter who can’t go beyond their bumper sticker talking points.

    • Brian G Valentine says:

      Això està molt bé, però ¿per què no està llançant tomàquets a ell? O el va posar a la presó?

      O disparar?

  10. BallBounces says:

    It may be a newt, but it’s either a fiery newt or an icy newt and climate change is to blame.

  11. tom0mason says:

    Influence, power and money are the drivers of this scam.
    Bookmark this site below to see some of the main players and the funds sloshing around in their coffers…
    http://www.undueinfluence.com/

    • omanuel says:

      Thanks, Tom.

      I was unable to post a comment at http://wchildblog.com/2014/10/27/nasa-revisiting-our-vulnerabiity-to-solar-flares/

      but the NASA astrophysicist, Dr. Lika Guhathakurta, may know the Sun’s pulsar core causes solar eruptions:

      http://www.springerlink.com/content/r2352635vv166363/ http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0501441 http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2003/jfe-superfluidity.pdf

      She might lose her position at NASA if she admitted that fact in public.

      • tom0mason says:

        As your paper said in the springerlink reference –

        As examples, the upward acceleration and departure of H+ ions from the surface of the quiet Sun and abrupt climatic changes, including geomagnetic reversals and periodic magnetic storms that eject material from the solar surface…

        NASA is currently at a loss explaining why earth’s magnetism has recently weakened. It looks like polar magnet reversal may happen faster that theorized. This maybe why scientists are looking again at the solar effects on our planet’s magnetosphere and ionosphere as you show in your first link.

        This press release from University of California – Berkeley adds to this when it says “Earth’s magnetic field could flip within a human lifetime”, from http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2014/10/14/earths-magnetic-field-could-flip-within-a-human-lifetime/

        If there is an earth bound CME, or a burst of cosmic rays, we are not in a good place now with a weak magnetosphere.

        • omanuel says:

          Thanks to the Climategate emails, we are all aware now that our government has been deceiving us for the past sixty-nine years about the energy in cores of heavy atoms, some planets, ordinary stars and galaxies.

          Neutron-repulsion is the source of energy in cores of atoms, etc above ~150 amu.

    • jdseanjd says:

      Great ref, thanks, Tom.
      At the end of the day, it’s not about the scientific minutiae.
      Environmentalism has been hijacked by the idiot Left & the Money interests behind them.
      Their agenda is One World Govt & vast Human Depopulation.
      & it’s all for control, not sustainability.
      Holdren is no clown doing silly walks, he’s one of the deadliest Human? beings on our planet.
      His 1977 book with the equally wrong-headed Ehrlich says it all : forced abortions & sterilisations ; contraceptives in water; the whole Nazi schmeer.
      zombietime.com/john_holdren/

      The Moneymen behind it all ?
      Book : Pawns in the Game, by William Guy Carr.
      Written 1954, more relevant today.

      • tom0mason says:

        Environmentalism has been hijacked by the idiot Left & the Money interests behind them.
        I still consider myself as an envirnmentalist and a conservationist but NOT one of the unthinking green mob.

        As for Ehrlich, Holdren et al. they are just fascists awaiting the new world order of UN mandated totalitarianism of our hard-won freedoms and rights.

        Thanks for the links.

        • jdseanjd says:

          You’re welcome, Tom, & I couldn’t agree more.

          Environmentalism, definitely yes. Respect the planet, it’s the only home we have, at present.

          Fascism, central planning, depopulation, definitely not.
          Spread prosperity & populations are not a problem.
          We are headed 180 degrees in the opposite direction, where ever fewer garner ever more wealth, so there’s a huge catastrophe possibly ahead.

  12. jdseanjd says:

    Put Webster Tarpley John Holdren in your google search & check out this author & historians’ views on the eugenicist Holdren & the elites’ plans for depopulation.

  13. jdseanjd says:

    Search G Edward Griffin John Holdren & find out the reasons behind the global warming scam.
    Depopulation, for control, not “sustainability”, & One World Totalitarian Govt is the name of the game here, not scientific details.
    Read G Edward Griffin’s book : “The Creature from Jeckyl Island.”. & also his work on healthy food & chemtrails/geoengineering.

  14. jdseanjd says:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hN7mQ1u230I
    Or, put in search box : Agenda 21’s Globalist Death Plan for Humanity.
    Lord Christopher Monckton discusses the UN’s eugenicist agenda. 51 mins.

    Catch : Bill Still The Money Masters
    3.5 hrs.

  15. jdseanjd says:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6l79Qa92DeU
    Or, put in search box : Agenda 21, in under 5 minutes.

    The book I referenced earlier : Pawns in the Game, by William Guy Carr, reveals Agenda 21, & was written 1954. Carr deduces that the global domination plot was hatched 1770, or maybe 3000 years ago. Read & decide. This scheme has been a long time cooking.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s