Anthony Watts And Judith Curry Debunk Climate Denier

ScreenHunter_9069 May. 08 22.35

Steven Goddard – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good thing some prominent skeptics are on top of this whole data tampering thing

GISS-1981-2002-2014-global

GISSUS19992014

ScreenHunter_7832 Mar. 10 07.38

But someone probably should tell Anthony that NCDC uses absolute temperatures rather than anomalies, and that either approach produces nearly identically shaped graphs.

ScreenHunter_9070 May. 08 22.37

About stevengoddard

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

105 Responses to Anthony Watts And Judith Curry Debunk Climate Denier

  1. Pathway says:

    But they are both still wrong.

    • The only time when alarmists care what they think, is when they can use it against skeptics.

      • Louis Hooffstetter says:

        I want to believe that Anthony and Judy are simply misguided on this issue and are not intentionally trying to torpedo your influence among skeptics. I look forward to the day when you guys can bury the hatchet. Until then, thank you for everything you do, and keep up the good work.

        • darrylb says:

          After these events didn’t Watt’s, upon looking at it more closely, change his mind or at least give some credence to the aforementioned?
          Also, a short time ago, Roy Spencer noted a change in the US corn belt between March 2014 and March 2015.
          The change being from a rise of 0.2 deg C to 0.6 deg C.

  2. SMS says:

    It looks like William Connelly is still working, and lying at Wikipedia.

  3. omanuel says:

    Anthony Watts and Judith Curry drank the consensus Kool-Aid and now choke on a gnat.

    The late Professor P. K. Kuroda secretly kept plans for building atomic bombs for 57 years (1945 – 2002) to try to protect the integrity of science from abuse:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2170881.stm

    Anthropological global warming (AGW) is the fourth (#4) major scam intended to hide nuclear energy from the public after WWII.
    1. SNM – Standard Nuclear Model
    2. SSM – Standard Solar Model
    3. BBC – Big Bang Cosmology
    4. AGW – Anthropologic Global Warming

    The scientific revolution started with Copernicus’ 1543 discovery the Sun is a fountain of energy giving light and heat to Earth and other planets orbiting the Sun.

    The Church said that was heresy, but Galileo defended himself at trial in 1633, saying the heliocentric solar system is the “Divine Order” that other persistent observers could decipher.

    Subsequent observations revealed features of the “Divine Order” that refute the four scams [1].

    Worldwide modifications in post-1945 science reduced the conflict with religion, and on 22 Nov 1951 Pope Pius XII told the Pontifical Academy of Sciences modern science proved the existence of God.

    http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12EXIST.HTM

    But humanity was denied the promise in the last paragraph of Aston’s Nobel Lecture of 12 Dec 1922 because the decision to hide Neutron Repulsion – also hid the source of energy that

    _ a.) Destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Aug 1945;
    _ b.) Created and sustains every atom and life [1]; and
    _ c.) The climate of every planet in the Solar System.

    That is the deep and tragic historical roots of the ongoing AGW scam.

    Oliver K. Manuel

    References:

    1. “Solar energy,” Advances in Astronomy (submitted 1 Sept 2014) https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Solar_Energy.pdfor

    “Solar Energy for school teachers”

    Click to access Supplement.pdf

    • Doug says:

      With all due respect, I think you’re a nut. I’ve tried reading the links you post and they’re gobbledegook to me. So maybe you’re a genius. How would I know? Assuming you’re not a nut, and all your theories are correct, please explain why I should care. What changes if all of a sudden everyone were to believe the “truth” about neutron repulsion? What practical difference would it make? Layman’s terms, please.

      • Hugh says:

        Crackpot, that is.

        1) Spamming
        2) Overconfidence
        3) Really odd ideas with conspiracy thinking
        4) No peer-reviewed published papers
        5) References to own work, pseudoscience
        6) Explains ‘life, universe and everything’

        Very rare syndrome, I guess rarer than 1:10,000, but painful to bystanders.

      • Doug says:

        darryl, you are correct. However, you have to admit that the spam-like quality of the postings tend to make one discount them. Then there are statements like this, from the last paper linked by Gail:

        “The same nuclear force in cores of U atoms that destroyed Hiroshima…endowed mankind with intangible qualities – like creativity, faith, hope and love – and the unalienable right to self-governance to live happy, joyous and free.”

        I’ve tried to understand the point. Really I have. But I can’t comprehend how creativity, hope, love, and the basis of Classical Liberalism flow from neutrons.

        • Dan_Kurt says:

          re: Classical Liberalism flowing from neutrons

          Cheap access to energy permits the leisure to develop life, liberty and property for more of mankind. My hunch is that is what Omanual is saying.

          I for one welcome his posts.

          Dan Kurt

  4. Gail Combs says:

    Disgusting!

  5. AZ1971 says:

    What is so wrong with using actual data (raw or otherwise) as opposed to anomalies? Anomalies can be changed to reflect a sliding reference period – raw data is what it is, the actual hard facts, Am I missing something?

    • If there were significant changes in the locations of the stations, like in Australia where most of the stations used to be inland but are now near the coast, it would make a difference. In the US, changes have been minor, and are nearly irrelevant.

      • Yet they are purporting to calculate average temperatures over regions whether they change the location of stations or not. If they are doing this correctly, those averages in a region must be independent of the temperatures at the stations in those regions. Any variation of the region average as they change stations is a variable that indicates that they may not have control over the mapping of temperatures in that region, or it could be that there is a change of temperature with time, but who knows which?

        It is hard to believe that Watts and Curry fail to note that you have often shown the differences over time in the temperature data as reported by NOAA and GISS. Where does this leave you room to falsely manipulate the data as they are accusing you of doing? It seems obvious that NOAA and GISS are infinitely inclined to manipulate the data going forward as they have in the past. The clear implication is that if all past data is to be changed in the future, then no report on the temperature at any time has any meaning and no sustainability!

    • richard says:

      If the Foxes are in charge of the hen house they can say what they like.

      • darrylb says:

        In the homogenization process very little consideration is given to the UHI.
        The process of change has been gradual but in many cases quite consistent.
        Watts, with a team did analyze the majority of stations in the US and found a majority
        did not meet the general NASA rules.
        A few reading stations were actually within a very close range of extreme influences such as an air conditioner.
        Also, the temps in land masses like the US lower 48 which is about 2% of the earths surface, are given proportionally more influence on records such as that of Hadcrut

    • David A says:

      AZ, you are correct in that the baseline can and does change. This is a problem.

  6. Stephen Richards says:

    I commented at WUWT at the time saying that I thought it was wrong to criticise your work without clear concise evidence, which they didn’t have. However, I dislike intensely disputes of this nature between sceptic blogs. Hopefully, this issue is now resolved as your evidence has been building for years now.

    • markstoval says:

      “Hopefully, this issue is now resolved as your evidence has been building for years now.”

      Even if the issue is “resolved”, and that is open to argument, the damage done was huge and is on-going. The years of hard work here showing that there has been no warming other than that by fraud is ignored now because “even the skeptics say he was wrong.”

      As one man said after he was cleared of any wrongdoing back in the 1950s “red scare” period, “where do I go to get my reputation back??”

    • darrylb says:

      Stephen—Ditto

  7. markstoval says:

    It turns out that many of the “skeptics” are just luke-warmers. They totally agree with the James Hansen theory that “back radiation” warms the surface of the planet some 33 degrees or so above what it would be if there was no CO2 in the atmosphere. That means that they just disagree with James Hansen over the “extra heating” that will be caused by doubling CO2 from the “perfect” pre-industrial amount. In other words, they agree in all respects except for the amount of “extra warming” per doubling.

    At another site, one that can not even be mentioned at wuwt, I read, “Dr. Spencer does not understand radiative physics. He thinks a hand-held IR thermometer is PROOF of the GHE! But, to his credit, he does NOT censor science.”

    So, I replied to that with “If you would be so kind, would you explain in a few words (if possible) exactly why Dr. Spencer thinks a hand-held IR thermometer is proof of GHE and why he is wrong? Thanks in advance.”

    I got back several good answers, some more technical than others. But perhaps the best was, this:

    I suspect the Lukewarmist and Warmist confusion comes from either a misinterpretation of, or the falsity of, Prevost’s ideas on the subject of ‘radiant fire’.

    Yes, all objects above absolute zero emit radiation but no, not all emitted radiation is absorbed for thermal energy gain. Only radiation emitted by a hotter body to a cooler body is absorbed for thermal gain. The radiation emitted by a cooler source does not have the power to jump the energy gap (wider electron orbit?) to make the hotter body raise its thermal energy level. The radiation from the Sun has that power, ‘backradiation’ from atmospheric CO2 does not, unless the receiving surface is cooler, which is certainly not the case globally.

    So demonstrating that one can identify ‘backradiation’ exists is a far cry from proving that it causes warming of the surface! Hence the potato analogy…

    Then, when they can’t argue this basic concept, they resort to changing the goalposts and pretend that CO2 acts as an insulator!

    That those of us who have logical scientific arguments against back-radiation “heating” the surface can not express those views openly at WUWT tells you that the site is in full support of the “consensus” built by James Hansen. One is allowed to holler that climate “sensitivity” is lower than what the alarmists say, but one is not allowed to say that CO2 is not a warming agent (on net mind you) at all. Hell, if we are wrong then prove it. But to silence us by censorship in not proving us wrong via the scientific method — it is rank cowardice.

    Sorry for the length of the reply. I normally don’t go on and on about things here. I’ll try to keep it more low key in the future.

    • AndyG55 says:

      ” They totally agree with the James Hansen theory that “back radiation” warms the surface of the planet some 33 degrees”

      And they are WRONG !!

      It is the semi-tenuous atmospheric pressure gradient that regulates the Earth’s temperatures.

      CO2 does not, except in the absolute tiniest of amounts, affect that atmospheric pressure gradient.

    • AndyG55 says:

      “Sorry for the length of the reply.”

      lol.

      Mate, You should try reading some of Gail’s posts 😉

    • Gail Combs says:

      I left WUWT, because of the censorship.

      WUWT has ‘Knights’ protecting each of the ASSumptions upon which CAGW rests and THEY never get kick off.

    • daveburton says:

      Oh, good grief. Not more “sky dragon slayer” nonsense!

      There are no “logical scientific arguments against back-radiation “heating” the surface.” This is complete gibberish: “Only radiation emitted by a hotter body to a cooler body is absorbed for thermal gain. The radiation emitted by a cooler source does not have the power to jump the energy gap…”

      The Earth’s surface does not poll each incoming photon and ask it the temperature of the source which emitted it, to decide whether or not to absorb it. When an IR photon is emitted from a CO2 molecule in the Earth’s atmosphere, it cools the CO2 molecule. When (or if) it is subsequently absorbed by something else, it (very slightly) warms whatever absorbed it. That is equally true whether it is absorbed by the ground, by another gas molecule in the atmosphere, by the surface of the moon (1.3 seconds later), or even by the Sun (8 minutes later).

      Yes, you read that correctly. When an infrared photon emitted by a molecule of CO2 in the Earth’s frigid upper atmosphere is absorbed by the Sun, it warms the sun (by an infinitesimally tiny amount). The Sun does not care that the photon was emitted from an icy cold atmosphere.

      The (misnamed!) greenhouse gas effect is real. The Precious Air Fertilizer (CO2) acts as a dye in the atmosphere, which “colors” the atmosphere in the infrared. Since the most of the energy emissions from the Earth are in the infrared, but most of the incoming energy is at shorter wavelengths, tinting the atmosphere in the infrared has a differential effect: it absorbs more outgoing radiation than incoming radiation. That causes warming. (It’s not how actual greenhouses work, but it’s still a real effect.) The warming of the air, in turn, warms the ground, by several mechanisms, one of which is increased back-radiation from the air.

      It doesn’t take much of a trace gas to have a substantial effect on the absorption and emission spectra of the atmosphere. If you add dye to a clear gas or liquid, and then shine through it a light which contains wavelengths that are absorbed by the dye, the gas or liquid will warm due to absorption of the light (compared to its temperature without the dye). Even a few ppm of dye is sufficient to detect the effect. (Compare it to the effect of food coloring on water: one drop of food coloring added to a liter of water will noticeably tint the whole liter, but one drop is only about 0.05 ml, so one drop in one liter is 0.05 / 1000 = 0.00005 = just 50 ppm.)

      Except at the fringes of CO2’s absorption bands, there’s so much CO2 in the air that the atmosphere is already very nearly opaque to the IR wavelengths which CO2 mainly blocks. So adding additional CO2 has only a small effect. (MODTRAN calculates that just 20 ppmv of CO2 would have fully half the warming effect of the current 400 ppmv.) But additional CO2 still does have an effect, primarily on those wavelengths corresponding to the narrow fringes of CO2’s absorption bands, where CO2 is nearly-but-not-quite transparent.

      Thus far I’ve not encountered any “sky dragon slayers” that actually want to understand the physics, but in case you’re the exception here’s a resource that should help:
      http://www.sealevel.info/Happer_UNC_2014-09-08/

      • Tim Groves says:

        I like your analogy between CO2 and a dye, Dave. Thanks. Also, I have a question for you. Can you quantify the amount of IR energy at the wavelengths absorbed by CO2 that the earth emits and the amount emitted from the sun that is received at the top of the atmosphere? It might be interesting to compare them.

        • Gail Combs says:

          WordPress is just plain weird I will try that first part again and add letters.

          ACTUAL PHOTON EXCHANGE
          c………………………..========> h
          c……………………………..HOT
          c……………………….. h

          NET PHOTON EXCHANGE
          COLD………………<========……HOT

        • Gail Combs says:

          Sorry I just can not get that simple illustration to come out. Word press ate the word COLD and half the lines.

        • daveburton says:

          For some reason my reply didn’t appear. Maybe too many links. Trying again, this time in parts…
          [part 1 of 2]

          Tim Groves asked, “Can you quantify the amount of IR energy at the wavelengths absorbed by CO2 that the earth emits and the amount emitted from the sun that is received at the top of the atmosphere?”

          The short answer is that for long-wavelength infrared (and lower frequencies), the Earth emits much more energy than it absorbs.

          Nearly all of the radiation absorbed by the Earth (including its atmosphere) is from the Sun, of course. But the total, globally summed radiation absorbed by the Earth is approximately equal to the total radiation emitted by the Earth. (Were it otherwise, the Earth would be getting hotter or colder.) However, the wavelengths absorbed by the Earth from the Sun are, on average, much shorter than the wavelengths emitted by the Earth, because the Earth is so much colder than the Sun. The spectral peak from the Sun (i.e., for energy absorbed by the Earth) is around 500 nm, but the spectral peak from the Earth is nearly 20,000 nm.

          Here’s what the emission spectrum from the Sun looks like:
          https://www.google.com/search?q=emission+spectrum+from+the+sun&tbm=isch

          Here’s a good article showing emission spectra from the Earth:
          http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/10/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-emission-spectra/

          Very roughly, for most wavelengths longer than about 4000 nm, the Earth emits more than it absorbs, and for wavelengths shorter than that the Earth absorbs more than it emits. Conventionally, 4000 nm is near the boundary between near-infrared and mid-infrared.

          CO2 “tints” the atmosphere heavily around 15,000 nm (15 µm), where the Earth is emitting much, much more EM radiation than it is absorbing.

          Here’s a good article:
          http://barrettbellamyclimate.com/page8.htm

        • daveburton says:

          [part 3, try 2, of ?] WordPress is driving me nuts!

          Mostly you’ll run into wavenumbers (in cm^-1) and wavelengths (in nm, or µm, or occasionally, in older publications, Å). Wavelength in nm = 10,000,000 / wavenumber in cm^-1. Here’s a convenient conversion calculator which does that arithmetic:
          http://www.impublications.com/wavenumber-wavelength-converter

          Here’re some other conversion formuli:
          http://www.powerstream.com/inverse-cm.htm

        • daveburton says:

          [part 4 — the last one, I hope!]
          WordPress is driving me nuts! It appears that the trigger which was preventing me from posting my comments was a reference to an innocuous-looking article entitled “How To Convert To and From Wavenumbers” on a blogspot blog called “how-it-looks.” I have no idea why.

          Note: there are four ways of specifying the “colors” of EM radiation: frequency, vacuum wavelength, vacuum wavenumber, and photon energy. Frequency, wavenumber & energy are proportional, and all three are inversely proportional to wavelength. Here’s a table comparing them:

      • Gail Combs says:

        Dave, I think they are talking NET energy.

        ACTUAL PHOTON EXCHANGE
        ………………………..========>
        ……………………………..HOT
        ………………………..

        NET PHOTON EXCHANGE
        COLD………………<========……HOT

        We also know from Dr Happer and Dr Brown that not only is all the energy radiated from earth absorbed within the first meter or so but that energy is passed off to other molecules in collisions and not re-radiated as photons near the surface. Experimental data shows barely any radiation at 11 KM and that radiating is in the stratosphere ~ 47 KM above the surface.

        Also the energy passed off makes the molecule hotter so it will rise. So the fact is that in the troposphere CO2 works just like convection except it heats up the surrounding gases via collision.

        On top of that there is little to no water vapor in the stratospher but LOTS of water vapor in the troposphere. Therefore that photon headed down from the stratosphere is most like going to encounter H2O or CO2 long before it reaches the earth's surface.

        CO2 is up there radiating along with ozone

        Water vapor spectrum over laps much of the CO2 spectrum (remember you get a shift to the red with the re-radiated photo. It was something Dr. Happer went over.)

        Not many areas of the spectrum where CO2 is not overlapping something else.

        ………………………
        Paraphrasing Dr. Brown.
        What is the absorption cross-section for a 15 micron photon?
        That’s the effective surface area intercepted by each CO_2 molecule. It is large enough that the mean free path of LWIR photons in the pressure-broadened absorption bands of CO_2 in the lower atmosphere is in the order of a meter. That means that LWIR photons — whatever their “size” — with frequencies in the band go no more than a meter or few before they are absorbed by a CO_2 molecule.

        When CO2 near the earth’s surface absorbs back radiation, the lifetime of the excited state caused by the absorption of the photon is much longer than the mean free time between molecular collisions between the CO_2 molecule and other molecules in the surrounding gas. That means that the radiative energy absorbed by the molecule is almost never resonantly re-emitted, it is transferred to the surrounding gas, warming not just the CO_2 but the oxygen, nitrogen, water vapor, argon as well as the other CO_2 molecules around.

        In other words near the surface back radiation, aka a ‘resonantly re-emitted’ photon is a RARE EVENT.

        Dr Happer in his lecture agreed and further stated that the time to radiate is about ten times slower than the time to the next collision in the troposphere. Dr Happer in his lecture also answered my question about where CO2 energy is radiated instead of being handed off via collision. Experimental data shows barely any radiation at 11 KM and that radiating is in the stratosphere ~ 47 KM above the surface.

        • darrylb says:

          I was waiting for this Gail, before I replied,
          I have been accused of being long winded, but you could outlast me any day 🙂
          So I will add a little. noting what has been written.

          1) It was known a hundred years ago, that CO2 was saturated with respect to the
          IR frequencies it could absorb Saturation is quite simply reached now within a few meters of the earths surface.

          2) Of course Dr. Spencer is correct with respect to the back radiation. But most of it comes
          from the H20 molecule which can absorb so many different frequencies. We would argue with what Dr. Spencer, whom I highly respect, sees in his hand?!
          A simple observation which we all know can verify that.—-Deserts can get very hot during the day. But because there is so little water vapor in the air, there is little back radiation and it can get very cold at night.
          —-and for those who live in lovely low humidity Colorado, with no stationary water and therefore few insects, it can get quite warm during the day, but then it cools off much at night so walla, open windows, no air conditioners. Unlike the 15,000 lakes and 10 to the millionth power bugs, particularly mosquitoes in Minnesota.

          3) It should be noted that the hotter the body the higher the frequency of waves that is emitted.. Therefore, much of the energy coming from the sun is in the higher frequencies, which are not absorbed by the atmosphere. In turn, the earth gives off lower frequency waves including infra red. waves which can be absorbed by the so called greenhouse gases.
          Note that Visible light has a higher frequency than infra red.
          However, most of us know a (night vision)device can be used to change the infra red frequencies to that in the visible light range (we see it as a light green)

          4) Also, in the pressurized lower atmosphere the absorption bands are widened slightly, however, there should be a transparent window out of the atmosphere for these as the widening absorption spectrum diminishes as the pressure decreases at higher altitudes.

          5) Much of the AGW hypothesis involves the frequencies which are both in the CO2 and H20 absorption bands. An explanation here would get kinda long, so I will just write that
          according to the hypothesis, a warm spot should appear in mid altitudes in equatorial regions, with a cold spot above that. That is because the earth surface is mostly water there. This phenomena has not happened. Another AGW failure!

          6) To summarize,from a significantly skeptical view- yep the earth would be much colder, especially at night, without the greenhouse gases. But because the earth’s atmosphere has always been saturated with respect to CO2-IR absorption, additional energy transfer close to the earths surface is mainly kinetic and not by photon absorption and emission.. ——No increase in downward radiation.

        • daveburton says:

          Well, for a change, I don’t agree with everything you wrote, Gail. You wrote:

          When CO2 near the earth’s surface absorbs back radiation, the lifetime of the excited state caused by the absorption of the photon is much longer than the mean free time between molecular collisions between the CO_2 molecule and other molecules in the surrounding gas. That means that the radiative energy absorbed by the molecule is almost never resonantly re-emitted, it is transferred to the surrounding gas, warming not just the CO_2 but the oxygen, nitrogen, water vapor, argon as well as the other CO_2 molecules around.
          In other words near the surface back radiation, aka a ‘resonantly re-emitted’ photon is a RARE EVENT.
          Dr Happer in his lecture agreed and further stated that the time to radiate is about ten times slower than the time to the next collision in the troposphere.

          Although re-emissions are rare events, back-radiation emissions are not rare events, and they are not the same things.

          It is true that hardly any absorbed photons are re-emitted by the molecules which absorbed them. In his lecture, and in a follow-up email conversation with me, Prof. Happer said that the mean time to radiate a photon is nearly a billion times longer (not just ten times longer) than the mean time to give up the absorbed energy by re-emission:
          http://www.sealevel.info/Happer_UNC_2014-09-08/Another_question.html

          (I’ve seen another source which claims it’s only 100,000 times longer, rather than nearly a billion, but I discussed that with Prof. Happer and he convinced me that it’s wrong. I can forward you that email exchange w/ Prof. Happer, if you’d like.)

          However, it is about as common for a CO2 molecule to absorb energy by collision and emit it as IR, as it for a CO2 molecule to absorb an IR photon and then give up the energy by collision. So IR emissions by CO2 are not rare. Rather, their rate is governed almost entirely by air temperature (and CO2 concentration).

          If the air is a lot colder than the ground, then the CO2 in the air very near the ground will absorb more IR photons than emit them; conversely, if the air is a lot warmer than the ground, then the CO2 in the air will emit more IR photons than it absorbs. But in either case, the rates are normally of the same order of magnitude.

          Warmest regards,
          Dave

        • daveburton says:

          darrylb wrote, “It was known a hundred years ago, that CO2 was saturated with respect to the
          IR frequencies it could absorb Saturation is quite simply reached now within a few meters of the earths surface.”

          That’s not quite right, darrylb. It’s right for most of the wavelengths that CO2 absorbs, but not all of them. In particular, it’s not true at the fringes of the absorption lines.

          A hundred years ago they weren’t able to resolve the fine line structure of the absorption and emission spectra. In fact, even now, there are arguments over its details.

          Most of the effect from adding additional CO2 is on the far fringes of the IR absorption lines, where CO2 only weakly absorbs IR. At those wavelengths, going from 300 ppmv to 400 ppmv CO2 concentration really does significantly increase the amount of IR which is absorbed.

          Prof. Happer is THE expert on this. I suggest that you listen to his UNC lecture while stepping through his PowerPoint slides, and also read the supplemental material, here:
          http://www.sealevel.info/Happer_UNC_2014-09-08/

          Also, as an aside, a night vision device doesn’t really change infrared to frequencies in the visible range. It just focuses and detects the IR, and then displays a visible image of what it detected, typically on a green-phosphor-coated screen.

      • A C Osborn says:

        I like your positive answer Dave, it shows true “belief”.
        Let me ask you a few questions then, first of all how much energy from DWIR is coming down to the Surface?
        How much is absorbed by the Earth’s Suface?
        What ever value you state for the first 2 questions, how much “WORK” can it do?
        The energy from the Sun does “WORK”, it raises the temperature of everything it touches, it can be focused to really raise temperatures to high values, over 450 degrees C for instance.
        Now tell me what you can do with DWIR?

        • daveburton says:

          A C Osborn asked, “tell me what you can do with DWIR?”

          You can keep the surface of the Earth warmer than it otherwise would be.

        • SkepticGoneWild says:

          Here is a simple observation. DWIR averages about 330 W/m^2, even at night. There are multiple studies that have measured it. Go take your car out into an open parking lot on a clear night. Roll up your windows. Your car is being bombarded by 330 W/m^2 of DWIR energy. That is significant. Your car’s interior should heat up, just like it would during the day. I’ve tried this at night and boy did the interior heat up………..NOT!

          Considering that solar insolation averages 500 W/m^2 over the whole daylight period, 330 W/m^2 is once again a significant amount of energy. Do mechanical engineers in calculating A/C roof heat load impacts use DWIR in their calcs? No.

          Click to access SS00_Panel3_Paper30.pdf

          Do you see any mention of DWIR in the above paper?

      • David, UK says:

        @daveburton Completely agree. They are incapable of appreciating that *net* energy transfer (i.e. from hot to cold, never vice versa, always seeking equilibrium) and radiation of energy in all directions, are not mutually incompatible. I gave up arguing with the Slayers years ago.

        • SkepticGoneWild says:

          Second Law of Thermodynamics

          “No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a cooler to a hotter body. [Clausius statement of the second law]”

          The term “net” does not appear anywhere. That is a modern invention. This has nothing to do with “slayer” stuff.

      • markstoval says:

        “Yes, you read that correctly. When an infrared photon emitted by a molecule of CO2 in the Earth’s frigid upper atmosphere is absorbed by the Sun, it warms the sun (by an infinitesimally tiny amount).”

        It would take a moron with a PhD to write something that stupid.(*) What institution granted it?

        You personally have overturned two hundred years of physics all by your self and you talk about “slayer nonsense”. Unreal!

        (*) I believe it was the sage of Baltimore who first observed that you could drag a moron through a university and even confer a PhD on him; but you would still have a moron.

        • daveburton says:

          markstoval wrote, “It would take a moron with a PhD to write something that stupid… You personally have overturned two hundred years of physics all by your self “

          The fact that it surprises you doesn’t make it wrong, Mark.

        • markstoval says:

          No, and you asserting utter bull shit does not make it correct either. To claim that a photon from the cold earth will heat the very hot sun is totally in violation of the laws of physics. But you asserted it … so I am to believe it?? Ya, right.

          Note: by the way, I was not surprised at your stupidity. Not at all.

        • daveburton says:

          It’s physics, Mark. I understand that physics can be confusing to people who haven’t studied it, but perhaps I can explain it for you.

          Think of a kiln.

          Have you ever seen a kiln that wasn’t enclosed? Why not?

          It’s because the fire bricks help maintain a higher temperature inside. The contents of the kiln gets hotter because of the fire bricks around it. You understand that, right?

          Okay, now suppose that you removed just one of the fire bricks, leaving a hole in the side of the kiln. What do you suppose would happen to the temperature inside the kiln?

          It wouldn’t get as hot inside, would it?

          Remove two bricks, making a bigger hole, and the kiln’s interior temperature would be lower yet.

          Remove an entire side of the kiln, and its temperature would be quite a bit lower yet.

          Remove two whole sides of the kiln, and its temperature would be lower yet.

          Remove all but a little stack of three bricks on one side, and the temperature the kiln would reach would be lower yet — but still slightly higher than it would have been with with just two bricks.

          Do you see where this is going? Every fire brick helps make the contents of the kiln get just a little bit hotter than it would have gotten without that fire brick.

          In fact, even just one very small fire brick helps the kiln get ever so slightly hotter than it would have gotten without that one small brick.

          Well, the sun is like a very big kiln (with a fusion, rather than electrical, power source). The Earth is like a very, very small fire brick.

          Does that make sense to you, now?

          Dave

        • SkepticGoneWild says:

          Wow, Dave. All this time I’ve been wasting energy needlessly. All I needed to do was place an IR reflector next to my wallboard heater so it would run hotter. Wow! How stupid of me! But I better be careful. Since my wallboard heater will run hotter, it will in turn reflect more heat to the IR reflector, which will in turn make my wallboard heater run even hotter still! How will I ever control this vicious cycle?!

        • markstoval says:

          “It’s physics, Mark. I understand that physics can be confusing to people who haven’t studied it, but perhaps I can explain it for you”

          That is a hoot! You are going to explain physics to me. Ya, right. And with and example of a kiln to justify a cold thing warming a hot thing. As I said before. The greats of physics must be rolling over in their graves.

        • Kristian says:

          markstoval says, May 15, 2015 at 10:55 pm:

          “To claim that a photon from the cold earth will heat the very hot sun is totally in violation of the laws of physics.”

          Hi, Mark.

          If seeing single photons in isolation, Burton is correct (he said ‘warming’, not ‘heating’). I guess the laws of physics you’re referring to are the Laws of Thermodynamics, specifically the second one. The 2nd Law, however, does not apply to single photons (or other particles, for that matter). It is a law describing macroscopic conditions. You may have heard of something called the ‘thermodynamic (or ‘macroscopic’) limit’. Only when the number of particles in a system or process passes this limit, the fundamentally probabilistic laws of thermodynamics become valid. So there is no real reason per se why a single photon from a cold body shouldn’t be able to transfer its energy to an atom or molecule in a hot body. That doesn’t mean such individual transfers of energy quanta are themselves HEAT transfers. A heat transfer is very much a macroscopic phenomenon, firmly governed by the 2nd Law.

          Burton is stating his case a bit clumsily, though. What he should’ve said is that the Sun is warmer (by an infinitesimally small amount) with the Earth present than it would’ve been without the Earth present, with only space around. Talking about the effect of individual photons only confuses the matter. It’s the HEAT flux that explains it.

        • Kristian says:

          daveburton says, May 15, 2015 at 11:56 pm:

          A nice analogy 🙂

        • daveburton says:

          Thank you, Kristian, for explaining it better than I did.

        • markstoval says:

          @ Kristian @ May 16, 2015 at 2:10 pm

          markstoval says, May 15, 2015 at 10:55 pm:

          “To claim that a photon from the cold earth will heat the very hot sun is totally in violation of the laws of physics.”

          Hi, Mark.

          If seeing single photons in isolation, Burton is correct (he said ‘warming’, not ‘heating’). I guess the laws of physics …

          So it is your scientific position that to warm something is different from heating something? Hmmmm.

          He claims a low energy photon will somehow fill high energy microstates in a hotter material like the sun. Oh my word.

        • daveburton says:

          Mark wrote, “He claims a low energy photon will somehow fill high energy microstates in a hotter material like the sun. Oh my word.”

          I did not say that. Photon emission and absorption is associated with energy transitions, not energy states. Low-energy transitions occur even in very hot materials.

          If an object can emit at a particular wavelength, it can absorb at that wavelength, as well. Although most of the Sun’s energy output is at visible wavelengths and shorter, it emits a great deal of infrared, too:

          Objects do not become reflective to shorter and shorter wavelengths the warmer they get. Most objects have negligible changes in color with changes in temperature (with rare exceptions).

          Individual molecules absorb photons according to their absorption spectra, but (except in a near vacuum) they almost always immediately give up that energy by interaction with other nearby molecules. For instance, when a molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere at 1 atm absorbs a 15,000 nm photon, on average it will give up the resultant vibrational energy by collision with another air molecule in just a few nanoseconds.

          Nor do warm objects emit monochromatic infrared. Emission spectra shift with temperature, but even very hot objects, like the Sun,continue to both emit and absorb low-energy photons. A 15,000 nm photon emitted by a CO2 molecule in a 25°C atmosphere is indistinguishable from a 15,000 nm photon emitted from 24°C or 5500°C material.

          So the Sun does, indeed, both absorb and emit longwave infrared, which is why infrared emitted by the cool Earth does (very slightly) warm the much hotter Sun.

          Dave

        • Kristian says:

          markstoval says, May 17, 2015 at 9:27 pm:

          “So it is your scientific position that to warm something is different from heating something? Hmmmm.”

          Well, sort of, yeah. Because, normally “heating” would be synonymous with ‘transferring energy AS HEAT to’, and individual photons do not transfer energy as heat in any direction. “Warming” is a more colloquial term describing an end result, a rise in temperature. A simple rise in temperature can come about in many ways, only one of which is through a direct transfer of more energy as heat.

          For instance, if an object absorbs a constant input of energy as heat [Q_in] (or generates its own constant supply of internal thermal energy [U], like the Sun), but all of a sudden cannot emit as much energy as heat to its surroundings [Q_out] as before, because the surroundings themselves have become warmer, then the hot object will need to warm as well (the Sun only by an infinitesimally small amount), but NOT because the surroundings are HEATING it in any way, but because the hot object is not able to heat the surroundings as fast as it did earlier.

          This is plain energy (heat) budgetting, Mark. No mystery at all. It’s all in accord with to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics.

      • Robert B says:

        There is a temperature gradient that is independent of back radiation. There is no GHE without it.

        For it to form quickly you need air currents and transfer of heat from solid surfaces to the air, which is quicker if there are GHG in the air, causes larger air currents. There still would be a temperature gradient if there was no air flow. Molecules fall before they collide. If the pressure approached 0 and there were few molecules of air left and there would definitely be a temperature gradient. We shouldn’t assume an isothermal atm without GHG.

        One thing that gets brought up is inversion layers that form before sunrise and dissipate soon after. Back radiation doesn’t seem to do much to it so why calculate the effect of GHG based on back radiation?

      • daveburton says:

        [part 2, try 3, of ?] WordPress is driving me nuts!

        Note: there are four ways of specifying the “colors” of EM radiation: frequency, vacuum wavelength, vacuum wavenumber, and photon energy. Frequency, wavenumber & energy are proportional, and all three are inversely proportional to wavelength. Here’s a table comparing them:

      • Truthseeker says:

        The Earth’s surface does not poll each incoming photon and ask it the temperature of the source which emitted it, to decide whether or not to absorb it. When an IR photon is emitted from a CO2 molecule in the Earth’s atmosphere, it cools the CO2 molecule. When (or if) it is subsequently absorbed by something else, it (very slightly) warms whatever absorbed it. That is equally true whether it is absorbed by the ground, by another gas molecule in the atmosphere, by the surface of the moon (1.3 seconds later), or even by the Sun (8 minutes later).

        It is not about wether the surface “polls” the incoming photon. It is about whether the photon has the energy to increase the thermal energy state of the molecule it collides into. If it is of a higher energy state, then the receiving molecule will increase its energy state. If it is not, then it will be reflected away. It is about Plank curves and raising electrons to higher orbits. Radiation travels in all directions. Heat only goes one way because the radiated photons from the colder source will not have the energy levels to raise the higher energy state of the hotter destination to even higher states.

        • daveburton says:

          Truthseeker wrote, “It is not about wether the surface “polls” the incoming photon. It is about whether the photon has the energy to increase the thermal energy state of the molecule it collides into. If it is of a higher energy state, then the receiving molecule will increase its energy state. If it is not, then it will be reflected away.”

          So you believe that 25°C objects are reflective to IR emitted by 24°C objects? Really??

          That’s completely wrong. Warm objects do not emit monochromatic infrared, and a 15,000 nm photon emitted by a 25°C object is indistinguishable from a 15,000 nm photon emitted by a 24°C object, and objects do not become reflective to shorter and shorter wavelengths the warmer they get.

          Truthseeker also wrote, “Heat only goes one way because the radiated photons from the colder source will not have the energy levels to raise the higher energy state of the hotter destination to even higher states.”

          [See, Gail Combs, they’re not talking about NET energy flow, as you charitably hoped.]

          [Your point is proven, David, UK]

          That is completely wrong, too, Truthseeker. The reason heat flows from a warm body to a cooler one, even if they are separated by a vacuum, is simply that the warm body emits more radiant energy than the cool body does. Each absorbs radiation emitted by the other, but since the warmer body is emitting more radiation, the cooler body absorbs more, and since the cooler body emits less radiation, the warmer body absorbs less.

          Thus, although energy flows from each object to the other, there is a net flow of energy from the warmer body to the cooler.

      • SkepticGoneWild says:

        “When an infrared photon emitted by a molecule of CO2 in the Earth’s frigid upper atmosphere is absorbed by the Sun, it warms the sun (by an infinitesimally tiny amount)”

        O M G !! And pigs can fly. What utter abject stupidity. That violates both the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. I would request a refund from whatever university you studied at.

        Here is the radiative heat flow equation:

        Q’ = k(Thot^4 – Tcool^4)

        If you have two black bodies at the same temperature, there is no heat flow. Are both black bodies emitting IR? Yes. Are they heating each other up? No. They did not get your photon poll memo.

        It takes more than hand-waving to rewrite the laws of thermodynamics.

        • daveburton says:

          SkepticGoneWild wrote, “If you have two black bodies at the same temperature, there is no heat flow. Are both black bodies emitting IR? Yes. Are they heating each other up? No.”

          Have you never built a fire, SGW? If you have a pile of charcoal briquettes they will burn quite nicely. If you separate them, they’ll go out.

          Why do you think the briquettes go out when you separate them, if they aren’t heating each other up?

        • SkepticGoneWild says:

          Dave,

          It’s hard to argue with a person who won’t accept the laws of thermodynamics. I suggest you crack open a physics book, and put away your book of analogies and thought experiments.

          Instead of one water heater in my house, I should have bought 4 individual ones that total the same heating capacity as the single one. I could then group the smaller water heaters adjacent to each other and get more heat. Wow! I’m heading to the patent office tomorrow!

        • daveburton says:

          So, SGW, you don’t know why the briquettes go out when you separate them, but you’re sure it’s not because they were heating each other up when they were piled up together, because you think that would violate the laws of thermodynamics. Is that right?

          Have you ever worn a sweater or jacket to stay warm in a chilly day? Even though most of your body is over 90°F, and the sweater is much cooler than that, the sweater still helps to keep you warm. Do you think it violates the laws of thermodynamics, too?

        • SkepticGoneWild says:

          Dave,

          When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

          Have you ever stepped on a cold tile floor? And then stepped on a small rug laying on that tile floor? The tile and rug are the same temperature. The tile “feels” colder because tile is a great conductor of heat compared to the carpet, and your skin senses the greater conductive heat loss from your foot when in contact with the tile.

          What happens when you put on a jacket in cool weather?(assume the jacket is cool also) Your skin warms up the cooler air trapped between your body and the jacket lining by convection. Your skin also warms up the cooler lining it come into contact with by conduction. The thickness of the jacket and outer lining reduces conductive and convective heat losses, so the air trapped between your body and the inner lining can maintain its warmer temperature. With the reduced heat loss, your body feels warmer. No thermodynamic laws are being violated. There is NO cool object transferring heat to a warmer object.

          Since you adore analogies so much, a simpler example would be a scuba diver wearing a drysuit in cold water. The diver’s skin will transfer heat to the cooler inside layer of the drysuit, warming it up. The drysuit’s insulative neoprene layer reduces conductive heat losses. So your skin feels warmer just like when you step on carpet covering a cold tile floor. In this whole process, warm is heating cool. How in the hell can cold water and a cold drysuit transfer heat to the scuba diver?! Makes NO thermodynamic sense whatsoever, just like your ludicrous fable of the earth warming the sun.

        • daveburton says:

          So, SGW, you accept that a cooler object (like a rug or clothing) can make a warmer object (like your feet) warmer than it otherwise would be, by affecting conductive and/or convective heat transfer. I think that’s progress.

          But do you still believe that it cannot similarly affect radiative energy transfer, because you do not believe that a warmer object (like the Sun) can absorb IR radiation which was emitted by a cooler object (like the Earth). Is that right?

          Then why do you think a Thermos™ or Dewar flask is slivered?

          And will you please tell me why burning charcoal briquettes burn well if piled up together, but go out when you separate them, if you don’t think they heat each other up when they’re piled up together?

        • SkepticGoneWild says:

          Dave,

          It is not a matter of “belief”. It is a matter of the “laws” of thermodynamics. Get that through your thick skull.

          No Dave, I did not say a cool rug can transfer heat to your feet. In both instances heat is being transferred from your warmer feet to the cooler tile and rug. Cool objects do not transfer heat to warmer objects. No, there is no “progress” to be made. You just blindly and ignorantly ignore the well established laws of thermodynamics using thought experiments and assertions..

          The earth cannot heat the sun since that is a violation BOTH the First and Second laws of thermodynamics. You claim the sun is now warmer due to earth’s radiation striking it. The sun would then be in a higher energy state. You’ve created energy out of nothing, in violation of the Firsts Law, and the colder earth heating the sun violates the Second Law. Furthermore, in your fantasy world, the sun is now hotter, which in turn will heat the earth more. The even hotter earth will again heat the sun more……and so on.

          You seem to have this confusion regarding insulation. Insulation is a purely passive system that reduces the rate of heat transfer. As far as the dewar glass is concerned, the vacuum gap limits heat transfer by conduction and convection. Silvering the flash limits heat transfer by radiation.

          Did I say a briquette could not “warm up” another briquette? No. But if you “believe” that a burning briquette can make an adjacent briquette burn at a higher temperature, then provide the proof, not just wild ass assertions. That’s how science works. Otherwise you are blowing hot air.

      • I have just posted a thorough review of thermal radiation with comments relating to some of the common claims backing catastrophic man-made global warming, including one of daveburton above. The examination of thermal radiation theory uses the mathematical theory of thermodynamics to develop the energy density, pressure, entropy, and chemical potential of a cavity in thermal equilibrium with constant temperature walls. In doing so, I note the assumptions made carefully. These assumptions are actually not as they are commonly portrayed. I then apply the results to the non-equilibrium, and not exclusively radiative heat transfer cases, relevant to the temperature of the surface of the Earth. This latter discussion does not detail the energy transfers, but it points out how the common theory backing the CO2 induced man-made global warming catastrophe misunderstands the physics conceptually.

        The post: The Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis and Thermal Radiation — A Critical Review is here: http://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-greenhouse-gas-hypothesis-and.html

        • daveburton says:

          Charles, the very first sentence of your article is untrue. You wrote, “One of the keystone claims of the catastrophic man-made global warming hypothesis is that infra-red thermal radiation emitted from a cooler body and incident upon a warmer body is entirely absorbed by the warmer body.”

          That’s a strawman. Nobody claims that. Many bodies are at least partially reflective to IR. Everyone knows that. Many others are transparent to at least some IR wavelengths. But you repeated that strawman twice in the second paragraph, too.

          The “slayers” claim (e.g., here, here, and here/here, and here) that none of the IR emitted by a cooler body can be absorbed by a warmer body. That’s nonsense.

          Do you understand that it is nonsense, Charles?

          Do you understand that the reason heat flows from a warm body to a cooler one, even if they are separated by a vacuum, is simply that the warm body emits more radiant energy than the cool body does? Each absorbs radiation emitted by the other, but since the warmer body is emitting more radiation, the cooler body absorbs more, and since the cooler body emits less radiation, the warmer body absorbs less. Thus, although energy flows from each object to the other, there is a net flow of energy from the warmer body to the cooler. Do you understand that?

          Do you understand that IR emitted by the Earth is absorbed by the Sun, and that IR slightly warms the Sun?

        • SkepticGoneWild says:

          “Do you understand that IR emitted by the Earth is absorbed by the Sun, and that IR slightly warms the Sun?”

          OMG. The hilarity. You can’t make this stuff up. The sun which solely supplies energy that warms the earth, somehow is warmed by earth, a non energy source, all in violation of the FIrst Law of thermodynamics.

          Charles. Don’t even bother with this nutcase.

        • Dave, there is no reply under your remark on my comment, so I will have to reply here. First, it is most commonly stated that the back-reflection from the atmosphere is entirely absorbed by the surface of the Earth because it is claimed that the long wavelength IR is at least almost entirely absorbed. The Kiehl-Trenberth Earth Energy Budget graphics do not show any reflection of back-radiation at all.

          Second, one of my major points was to show that the energy density of photons, established by an electromagnetic field, is a more fundamental basis for understanding what is going on than imagining that photons are flung about without regard to electromagnetic fields. Prof. W. E. Lamb made this point strongly many years ago.

          Of course, the presence of a body at a temperature greater than that of space will cause a warmer body to radiate less energy than if the body at an intermediate temperature were not present. This is elementary. The body of intermediate temperature alters the electromagnetic field.

          My post addressed numerous issues in addition to those of the flung photon fallacy.

  8. Ron Clutz says:

    It is observed and accepted by all that there is a ~33K difference between the temperature at the surface and at the effective radiating level (the tropopause, where convection stops). Warmists attribute that increase in temperature to the IR activity of CO2.

    Others, including me, contend that it is the mass of the atmosphere, mostly O2 and N2 delaying the loss of heat from the surface until IR active gases are able to cool the planet effectively without obstruction. That retention of heat in the atmosphere is measurable in the lapse rate. And 90% of the IR activity is due to H2O, especially in the lower troposphere.

    https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/04/25/on-climate-theories-response-to-david-a/

    • markstoval says:

      Thanks for the link. I enjoyed the read.

      You may enjoy this comment by a physicist at another thread long ago …

      Over 100 years ago Svante Arrhenius made this statement:
      “If the quantity of carbonic acid in the air should sink to one-half its present percentage, the temperature would fall by about 4°; a diminution to one-quarter would reduce the temperature by 8°. On the other hand, any doubling of the percentage of carbon dioxide in the air would raise the temperature of the earth’s surface by 4°; and if the carbon dioxide were increased fourfold, the temperature would rise by 8°.”

      The atmospheric CO2 concentration has risen by 40% since Arrhenius made his prediction so we should have experienced a temperature increase of 1.95 Kelvin. That is not even close so it makes sense to look for other explanations.

      You don’t have to look far because contemporaries of Arrhenius including Angstrom refuted his theory. Take a look at what Niels Bohr had to say. The link can be found on the website of one of the people who has already commented here:

      Click to access gh_experiments.pdf

      This is no big mystery. The derivation of the adiabatic lapse rate is taught in high schools and provides an explanation of the observed temperature gradient in Earth’s atmosphere. The same theory works for Venus and Titan as Nikolov and Zeller have shown. I believe it also works for Jupiter. I recommend this explanation by Rodrigo Caballero (University College Dublin). Start at page 133:

      Click to access PhysMetLectNotes.pdf

      Please note that there is no mention of “Radiative Transfer Equations”. In order to establish the “Adiabatic Lapse Rate” a method of heat transfer is required. In the troposphere the dominant heat transfer processes are convective so RTEs can safely be ignored.

      James Hansen with his “Runaway Greenhouse Effect” is to blame for much of the sensationalist nonsense that passes for “Climate Science”.

  9. omanuel says:

    Doug says: May 9, 2015 at 5:16 am

    “Assuming you’re not a nut, and all your theories are correct, please explain why I should care. What changes if all of a sudden everyone were to believe the “truth” about neutron repulsion? What practical difference would it make? Layman’s terms, please.”

    The answer depends on the value each individual places on Liberty & Truth.” “Give me liberty or give me death,” expresses well my sentiment and probably that of most of my co-authors and former students.

    1. I believe every person on Earth has the right to consider evidence:

    _ a.) The Sun made our elements, birthed the solar system and controls our fate
    _ b.) The SNM, SSM, BBC & AGW are goverent-sponsored lies to hide fact a.)
    _ c.) We live under a totalitarian one-world government that uses science to deceive and enslave the public – as George Orwell warned in the book he started writing in 1946: “Nineteen Eighty-Four”

    2. My research mentor – P. K. Kuroda – risked his own life to retain proof secretly of Japan’s atomic bomb project for fifty-seven years (1945-2002).

    3. A Hungarian astronomer – Peter Toth – vanished after publishing a paper in Nature in 1977 with evidence the Sun is a pulsar.

    4. A very talented astrophysics graduate of Cal Tech and a personal friend – Dr. Carl A. Rouse – sacrificed his reputation in the astrophysics community and a large part of his research career to provide helio-seismic evidence of the Sun’s iron-rich solar interior:

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00206420

    These are a few who share the high value I place on “liberty and truth.” But each of us have the right to decide that matter for ourselves.

  10. Robert B says:

    Probably a good idea to write about the changes from month to month and the difference between raw and adjusted data. I find it strange that the changes in stations, TOB etc. are only a systematic error in the data. Surely they also made the data noisier?

  11. TomE says:

    The comments on this subject seem to cover everything but the subject, however, in support of Steve’s position, isn’t the Global Warming Policy Foundation starting a major inquiry into the integrity of the global temperature data system and possible tampering with the data? Seems like some much bigger hitters than bloggers are getting into the game.

  12. daveburton says:

    Hey, Tony, where’d you find that “Hansen 1981” graph in the first gif?

  13. Gail Combs says:

    OK, Dave I read what you wrote about near ground emission of photons by CO2 and yes I would like to see what Dr Happer wrote.

    Again going to Dr Happer lecture:

    Dr Happer in his lecture agreed with Dr. Brown and further stated that the time to radiate is about ten times slower than the time to the next collision in the troposphere. Dr Happer in his lecture also answered my question about where CO2 energy is radiated instead of being handed off via collision. Experimental data shows barely any radiation at 11 KM and that radiating is in the stratosphere ~ 47 KM above the surface.

    I remember that because it was a piece of information I was looking for after reading what Dr Brown had said shortly before the lecture.

    This shows the area where CO2 is irradiating and it is in the stratosphere above the tropopause centered at ~ 47 KM just like Dr Happer said.

    If the earth is cooler than the atmosphere then you will get a net energy exchange from the atmosphere to the ground. How ever normally the ground will be warmer.

    Most of that exchange will be by convection. It is the dominant mechanism near the ground.

    Dr. Brown’s comment at WUWT in full (in case I misinterpreted something)

    rgbatduke says:
    May 28, 2014 at 10:21 am

    ….This isn’t the right question. The question is, “What is the absorption cross-section for a 15 micron photon”. That’s the effective surface area intercepted by each CO_2 molecule. It is large enough that the mean free path of LWIR photons in the pressure-broadened absorption bands of CO_2 in the lower atmosphere is order of a meter. That means that LWIR photons — whatever their “size” — with frequencies in the band go no more than a meter or few before they are absorbed by a CO_2 molecule.

    The lifetime of the excited state(s) is much longer than the mean free time between molecular collisions between the CO_2 molecule and the (usually nitrogen or oxygen or argon) other molecules in the surrounding gas. That means that the radiative energy absorbed by the molecule is almost never resonantly re-emitted, it is transferred to the surrounding gas, warming not just the CO_2 but the oxygen, nitrogen, water vapor, argon as well as the other CO_2 molecules around. Periodically CO_2 is thermally excited in-band by just such a collision and radiates energy away, but it is not like an elastic scattering process such as occurs in specular reflection within clouds. In band/thermal radiative energy gradually diffuses upwards, with the mean free path of the photons increasing the higher one goes, until it starts to equal the remaining depth of the atmosphere and photons emitted “up” have a good chance of escaping, cooling the molecules (on average) that emit them. It takes order of 100s of absorptions and emissions for radiation to diffuse upward to escape, and there is an almost equal probability that radiation will diffuse downward (especially from the lower levels) where we observe it as back-radiation/greenhouse radiative forcing of the surface.

    Even this is oversimplified. Because of pressure broadening, molecules close to the ground emit photons “in the wings” at frequencies that less broadened molecules at higher altitudes/lower pressures are nearly transparent to. That means that there is a steady CO_2-mediated “leakage” even from lower altitudes directly to space from the edges of the monotonically decreasing-with-height absorptive bandwidth. It also means that there is a MAJOR change in atmospheric absorptivity/emissivity with simple high and low pressure centers as they move around, as well as a modulation of the size of the emission-wing “hole”.

    Grant Petty’s book can walk you through much of the physics.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/26/quote-of-the-week-howler-from-the-world-meteorological-organization-what-warming/#comment-1648000

  14. SkepticGoneWild says:

    These clowns at NASA GISS need to get back to their original function before it was hijacked by the nutcase James “the oceans will boil” Hansen, which is “to do basic research in space sciences in support of GSFC (Goddard Space Flight Center) programs”

  15. this clowns need to be jailed.

  16. Nice to know we have such an honest website like “Politifact”!

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