Skip to main content
Customer Review
November 5, 2014
If you are looking for an example of how confusion can be expressed in hand waving and scientific jargon and sold through a “self-publisher”, this book is for you.
Mr. Cotton’s book has many misconceptions. The chief being his belief (originally conjectured by Josef Loschmidt in the 19th century) that gravity alone induces an vertical temperature gradient in matter. Locschmidt did a thought experiment (not uncommon in thermodynamics) using only the mechanics of moving particles of gas. He did not discover any new phenomena. Scientist at the time (Maxwell and Boltzmann) rejected his logic and there have been refutations since then based on the 2nd law. But, to be fair to Mr. Cotton, the conjecture still has a life to this day, where it has become something like a parlor riddle on the web among people who know something about thermodynamics. People even claim to have measured it.
(BTW: Loschmidt’s gradient in a gas is the standard adiabatic lapse rate, which should suggest to a thermodynamicist where his error was. I can’t read German. But even I can compose a simple thought experiment to show that the conjecture violates the 2nd law.)
But Mr. Cotton goes further. He asserts that the earth cannot be warmer with greenhouse gases in its atmosphere than it would be without them. Citing himself as authority, he says this is because the earth cannot absorb radiation from sources (i.e. GHG molecules) that are cooler than it is. He does not say how the earth knows the temperature of the source of the IR photons.
Mr. Cotton’s book has many misconceptions. The chief being his belief (originally conjectured by Josef Loschmidt in the 19th century) that gravity alone induces an vertical temperature gradient in matter. Locschmidt did a thought experiment (not uncommon in thermodynamics) using only the mechanics of moving particles of gas. He did not discover any new phenomena. Scientist at the time (Maxwell and Boltzmann) rejected his logic and there have been refutations since then based on the 2nd law. But, to be fair to Mr. Cotton, the conjecture still has a life to this day, where it has become something like a parlor riddle on the web among people who know something about thermodynamics. People even claim to have measured it.
(BTW: Loschmidt’s gradient in a gas is the standard adiabatic lapse rate, which should suggest to a thermodynamicist where his error was. I can’t read German. But even I can compose a simple thought experiment to show that the conjecture violates the 2nd law.)
But Mr. Cotton goes further. He asserts that the earth cannot be warmer with greenhouse gases in its atmosphere than it would be without them. Citing himself as authority, he says this is because the earth cannot absorb radiation from sources (i.e. GHG molecules) that are cooler than it is. He does not say how the earth knows the temperature of the source of the IR photons.
There was a problem loading comments right now. Please try again later.
There was a problem loading comments right now. Please try again later.
Take a long vertical thermally conductive rod and cut it into two equal halves and suspend them from a pulley and string so one can be held above to other, and their above/below positions can be reversed without work. Enclose the whole mechanism in a thermal isolation box if you like. Allow them to make thermal contact and wait for the equilibrium thermal temperature gradient due to gravity to be established. The bottom of the bottom rod is now (relatively) hot and the top of the top rod is now cold. Now reverse their over/under positions and allow them to contact through a heat engine (a thermoelectric generator is the simplest). As the equilibrium gradient is reestablished, convert the heat flow to work. Continue the top-half/bottom-half reversal until everything is at absolute zero.
My acceptance of Loschmitt's thesis leads to an absurdity for a metal rod. If it works for a gas or liquid but not the solid, then I can stand the metal rod in vertical column of the stuff and continuously extract work at the top or bottom of the rod (more absurdity).
If you want to argue that the top half-rod warms as it is lowered (due to its change in potential energy or some other mechanism), then I ask that you consider a system that is an adiabatic box enclosing the half-rod. The half-rod does not know it has changed vertical position, only the enclosing system (box) does. What goes on external to an adiabatic box remains external. The half-rod has no place to get the energy to increase its temperature.
I also understand that Maxwell and Boltzmann both rejected the hypothesis. I know nothing of Thompson and Ehrenfest's analysis, and can't comment.
BTW, a direct measurement may be possible, and I intend to do it when I get the time (if ever). People have attempted it - some with thermocouples in water for measurement, and some using centrifugal force to enhance the effect. I don't trust either since you have to understand thermocouples well to get high resolution repeatable measurements. Using centrifugal force, how do you eliminate convection currents to develop a true equilibrium system? Instead, I intend to use helium gas (simple, monatomic, good thermal diffusion), liquid water at 4 deg C (the zero thermal expansion point, no convection), and copper (good thermal diffusion) in good ol' 1g gravity. For measurement, I will try the DS18B20's ($0.50 ea, 0.0625 deg C resolution, buss able digital output) and an Arduino or Raspberry Pi (cheap, free software if you look for it). Temperature resolution can be increased by using them in clusters at each end of the sample column (accuracy doesn't matter if you take a reference reading with the column horizontal). It will definitely require a very stable set up (long enough for thermal equilibrium to be established). I expect the two incompressible samples to show no temperature gradient when they are changed from horizontal to vertical (and remain that way). I expect the gas to show an initial gradient equal to the adiabatic lapse rate (is it just a coincidence that this is what Loschmidt predicted?) followed eventually by no gradient as the temperature changes due to pressure changes settle. It remains to be seen.
Have a good day. Maybe you could try it too. Thanks :).
Those three "papers" (blog articles?) of yours were reviewed by? - please give names and affiliations.
Were any of them subjected to review by competent physicists? I doubt it, e.g. it appears that "Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics" was reviewed by your friends at the Principia Scientific International blog (http://principia-scientific.org/publications/psi_radiated_energy.pdf).
"Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures" didn't appear to impress even the PSI blog, as according to you it " .. sat on their PROM menu for a few months .. I would no longer wish to be associated with what I now see to be a close-knit closed-minded community with no real desire to seek out the truth .. " (http://rankexploits.com/musings/2014/the-fullness-of-time-doug-cotton-comments-unveiled/#comment-124187).
The PSI blog doesn't appear too impressed by your version of science " .. Doug Cotton has been banned from PSI - all his posts, comments and contributions are unwelcome here due to his unlawful impersonations of real scientists; harassment, disrespect and general unpleasantness .." (http://principia-scientific.org/tag/douglas-cotton/).
That blog article was "peer reviewed" by members of the Principia Scientific International blog' no less!!! And we know what Doug and PSI think of each other.
Now we have Dougy boasting that " .. My papers have also been reviewed recently by competent reviewers at SSRN .. ". In fact his 3 old blog articles are simply circulating within the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) community to see if they have any merit at all. The SSRN simply enables people to share and distribute their ideas on the web without them having to go through the rigorous peer-review process adopted by recognised learned societies prior to approving publication in their journals.
Notice that Dougy still declines to name any of those "competent reviewers at SSRN"!!!
Anyone can sign up to SSRN and stick their fantasies on the site for free. The SSRN process appears to be even less rigorous than that undertaken by John O'Sullivan's Principia Scientific International (PSI) blog of which Dougy used to be proud to be a member. I've just signed up to SSRN and may post my article "Fractionation of Carbon Dioxide from Air 'trapped' in Ice - Another Hockey Stick Illusion?" (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2010/12/smogbound-on-molecular-fractionation-in.html) once I've converted it to pdf.
Anyone can self-publish their ramblings and proclaim them to be a paradigm shift in human understanding. Dougy believes that his hypothesis presented in his self-published book is "The 21St Century New Paradigm Shift In Climate Change Science", something with which he has been spamming the Internet since about since Jan. 2013. 4 years on and he has still been unable to persuade any respected science journal to publish his hypothesis. Even the PSI blog has consigned the article to the dustbin (http://principia-scientific.org/the-21st-century-new-paradigm-shift-in-climate-change-science/).
Back in March 2014 respected Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) sceptic Anthony Watts said of Dougy " .. I can advise you that just about every sceptical climate blog has had similar problems with Mr. Cotton posting his own brand of physics under his real and/or list of sockpuppet names and fake emails. We've heard that even the Prinicipia/Slayers have un-welcomed him .. " (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/10/critical-mass-of-cotton/).
You're going to have to look elsewhere for the explanations of atmospheric temperature lapse and the Ranque-Hilsch vortex. I'd suggest a competent climate blog for the former and Wikipedia for the latter. It would also help if you would distinguish between static and dynamic situations and between closed and open systems. It also helps to recognize that flow is often made up to two components -- one in each direction. IOW: don't get so far from basics that you lose sight of them.
Thanks,
AH&BL
You're going to have to look elsewhere for the explanations of atmospheric temperature lapse and the Ranque-Hilsch vortex. I'd suggest a competent climate blog for the former and Wikipedia for the latter. It would also help if you would distinguish between static and dynamic situations and between closed and open systems. It also helps to recognize that flow is often made up to two components -- one in each direction. IOW: don't get so far from basics that you lose sight of them.
Thanks,
AH&BL
I speculate that his "heat creep" hypothesis has been rejected by most of them as seriously flawed, but I could be wrong. As Dougy is aware from our recent E-mail exchanges, I am happy to sincerely apologise to him publicly if he can show that I am mistaken.
It appears from his initial E-mail in that thread of E-mails during Nov. Dec. 2016 in which he was promoting his "Heat Creep Hypothesis" that Doug is also promoting his services. In his E-mail of 27th Nov. 2016 he offered " .. consultations, talks and court testimony .. for AU $180 per hour in Australia, or US $320 per hour elsewhere, plus expenses .. ".
The less than complimentary response of E-mail recipient Robert Campiciano, included " .. The creep has nothing to do with climate but an individual .. Go away fake .. ".
Dougy says on his LinkedIn page " .. If any reader or their employer is adversely affected financially by the carbon dioxide scam I can offer consultations, presentations and courtroom testimony for an appropriate fee and expenses .. " (https://www.linkedin.com/in/douglas-cotton-b794a871).
Well, we all have or had to somehow get a living, by whatever means possible.
Currently Dougy is boasting on his Facebook page " .. Heads are going to roll at Australian climate authorities and the CSIRO when my huge class action by major companies gets underway in 2018, and it will be world news, forcing other countries to take note of the TRUTH, as will be decided by the courts, based on evidence I present .. " (https://www.facebook.com/CSIROnews/posts/1078038705650697).
This all sounds very like what the PSI blog's founder and front man, wannabe lawyer John O'Sullivan was saying back on 28th Dec. 2010. At that time he was proposing to use PSI to take legal action against NOAA and others, using the " .. body of evidence to use in all such court actions .. the book "Slaying the Sky a Dragon .. beating the AGW fraud in the courts - It's the only serious game in town .. ".
6 years on and the game hasn't yet started, with Dougy apparently taking over and proposing a 2018 start.
Well, seeing is believing!!
Since Doug is so reluctant to provide the requested details I have invited some of those who gave 5-star reviews of his booklet so to do (although I do not really expect any response from them).
What we can be reasonably certain about is that several of his articles were reviewed by the "slayers" at the Principia Scientific International blog, which, like many other blogs that are sceptical of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change hypothesis, has banned him from further postings. In Jan. 2015 PSI blog "Senior member" Joe Postma responded to Dougy (pseudonym on that occasion "planetary physics") with " .. You have not added anything to this debate Cotton, just stole other peoples work and invented some idea .. Stop seeking approval from us Doug. We have unanimously rejected your work .. " (https://climateofsophistry.com/2015/01/13/kiehl-and-trenberth-debunk-climate-alarm/#comment-20673). So, one known group of reviewers, some (like Joe Postma) with relevant qualifications UNANIMOUSLY REJECT his "heat creep" hypothesis.
(NB: 10 minutes after Dougy's comment in that thread of exchanges, up popped a "Dr Alex Hamilton" echoing aspects of Dougy's "heat creep" hypothesis - more later.)
Those 5-star reviews of his booklet "Why it's not carbon dioxide after all" about which Dougy boasts are:
1) "Groundbreaking work" (https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R1JEOQYT22LQQ5/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1478729228s) by Sophia Wells on 8th Oct 2016.
Does anyone know who that "Sophia Wells" is and what relevant expertise she/he possesses?
2) "Short, easy MUST read" (https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R3LWOXOYLX3F49/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1478729228) by Yedidiyah on 28th March 2016.
Who is that "Yedidyah" and what relevant expertise does she/he possess?
NB: On the same day Yedidiyah also gave a 5-star rating with:
- "Worth rerading" (https://www.amazon.com/gp/review/RBWYL1JP0X4VG?ref_=glimp_1rv_cl) to the cobbled collection of blog articles published as "Slaying the Sky Dragon - Death of the Greehouse Gas Theory" (see also https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/customer-reviews/R2VT54CSOB9NNI/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B004DNWJN6) authored by Dougy's one-time buddies, the "slayers" of the PSI blog.
- "Must, MUST, read" (https://www.amazon.com/gp/review/RSCOFLZ28S80Q?ref_=glimp_1rv_cl) to "The deliberate corruption of climate science" by another "slayer" and PSI co-founder Dr. Tim Ball.
3) "Essential reading for an understanding of the basic physical processes which control planetary temperatures" (https://twww.amazon.com/review/R3JCD8X622PC34) by Doug Cotton on April 21, 2014.
Posting a review of one's own work hardly qualifies as peer review. As most authors should be fully aware, it is very difficult to spot mistakes in one's own work.
Although he posted this review of his own book, Dougy claimed that the review was actually carried out by one John Turner, B.Sc.;Dip.Ed.;M.Ed.(Hons);Grad.Dip.Ed.Studies (retired physics educator). There is a John Turner with those exact same qualifications who runs courses for senior citizens in Noosa, Queensland (https://www.u3anoosa.org.au/site/2-uncategorised/254-energy-the-planet-2017-classes) but nothing else was found by a search engine (other than the numerous references to him by Dougy. Although Dougy shies away from disclosing details of reviewers of his blog articles and booklet I hope soon to be able to pass on more information about this John Turner and his alleged review.
4) "Valid physics well supported by empirical evidence. Excellent and ground-breaking" (https://www.amazon.com/review/R3LQBVEA78VNWU) by Dr. Alex Hamilton on May 1, 2014.
(Dougy was understandably happy to refer to that review - see https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2014/10/25/dougs-post/#comment-202581).
This review and that by Doug Cotton/John Turner are the really interesting ones.
Like "Sophia", this "Dr. Alex Hamilton" has only posted one review on Amazon (at least under that name).
Dougy claims to have studied Physics at and earned a B Sc. in the 1960s from Sydney University. There is a Dr Alex Hamilton at the University of South Wales, Sydney who " .. is one of Australia's leading condensed matter physicists .. " (https://research.unsw.edu.au/people/scientia-professor-alexander-r-hamilton). Some might assume incorrectly that these are the same person, however, the UoSW Dr Hamilton confirmed by E-mail in Dec. 2014 that he is not the reviewer of Dougy's book.
So, who are those phantom reviewers, particularly "John Turner" and "Dr. Alex Hamilton" and what relevant expertise do they possess?
More later.
Since Doug is so reluctant to provide the requested details I have invited some of those who gave 5-star reviews of his booklet so to do (although I do not really expect any response from them).
What we can be reasonably certain about is that several of his articles were reviewed by the "slayers" at the Principia Scientific International blog, which, like many other blogs that are sceptical of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change hypothesis, has banned him from further postings. In Jan. 2015 PSI blog "Senior member" Joe Postma responded to Dougy (pseudonym on that occasion "planetary physics") with " .. You have not added anything to this debate Cotton, just stole other peoples work and invented some idea .. Stop seeking approval from us Doug. We have unanimously rejected your work .. " (https://climateofsophistry.com/2015/01/13/kiehl-and-trenberth-debunk-climate-alarm/#comment-20673). So, one known group of reviewers, some (like Joe Postma) with relevant qualifications UNANIMOUSLY REJECT his "heat creep" hypothesis.
(NB: 10 minutes after Dougy's comment in that thread of exchanges, up popped a "Dr Alex Hamilton" echoing aspects of Dougy's "heat creep" hypothesis - more later.)
Those 5-star reviews of his booklet "Why it's not carbon dioxide after all" about which Dougy boasts are:
1) "Groundbreaking work" (https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R1JEOQYT22LQQ5/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1478729228) by Sophia Wells on 8th Oct 2016.
Does anyone know who that "Sophia Wells" is and what relevant expertise she/he possesses?
2) "Short, easy MUST read" (https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R3LWOXOYLX3F49/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1478729228) by Yedidiyah on 28th March 2016.
Who is that "Yedidyah" and what relevant expertise does she/he possess?
NB: On the same day Yedidiyah also gave a 5-star rating with:
- "Worth rerading" (https://www.amazon.com/gp/review/RBWYL1JP0X4VG?ref_=glimp_1rv_cl) to the cobbled collection of blog articles published as "Slaying the Sky Dragon - Death of the Greehouse Gas Theory" (see also https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/customer-reviews/R2VT54CSOB9NNI/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B004DNWJN6) authored by Dougy's one-time buddies, the "slayers" of the PSI blog.
- "Must, MUST, read" (https://www.amazon.com/gp/review/RSCOFLZ28S80Q?ref_=glimp_1rv_cl) to "The deliberate corruption of climate science" by another "slayer" and PSI co-founder Dr. Tim Ball.
3) "Essential reading for an understanding of the basic physical processes which control planetary temperatures" (https://twww.amazon.com/review/R3JCD8X622PC34) by Doug Cotton on April 21, 2014.
Posting a review of one's own work hardly qualifies as peer review. As most authors should be fully aware, it is very difficult to spot mistakes in one's own work.
Although he posted this review of his own book, Dougy claimed that the review was actually carried out by one John Turner, B.Sc.;Dip.Ed.;M.Ed.(Hons);Grad.Dip.Ed.Studies (retired physics educator). There is a John Turner with those exact same qualifications who runs courses for senior citizens in Noosa, Queensland (https://www.u3anoosa.org.au/site/2-uncategorised/254-energy-the-planet-2017-classes) but nothing else was found by a search engine (other than the numerous references to him by Dougy. Although Dougy shies away from disclosing details of reviewers of his blog articles and booklet I hope soon to be able to pass on more information about this John Turner and his alleged review.
4) "Valid physics well supported by empirical evidence. Excellent and ground-breaking" (https://www.amazon.com/review/R3LQBVEA78VNWU) by Dr. Alex Hamilton on May 1, 2014.
(Dougy was understandably happy to refer to that review - see https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2014/10/25/dougs-post/#comment-202581).
This review and that by Doug Cotton/John Turner are the really interesting ones.
Like "Sophia", this "Dr. Alex Hamilton" has only posted one review on Amazon (at least under that name).
Dougy claims to have studied Physics at and earned a B Sc. in the 1960s from Sydney University. There is a Dr Alex Hamilton at the University of South Wales, Sydney who " .. is one of Australia's leading condensed matter physicists .. " (https://research.unsw.edu.au/people/scientia-professor-alexander-r-hamilton). Some might assume incorrectly that these are the same person, however, the UoSW Dr Hamilton confirmed by E-mail in Dec. 2014 that he is not the reviewer of Dougy's book.
So, who are those phantom reviewers, particularly "John Turner" and "Dr. Alex Hamilton" and what relevant expertise do they possess?
More later.
On his Facebook page he declares " .. Heads are going to roll at Australian climate authorities and the CSIRO when my huge class action by major companies gets underway in 2018, and it will be world news, forcing other countries to take note of the TRUTH, as will be decided by the courts, based on evidence I present .. " (https://www.facebook.com/CSIROnews/posts/1078038705650697).
Fantastic - or fantasy ?
John Turner made it quite clear to me in recent E-mail exchanges that he has a lot to learn about the "greenhouse effect". I have been happy give him assistance and will continue so to do for as long as he feels it necessary. We ALL have an awful lot to learn about that and the other processes and drivers of the different global climates.
In my response to a boastful E-mail by Doug on 1st Feb. to members of the Australian government and others I drew attention to Doug's threat on Facebook that " .. Heads are going to roll at Australian climate authorities and the CSIRO when my huge class action by major companies gets underway in 2018, and it will be world news, forcing other countries to take note of the TRUTH, as will be decided by the courts, based on evidence I present .. "
(https://www.facebook.com/CSIROnews/posts/1078038705650697).
The Australian government and organisation's like CSIRO, BoM, etc. must be quaking in their boots at the prospect!
I also made reference to Canadian astrophysicist Joe Postma's comment about Principia Scientific International rejecting Doug's hypothesis and that he had been banned from PSI. That reminded me of Doug's rant against PSI in April last year on the "Summary Against Modern Thought: God Acts Through His Wisdom" thread in which Doug opined that " .. God is in control of climate. He knew mankind would industrialize .. " (http://wmbriggs.com/post/18471/).
That TRUTH may come as a shock to Dr. Richard Alley, Professor of Geosciences at Penn State (http://rs.resalliance.org/2009/12/29/richard-alley-explains-how-co2-is-the-climates-biggest-control-knob/). Dr. Alley believes that CO2 is the biggest control knob and that it is humans who are turning that knob up!
Doug's references to "God" and "TRUTH" reminded me of our exchanges 5 years ago on the "Climate, etc." blog of Dr. Judith Curry, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Tech. during which I commented
QUOTE: .. I may now have a better understanding of from where Doug gets his inspiration. There may be some who would suggest a divine element " .. God gave us nuclear power for constructive, not destructive purposes, because He knew the coal would not last for ever .. " (http://theconversation.edu.au/ipcc-summary-report-on-extreme-weather-and-disasters-out-now-4374) ..
UNQUOTE (https://judithcurry.com/2012/02/09/aq/#comment-177003).
In that 2012 comment on theconversation blog Doug (describing himself as an IT Manager, not a scientist) went on to say " .. you should have rejoiced that the world will not boil and that your Maker is in control, as He has been all along. Read about Him at my site if you don't know Him through His Son, Jesus Christ, for He is the source if all wisdom and I give Him the glory .. I pray you too will know Him one day. I'll see those who do up there .. " and linked to his web-site http://SavedByTheLamb.com .
I'm not the only one who had the impression that Doug believed himself to be inspired by a higher authority. In March 2014 another blogger said of him on the "Critical Mass of Cotton" thread of highly respected CACC sceptic Anthony Watts (Meteorologist) " .. D.C. was only another run-of-the-mill .. kook (with a book .. Then .. he implied in a reply to me about 2 weeks ago that he is inspired by God .. " (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/10/critical-mass-of-cotton/#comment-1587039).
The comments on that thread are well worth reading (such as https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/10/critical-mass-of-cotton/#comment-1586972).
I have no doubt that Doug sincerely believes that " .. God is in control of climate .. " so it is possible that he has unintentionally misinterpreted scientific principles in attempting to support his belief. Perhaps Michael Mann did a similar thing, believing that CO2 was driving changes in global temperatures and unintentionally misinterpreted dendrological data in order to support that belief.
Taking into consideration Doug's dogged faith in Christianity (https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2015/12/15/yet-another-blog-kerfuffle/#comment-223967) his beliefs expressed on his religious blog's should be understandable by all and will even be accepted by many. On one of his numerous blogs Doug says " .. FOR THOSE WHO HAVE DOUBTS I know there will be many reading this site who have doubts about the truth of all this .. " (http://www.savedbythelamb.com). That's fine concerning religious leanings but blind faith or a belief in Devine guidance has no place in science.
FOOTNOTE:
John Turner graduated with majors in Physics and Chemistry, ex-member of the Australian Institute of Physics, retired teacher Physics and Chemistry and also worked in Science Education at a university.
No doubt President Trump will be eternally greatfull to Doug.
He rants on " .. You may hear from a 'Lukewarm' climate change advocate by the name of Peter Ridley .. (calling himself a History & Biography Lover) has little understanding of the relevant physics .. Nobody has produced evidence that proves my "heat creep" hypothesis wrong, and they never will .. Ridley (and those like Joseph Postma at PSI) dismiss the work of Josef Loschmidt, the brilliant 19th century physicist .. ".
I'm sure that Malcolm Turner will be so overwhelmed by Doug's revelations that he'll have them filed in the appropriate place immediately.
Let me assure Doug that I am not the person who wrote this 1-star review of his book. As much as he might hate the idea, he is (again) totally wrong, just as he would be if he thinks that he has been inspired by a higher authority to discover a science-shattering new paradigm with his "heat creep hypothesis".
Doug's hypothesis has been challenged by better qualified and experienced individuals than he, such as Dr. Lucia Liljegren" In June 2013 Dr. Liljegren said of Doug's hypothesis " .. his theories are pretty hilarious. I downloaded 'Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics' and nearly wet my pants laughing. His 'proofs' and theoretical developments start with restatements of what the 2nd law actually says. Given that, I'd like to see him do things like
1) Derive the carnot cycle efficiency. (Find the efficiency of some other power cycles: Otto, stirling what have you.)
2) Derive the expression for speed of sound in air.
3) Compute the change in entropy in a balloon expanding at constant pressure.
4) Predict (or even just postdict) the change in temperature for hot water inside a thermos.
5) Explain how or why frost is more likely to form on the ground on clear nights rather than overcast nights.
6) Explain why even if the air temperature is 72F, I feel warmer in a room with walls that are 70F rather than one with walls at -40F. (Note: my skin temperature is higher than both 70F and -40F.)
It's no wonder he wants to start with Venus or Uranus. Those cases have complications and everything is estimated. But if his notions are right he should be able to do simple problems and engineering applications where the only dominant issues are heat transfer, 2nd law and 1st law. He won'be able to do these if he distorts the 2nd law of thermo too badly and he can't hide his mistakes owing to issues like gravity! etc.. .. " (https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2013/06/05/psi-theory-destroyed/#comment-95119).
Dr. Liljegren (who I guess would give Doug's booklet a 0-star review) is more than an IT Manager who earned degrees in Physics and Maths 50 years ago. She earned a PhD, Mechanics, is/was an expert in " .. fluid mechanics at Argonne National Lab and teaches university in Ames, IA .. " (https://www.desmogblog.com/climatgate-autopsy) ,is a physics tutor (https://www.tutorsnirvana.com/tutor_profile/contact_me/?uid=straightaphysicscom) and co-authored this peer-reviewed paper (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2009JTECHA1268.1)
Another well-qualified scientist who has rejected Doug's "gravito-thermal gradient" hypothesis is meteorologist " .. Roy W. Spencer .. Ph.D. in meteorology .. University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981 .. Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville .. was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center .. received NASA's Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer's work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite .. " (http://www.drroyspencer.com/about/).
Dr. Spencer's blog was frequently spammed by Doug under different guises (e.g. see http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/03/christy-emanuel-have-a-conversation-on-climate-change/and http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/03/the-next-great-famineor-age-of-abundance/#comment-109137). On one such occasion in April 2014 Dr. Spencer commented " .. OMG! Welcome back, D O U G! What a wide variety of similar names you go by! .. " (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/#comment-111809).
In another thread of exchanges on Dr. Spencer's blog that Doug was spamming with his hypothesis, respected CACC sceptic Tom Nelson (AKA "Hockeyschtick") commented " .. Climate Researcher, Physicist, Captain Curt, Alex Hamilton, and who knows what other false identities are all pseudonyms of the notorious internet troll Doug Cotton.
Cotton is now on a mission to slur my site and others, which he threatened to do multiple times in comments at my site, since I refuse to publish any more of his self-serving promotional commentary aimed to sell his book and theories, thus Cotton was permanently banned from my site (as most others) .. " (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/12/drought-relief-shasta-lake-rises-10-ft-in-one-day/#comment-175759).
In response to a comment on the Hockey Schtick blog that " .. I suggest spam binning Doug Cotton's 140 personas .. " Doug's nemesis Joe Postma (a Canadian researcher with an MSc, Astrophysics) said " .. I highly recommend that as well. He's an infiltrator, and pretends that heat conducts down from the top of the atmosphere or some stupid thing, without showing the math for it because according to him, physics doesn't always need to be explained with math. What he does is he will clog up your comments with such reams of his spam and silly pontificating that makes it impossible for anyone to extract any valid content from honest commentators. He's a tool of the alarmist machine working to make critical assessment of the climate scam look unalluring .. " (http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/derivation-of-entire-33c-greenhouse.html?showComment=1416926532798#c5354179151854912359).
4 days later the Hockey Schtick blog moderator commented " .. Note to Doug Cotton: I've received several complaints from readers to stop allowing you to spam threads. You've made your same points many times. The purpose of this thread is my GHE derivation, not your book, so I'm not publishing any more of your comments .. " (http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/derivation-of-entire-33c-greenhouse.html?showComment=1417248176139#c5926338538700253907).
During his exchanges on Dr. Lucia Liljegren's blog (from behind the false name Physics-o-climate) Doug commented " .. Solar radiation cannot raise Earth's surface to a mean of 288K .. " (https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2013/06/05/psi-theory-destroyed/#comment-95227), but previously he acknowledged that " .. It is well known in physics that the presence of a cooler body can indeed slow that portion of the cooling of a warmer body which is itself by radiation .. " (https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2013/06/05/psi-theory-destroyed/#comment-95221).
What Doug appears reluctant to acknowledge is that if back radiation from greenhouse gases slows the cooling of the Earth's surface then the surface must start the new day at a higher temperature than it otherwise would have done. Assuming that all other conditions remain unchanged from the previous day (a wild assumption like many more of those made by CACC supporters) the new supply of solar energy into the surface must raise the surface to a higher temperature than on the previous day, i.e. warming, AKA the greenhouse effect (although not as described by Trenberth et al).
(Due to heat capacity effects of the Earth's surface there is not an immediate restoration of radiative balance in and out of the global system.)
No doubt President Trump will be eternally greatfull to Doug.
He rants on " .. You may hear from a 'Lukewarm' climate change advocate by the name of Peter Ridley .. (calling himself a History & Biography Lover) has little understanding of the relevant physics .. Nobody has produced evidence that proves my "heat creep" hypothesis wrong, and they never will .. Ridley (and those like Joseph Postma at PSI) dismiss the work of Josef Loschmidt, the brilliant 19th century physicist .. ".
I'm sure that Malcolm Turner will be so overwhelmed by Doug's revelations that he'll have them filed in the appropriate place immediately.
Let me assure Doug that I am not the person who wrote this 1-star review of his book. As much as he might hate the idea, he is (again) totally wrong, just as he would be if he thinks that he has been inspired by a higher authority to discover a science-shattering new paradigm with his "heat creep hypothesis".
Doug's hypothesis has been challenged by better qualified and experienced individuals than he, such as Dr. Lucia Liljegren" In June 2013 Dr. Liljegren said of Doug's hypothesis " .. his theories are pretty hilarious. I downloaded 'Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics' and nearly wet my pants laughing. His 'proofs' and theoretical developments start with restatements of what the 2nd law actually says. Given that, I'd like to see him do things like
1) Derive the carnot cycle efficiency. (Find the efficiency of some other power cycles: Otto, stirling what have you.)
2) Derive the expression for speed of sound in air.
3) Compute the change in entropy in a balloon expanding at constant pressure.
4) Predict (or even just postdict) the change in temperature for hot water inside a thermos.
5) Explain how or why frost is more likely to form on the ground on clear nights rather than overcast nights.
6) Explain why even if the air temperature is 72F, I feel warmer in a room with walls that are 70F rather than one with walls at -40F. (Note: my skin temperature is higher than both 70F and -40F.)
It's no wonder he wants to start with Venus or Uranus. Those cases have complications and everything is estimated. But if his notions are right he should be able to do simple problems and engineering applications where the only dominant issues are heat transfer, 2nd law and 1st law. He won'be able to do these if he distorts the 2nd law of thermo too badly and he can't hide his mistakes owing to issues like gravity! etc.. .. " (https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2013/06/05/psi-theory-destroyed/#comment-95119).
Dr. Liljegren (who I guess would give Doug's booklet a 0-star review) is more than an IT Manager who earned degrees in Physics and Maths 50 years ago. She earned a PhD, Mechanics, is/was an expert in " .. fluid mechanics at Argonne National Lab and teaches university in Ames, IA .. " (https://www.desmogblog.com/climatgate-autopsy) ,is a physics tutor (https://www.tutorsnirvana.com/tutor_profile/contact_me/?uid=straightaphysicscom) and co-authored this peer-reviewed paper (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2009JTECHA1268.1)
Another well-qualified scientist who has rejected Doug's "gravito-thermal gradient" hypothesis is meteorologist " .. Roy W. Spencer .. Ph.D. in meteorology .. University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981 .. Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville .. was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center .. received NASA's Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer's work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite .. " (http://www.drroyspencer.com/about/).
Dr. Spencer's blog was frequently spammed by Doug under different guises (e.g. see http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/03/christy-emanuel-have-a-conversation-on-climate-change/and http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/03/the-next-great-famineor-age-of-abundance/#comment-109137). On one such occasion in April 2014 Dr. Spencer commented " .. OMG! Welcome back, D O U G! What a wide variety of similar names you go by! .. " (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/#comment-111809).
In another thread of exchanges on Dr. Spencer's blog that Doug was spamming with his hypothesis, respected CACC sceptic Tom Nelson (AKA "Hockeyschtick") commented " .. Climate Researcher, Physicist, Captain Curt, Alex Hamilton, and who knows what other false identities are all pseudonyms of the notorious internet troll Doug Cotton.
Cotton is now on a mission to slur my site and others, which he threatened to do multiple times in comments at my site, since I refuse to publish any more of his self-serving promotional commentary aimed to sell his book and theories, thus Cotton was permanently banned from my site (as most others) .. " (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/12/drought-relief-shasta-lake-rises-10-ft-in-one-day/#comment-175759).
In response to a comment on the Hockey Schtick blog that " .. I suggest spam binning Doug Cotton's 140 personas .. " Doug's nemesis Joe Postma (a Canadian researcher with an MSc, Astrophysics) said " .. I highly recommend that as well. He's an infiltrator, and pretends that heat conducts down from the top of the atmosphere or some stupid thing, without showing the math for it because according to him, physics doesn't always need to be explained with math. What he does is he will clog up your comments with such reams of his spam and silly pontificating that makes it impossible for anyone to extract any valid content from honest commentators. He's a tool of the alarmist machine working to make critical assessment of the climate scam look unalluring .. " (http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/derivation-of-entire-33c-greenhouse.html?showComment=1416926532798#c5354179151854912359).
4 days later the Hockey Schtick blog moderator commented " .. Note to Doug Cotton: I've received several complaints from readers to stop allowing you to spam threads. You've made your same points many times. The purpose of this thread is my GHE derivation, not your book, so I'm not publishing any more of your comments .. " (http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/derivation-of-entire-33c-greenhouse.html?showComment=1417248176139#c5926338538700253907).
During his exchanges on Dr. Lucia Liljegren's blog (from behind the false name Physics-o-climate) Doug commented " .. Solar radiation cannot raise Earth's surface to a mean of 288K .. " (https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2013/06/05/psi-theory-destroyed/#comment-95227), but previously he acknowledged that " .. It is well known in physics that the presence of a cooler body can indeed slow that portion of the cooling of a warmer body which is itself by radiation .. " (https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2013/06/05/psi-theory-destroyed/#comment-95221).
What Doug appears reluctant to acknowledge is that if back radiation from greenhouse gases slows the cooling of the Earth's surface then the surface must start the new day at a higher temperature than it otherwise would have done. Assuming that all other conditions remain unchanged from the previous day (a wild assumption like many more of those made by CACC supporters) the new supply of solar energy into the surface must raise the surface to a higher temperature than on the previous day, i.e. warming, AKA the greenhouse effect (although not as described by Trenberth et al).
(Due to heat capacity effects of the Earth's surface there is not an immediate restoration of radiative balance in and out of the global system.)
PS: I am not Peter Ridley, nor do I know him other than what I have read here. Based on that, I think I will take the association as a compliment. :)
PPS: Anybody want to buy a book. I'll sell it cheap.
PS: I am not Peter Ridley, nor do I know him other than what I have read here. Based on that, I think I will take the association as a compliment. :)
PPS: Anybody want to buy a book. I'll sell it cheap.
I've had 4 E-mails from him in response (much in line with what he rants above) but no mention of any respected reviewer who has supported him. I won't be holding my breath waiting for that because I don't believe that one exists.
Professor Johnson included his analysis in the two chapters which he contributed to a book published in Nov. 2010 under the title "Slaying the sky dragon: Death of the greenhouse gas theory". That cobbled collection of blog articles was the work of founding members of the Principia Scientific International group of bloggers, of which Doug Cotton was once proud to be a member.
Subsequently PSI blog members rejected Doug's "heat creep" hypothesis and banned him from the blog (see my previous comment on 20th Jan. concerning "Senior Member" Joe Postma's " .. Stop seeking approval from us Doug. We have unanimously rejected your work .. ).
The Slayers' book, like Doug's, has been scorned by both supporters and sceptics of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) scam. One reviewer of the "Slayers" book made comments specifically about Claes Johnson's two chapters which could well have been directed at Doug and his "21st Century New Paradigm Shift In Climate Change Science" (http://principia-scientific.org/the-21st-century-new-paradigm-shift-in-climate-change-science/) QUOTE: ..
.. Martin A: You cannot debunk global warming pseudo-science with gobbledegook science .. Immediately my alarm bells started sounding. Anyone who announces that he will replace the physics of the twentieth century with a new alternative immediately runs the risk of being thought to harbor delusions of grandeur .. This is simply rubbish .. " (https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R51AZXLVRA5AG/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_rvw_btm?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0982773412).
FOOTNOTE:
For an idea of Doug Cotton's many business ventures see:-
http://www.australianpracticesoftware.com/
http://www.medical-software-australia.com/about.html
Http://www.acclaim-soft.com/
http://www.dental-software-australia.com/
http://www.newzealandviews.com/
http://www.oz-sms.com/
http://www.ozviews.com/
http://www.savedbythelamb.com/
http://www.slower-aging.com/
http://www.tasmania-holiday.com/
Doug makes some amazing claims, e.g. " .. With just one $55 consultation here in our Sydney Office you will learn how to prevent cancer, diabetes, arthritis, heart disease, Alzheimer's disease and other life threatening diseases by minimising oxidative stress and inflammation that are known to cause premature aging .. " (http://ageslowly.homestead.com).
Saved by the Doug, perhaps!!!!
Well, we all have to scrape a living somehow.
Dougy certainly is a "jack-of-all-trades" who aspires to International recognition. I do think that he will achieve that, but not in the way that he believes.
In my previous comment I listed several of the business ventures in which Doug Cotton is involved. Here are some more:
- Chiropractor (https://north-parramatta.cylex.com.au/company/mr--doug-cotton---chiropractor-19199644.html),
- Wedding Photographer (http://www.douglascotton.com/photography.html),
- Hair Dresser (http://www.hotfrog.com.au/business/nsw/north-rocks/hair-fashion-australia),
In Doug's LinkedIn profile he surprisingly mentions only one when summarising his various careers over 50-years as " .. Retired IT Businessman / Part-time Educator / Now Researcher in Atmospheric & Subterrestrial Physics Self-employed consultant .. ". He proceeds to boast about how he has " .. explained for the first time in world literature .. heat transfer mechanisms in planetary atmospheres and even below any solid surface .. correct and ground-breaking science that will eventually have profound consequences in climatology .. It will blow your mind .. ".
Doug offers " .. consultations, presentations and courtroom testimony for an appropriate fee and expenses .. Douglas J Cotton B.Sc.(physics & math), B.A. (econ), Dip.Bus.Admin (former Researcher Officer for Government .. part-time Educator and now Researcher into Atmospheric and Sub-terrestrial Physics .. ".
Next Doug outlines his brief period of brilliance as a member of the blog " ..
Principia Scientific International 2012 - 2013 (1 year) Research into atmospheric physics .. a breakthrough hypothesis that .. refutes the greenhouse conjecture ... a correct explanation of all planetary temperatures and the necessary heat transfer mechanisms not previously explained correctly in any other world literature .. ".
Doug concludes with a mention of his " .. Causes .. President of local group Gideons International in Australia June 2014 - Present .. Christian evangelism .. " (https://au.linkedin.com/in/douglas-cotton-b794a871).
NB: " .. Our members are dedicated to saving the lost through personal witnessing and the distribution of God's Word .. " (https://www.gideons.org.au/about-gideons-in-australia).
Dear old Dougy keeps on getting things totally wrong. On 5th Feb. he was deluding himself about me being "AHistory&BiographyLover" who wrote this excellent review of his self-published booklet. On 6th he was deluding himself that " .. Young Peter, Your childish 'understanding' of radiation and heat transfer is totally and utterly pathetic .. Go back to Primary School - you've learned nothing more since you were brainwashed .. ".
Having tried (and failed) to win any tricks using his "B.Sc.(Physics)", "B.A.(Econ.) and Dip.Bus.Admin." cards Doug then tried to play his "sage" card by signing off as " .. Doug (71) .. ".
(In my response I trumped his "sage" with my "sager" - " .. Pete (79) .. ").
Responding to one of his earlier rants I had tried to give him a hint as to why his claim that blackbody radiation " .. NEVER makes anything hotter than the effective temperature of the source which, in the case of the Sun's 168W/m^2 of direct radiation reaching the surface is like that of an iceberg at -40C .. " was flawed.
I gave him the simple thought experiment of comparing the effect on a human body of covering it with a blanket, using as that body:
1) himself, and
2) a corpse.
Rather than applying what perhaps he thinks is his superior intellect to considering carefully what was the purpose of the experiment and what relevant conclusions can be drawn from it's results (as any real scientist would) Doug simply turned up his nose at it. Perhaps if I had suggested using first a normal blanket then an electric blanket on the corpse Doug might have caught on.
Back in 2011 I had a similar discussion with John O'Sullivan, founding member and front man of the PSI blog, of which Doug used to be a proud member and climate researcher, before he was banned. Maybe if Doug has a look at the ensuing comment he'll catch on - https://judithcurry.com/2010/11/30/physics-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect/#comment-36279 - it's not too difficult, even for someone heading into their second childhood).
John O'Sullivan is another non-scientist with delusions of grandeur who was boasting in 2010 about using PSI to take legal action against government agencies in English speaking countries, with the "Slayers" book as evidence. Now we have Doug boasting (" .. Heads are going to roll at Australian climate authorities and the CSIRO when my huge class action by major companies gets underway in 2018 .. " - https://www.facebook.com/CSIROnews/posts/1078038705650697).
It has never happened for John and I predict a similar outcome for Doug and his team " .. of high profile physicists and climatologists .. " (https://au.linkedin.com/in/douglas-cotton-b794a871) that he has yet to assemble.
John O'Sullivan made similar noises seven years ago, saying to his assembled group of "slayers" on 28th December " .. I've staked my reputation, sweat and own money on beating the AGW fraud in the courts-its the ONLY SERIOUS GAME IN TOWN .. " (http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/do-industrial-countries-absorb-co2/#comment-86483). Two peas in a pod?
PS: I am still waiting for Doug to name just ONE internationally respected high profile physicist or climatologist who accepts his hypothesis. So far - nothing, zilch, nada, nichts, rien, nichego !!!!!
Come on Dougy, what's stopping you?
Best regards,
Pete (79) EX-CEng. MIEE. MIERE, APEO, ETC ETC ETC. (For Dougy's benefit).
What ridiculous nonsense. Lots of physicists are working in climatology, on both the alarmist and the skeptical/lukewarmist sides.
On the alarmist side there's Richard Muller, Jerry Mitrovica, and many others.
On the skeptical/lukewarmist side there's Will Happer, Richard Lindzen, Willie Soon, Freeman Dyson, and many others.
They don't agree about much, but they do agree on one thing: Doug Cotton's confused gibberish is wrong.
How odd. I thought you specialized in wedding photography:
http://www.douglascotton.com/photography.html
and importing fashionable hair extensions:
http://www.hotfrog.com.au/business/nsw/north-rocks/hair-fashion-australia
and how to "prevent cancer, diabetes, arthritis, heart disease, Alzheimer's disease and other life threatening diseases:"
http://ageslowly.homestead.com/
and computer software for medical practices:
http://www.australianpracticesoftware.com/
and bulk text messaging:
http://www.oz-sms.com/
You have a very strange notion of what it means to "specialize," Mr. Cotton.
1. The word for "one-way independent pencil (ray) of radiation" is "photon."
2. The statement is false.
Thermodynamics is statistical: because warm bodies "export" more energy than cool bodies do, when warm and cool bodies interact, whether by contact or exchange of radiation, the NET flow of heat is from the warm body to the cool body.
When two bodies, one warm and one cool, interact by exchange of radiation, there's no "filter" which prevents the warm body from absorbing photons emitted by the cool body, and thereby being warmed by them. In fact, that happens continually. The reason the warm body cools and the cool body warms is that there are MORE photons emitted by the warm body, and hence MORE photons absorbed by the cool body, than go in the opposite direction.
This is very elementary. Any competent high school chemistry or physics teacher should understand it and be able to explain it.
It has been explained to Mr. Cotton hundreds of times, by many scientists, yet he persists in his confusion.
For Mr. Cotton's claim to be true, there would have to be information attached to individual photons, recording the temperature of the body which emitted them. A warm body would have to refuse to absorb photons emitted by a cooler body, which means that the warmer body would have to be able to somehow distinguish between photons of the same wavelength (color) which came from a cooler body, and photons of exactly the same wavelength which came from warmer bodies. That's obviously impossible.
But impossibility is no impediment to Mr. Cotton's convictions. Mr. Cotton is confused because he insists upon being confused. Perhaps he belongs to the White Queen school of physics, which believes six impossible things before breakfast, each day, for practice.
1. The word for "one-way independent pencil (ray) of radiation" is "photon."
2. The statement is false.
Thermodynamics is statistical: because warm bodies "export" more energy than cool bodies do, when warm and cool bodies interact, whether by contact or exchange of radiation, the NET flow of heat is from the warm body to the cool body.
When two bodies, one warm and one cool, interact by exchange of radiation, there's no "filter" which prevents the warm body from absorbing photons emitted by the cool body, and thereby being warmed by them. In fact, that happens continually. The reason the warm body cools and the cool body warms is that there are MORE photons emitted by the warm body, and hence MORE photons absorbed by the cool body, than go in the opposite direction.
This is very elementary. Any competent high school chemistry or physics teacher should understand it and be able to explain it.
It has been explained to Mr. Cotton hundreds of times, by many scientists, yet he persists in his confusion.
For Mr. Cotton's claim to be true, there would have to be information attached to individual photons, recording the temperature of the body which emitted them. A warm body would have to refuse to absorb photons emitted by a cooler body, which means that the warmer body would have to be able to somehow distinguish between photons of the same wavelength (color) which came from a cooler body, and photons of exactly the same wavelength which came from warmer bodies. That's obviously impossible.
But impossibility is no impediment to Mr. Cotton's convictions. Mr. Cotton is confused because he insists upon being confused. Perhaps he belongs to the White Queen school of physics, which believes six impossible things before breakfast, each day, for practice.
On 9th I had another 3, but at least one of them had something interesting in it, relating to that "Doug Cotton - chiropractor" issue, about which Doug protests " .. Peter Ridley: I have never been a chiropractor, nor had a post office box in Parramatta, so your source is flawed .. ".
Let's try to put to rest that and all of Doug's business interests before returning to the important matter if his blinkered attitude towards the inappropriately named "greenhouse effect".
Doug twice forwarded to me what appears to be the contents of a communication from that "flawed" source of information about Doug Cotton the chiropractor. Cyclex Business Directory thanked the recipient (presumably our Dougy Cotton) for his notification and advised that the entry had now been removed from their database but that search engines might continue indicating the existence of the business and linking to the original page.
I had been taken to that "flawed" source by searching on the contact 'phone number that is provided for several of the businesses that Doug is/was involved with, e.g:
- his "ageslowly" web-site which offers " .. just one $55 consultation here in our Sydney Office .. learn how to prevent cancer, diabetes, arthritis, heart disease, Alzheimer's disease and other life threatening diseases .. A comprehensive diet and supplementation program will be designed for your individual needs at a cost which could be as little as $3.30 a day .. Phone 9873 3300 now to book day or night .. " (http://ageslowly.homestead.com),
- the sexylingeriefavtory web-site which advises " .. Where to buy beauty's love sexy lingerie? .. Contact:Doug & Yoice Cotton Tel: +612 98733300 (https://sexylingeriefactory.wordpress.com/2012/10/31/where-to-buy-beautys-love-sexy-lingerie/).
As Cyclex warned, Google of "cotton" and "9873 3300" continues to bring up in the list " .. Mr. Doug Cotton - Chiropractor. NSW, Po Box 43392151 North Parramatta 02 9873 3300 .. ".
On 6th Feb. I had followed the associated link to the relevant web-page and there was a Doug Cotton in the list of Parramatta chiropractors with a link to his advert. Today he is not mentioned in that list and following the link that I posted on 7th brings up the message " .. We are sorry, The page you requested .. no longer exists .. " (https://north-parramatta.cylex.com.au/company/mr--doug-cotton---chiropractor-19199644.html).
Well, at least it appears that:
- there was a Doug Cotton advertising his services as a chiropractor in North Parramatta, which is only a few miles from North Rocks, to which our Doug Cotton appears to have moved in 2009 (http://dougyo.homestead.com) and
- our Doug Cotton recently asked for that advertisement to be removed.
It puzzles me why our Doug Cotton would go to the trouble of getting that advert removed and risk upsetting the Doug Cotton who was offering his services as a chiropractor if that advert was not our Doug's.
In 2003 there was a web business (http://www.canoncameras.com.au) selling cameras with " .. Administrative Contact: Cotton, Douglas .. West Pennant Hills 2125, N/A AU .. " (https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/6569479 and https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/627831). Was that our Doug Cotton? We know that he has/had an interest in a photographic business"
As Doug acknowledged in his 2012 PSI blog article when discussing his 1960s degrees in Physics and Maths " .. the lure of business subsequently diverted me to an Economics degree and Business Administration course .. " (http://www.climate-change-theory.com/psi_radiated_energy.pdf)
You may recall my repeated unsuccessful requests of Doug to name the reviewers of his articles and their affiliations. That article reveals that it was reviewed by:
- Johannes (Hans) Cornelis Schreuder, the PSI blog's "CFO", about whom Google reveals little, other than that he lives in East Anglia, runs his own blog, is a Director of a tourist guide company BritishDotcom Ltd. was a director of Starcap IT Ltd (dissolved 2009) and is a retired analytical chemist,
- Alan Siddons, a former radio chemist, founding member if the PSI blog and main author of the cobbled collection of blog articles "Slaying the sky dragon: Death of the greenhouse gas theory" and
- Dr Matthias Kleespies, a biologist, Environmental scientist and climate researcher who has been an in-out-in member of the PSI blog.
In my opinion none of these fit the bill as an internationally respected high profile physicist or climatologist, which Doug has yet to identify as a reviewer his book or of any of his blog articles on which the book is based.
" .. Regarding IR absorption: In the atmosphere, the atoms and molecules are diffuse enough that they do exhibit characteristic transitional energies (vibrational, rotational, electronic, etc.). Hence, they tend to absorb at favored wavelengths corresponding to those energy transitions .. Likewise, they emit energy at those wavelengths .. ".
With his SLoT(ted) blinkers firmly in place Doug chooses to completely ignore those simple truths about atmospheric gases. During his bombardment of E-mails he proclaimed that I was naive, gullible, don't understand the physics relating to the inappropriately named "greenhouse effect", am impressed by qualifications and simply accept what I am told by those in authority.
Well, Doug is as entitled to his opinions as the rest of us.
Doug's following E-mail statements appear to me to underpin his confusion over the inappropriately named "greenhouse gas" issue and why he is so adamant that there is no such thing as the "greenhouse effect":
- " .. The mean solar flux reaching Earth's surface is about 168W/m^2 and the effective temperature of that is -40C .. ",
- " .. My earlier email today clearly refutes the whole conjecture that greenhouse gases could raise the surface temperature .. " and
- " .. THE SURFACE TEMPERATURE IS NOT PRIMARIlY DETERMINED BY RADIATION .. ".
Because if his SLoT blinkers Doug appears to completely ignore that fundamental source of the Earths energy, the Sun. That may be why he has no comprehension of what my thought experiment involving live/dead bodies and ordinary/electric blankets is intended to demonstrate.
I don't think that the Earth's surface would be very warm if the Sun was suddenly switched off!! - any more than would a corpse under an unplugged electric blanket.
By "effective temperature" I assume that he is referring to the temperature of a black body that would emit that same level of radiative flux and by "raise the surface temperature" he means directly, without any other source of energy into the surface.
One thing that keeps on puzzling me is how Doug does not cotten on to what I'm trying to get him realise when he has repeatedly acknowledged that back radiation from atmosphere to surface SLOWS THE RATE OF SURFACE COOLING.
I have repeatedly tried to get Doug to remove those blinkers and start learning about how those atmospheric gases that Historyandbiograohylover talked about react to e/m radiation.
He appears to believe that the 168W/m2 insolation cannot raise an absorbing surface above the effective temperature of -40C but ignores the fact that the global system of atmo-/geo-/bio-/Aqua-/cryo-spheres is nothing like the theoretical black body (there's that damned blanket analogy again).
I have unsuccessfully tried to persuade Doug to learn something about the "greenhouse effect" that he denies exists by:
- taking a careful look at the OLR spectra produced from real measurements by satellites at 70km looking down on Earth. These are readily available on the Internet and better still, from Professor Grant Petty's excellent book "A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation", Chapter 8.
- using a proven physics-based simulator of the Earth's atmosphere, such as MODTRAN, to find out the effect of "greenhouse gases" on OLR.
Doug could learn a lot by carefully studying the information provided on the excellent web-site run by Dr. Jack Barrett and Dr. David Bellamy (http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/), particularly pages 8 to 16, 19 to 23 and 28. If he would only acknowledge that he knows very little about the processes and drivers of the different global climates that would be a big step forward. He shouldn't feel embarrassed by that because he is in good company. (Jack Barrett's book "Global Warming:The Human Contribution" is an excellent introduction to the subject and well worth the 2 quid, unlike Doug's effort, which is twice the price).
Doug doggedly refuses to remove his blinkers and have a go with the MODTRAN tool made available at the University of Chicago web-site, which also provides details of how and why the tool was developed (on a foundation of proven physics).
Doug has recently started promoting retired University of Winnipeg Professor of Geography, Dr. Tim Ball as an authority on the CACC issue. Tim Ball, who retired from academia decades ago, was a co-author of the cobbled collection of blog articles "Slaying the sky dragon: Death of the greenhouse gas theory" and "Chairman" of the PSI blog (of which Doug was once proud to be a member until they rejected his "heat creep" hypothesis). Like the PSI blog's "CEO and Acting Legal Counsel" John O'Sullivan, Dr. Ball has made some questionable claims about his career (e.g. See http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Tim_Ball and https://www.desmogblog.com/timothy-f-ball-tim-ball).
As you are probably aware Dr. Ball is currently defending a defamation claim made against him by Professor Michael (Hockey stick) Mann. Dougy claimed in an E-mail yesterday that on 8th Feb. during a QandA session in front of several hundred witnesses he had offered Dr. Mann AU $50,000 to prove him wrong. Doug then went on to rant to me " .. PS: I can prove that I hold shares on Wall Street and NASDAQ worth over AU $50,000 in total and I could sell these or even transfer them to someone in the US for example .. ".
I have to wonder if Doug is having an adverse reaction to one of his anti-ageing potions (http://www.slower-aging.com).
" .. Regarding IR absorption: In the atmosphere, the atoms and molecules are diffuse enough that they do exhibit characteristic transitional energies (vibrational, rotational, electronic, etc.). Hence, they tend to absorb at favored wavelengths corresponding to those energy transitions .. Likewise, they emit energy at those wavelengths .. ".
With his SLoT(ted) blinkers firmly in place Doug chooses to completely ignore those simple truths about atmospheric gases. During his bombardment of E-mails he proclaimed that I was naive, gullible, don't understand the physics relating to the inappropriately named "greenhouse effect", am impressed by qualifications and simply accept what I am told by those in authority.
Well, Doug is as entitled to his opinions as the rest of us.
Doug's following E-mail statements appear to me to underpin his confusion over the inappropriately named "greenhouse gas" issue and why he is so adamant that there is no such thing as the "greenhouse effect":
- " .. The mean solar flux reaching Earth's surface is about 168W/m^2 and the effective temperature of that is -40C .. ",
- " .. My earlier email today clearly refutes the whole conjecture that greenhouse gases could raise the surface temperature .. " and
- " .. THE SURFACE TEMPERATURE IS NOT PRIMARIlY DETERMINED BY RADIATION .. ".
Because if his SLoT blinkers Doug appears to completely ignore that fundamental source of the Earths energy, the Sun. That may be why he has no comprehension of what my thought experiment involving live/dead bodies and ordinary/electric blankets is intended to demonstrate.
I don't think that the Earth's surface would be very warm if the Sun was suddenly switched off!! - any more than would a corpse under an unplugged electric blanket.
By "effective temperature" I assume that he is referring to the temperature of a black body that would emit that same level of radiative flux and by "raise the surface temperature" he means directly, without any other source of energy into the surface.
One thing that keeps on puzzling me is how Doug does not cotten on to what I'm trying to get him realise when he has repeatedly acknowledged that back radiation from atmosphere to surface SLOWS THE RATE OF SURFACE COOLING.
I have repeatedly tried to get Doug to remove those blinkers and start learning about how those atmospheric gases that Historyandbiograohylover talked about react to e/m radiation.
He appears to believe that the 168W/m2 insolation cannot raise an absorbing surface above the effective temperature of -40C but ignores the fact that the global system of atmo-/geo-/bio-/Aqua-/cryo-spheres is nothing like the theoretical black body (there's that damned blanket analogy again).
I have unsuccessfully tried to persuade Doug to learn something about the "greenhouse effect" that he denies exists by:
- taking a careful look at the OLR spectra produced from real measurements by satellites at 70km looking down on Earth. These are readily available on the Internet and better still, from Professor Grant Petty's excellent book "A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation", Chapter 8.
- using a proven physics-based simulator of the Earth's atmosphere, such as MODTRAN, to find out the effect of "greenhouse gases" on OLR.
Doug could learn a lot by carefully studying the information provided on the excellent web-site run by Dr. Jack Barrett and Dr. David Bellamy (http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/), particularly pages 8 to 16, 19 to 23 and 28. If he would only acknowledge that he knows very little about the processes and drivers of the different global climates that would be a big step forward. He shouldn't feel embarrassed by that because he is in good company. (Jack Barrett's book "Global Warming:The Human Contribution" is an excellent introduction to the subject and well worth the 2 quid, unlike Doug's effort, which is twice the price).
Doug doggedly refuses to remove his blinkers and have a go with the MODTRAN tool made available at the University of Chicago web-site, which also provides details of how and why the tool was developed (on a foundation of proven physics).
Doug has recently started promoting retired University of Winnipeg Professor of Geography, Dr. Tim Ball as an authority on the CACC issue. Tim Ball, who retired from academia decades ago, was a co-author of the cobbled collection of blog articles "Slaying the sky dragon: Death of the greenhouse gas theory" and "Chairman" of the PSI blog (of which Doug was once proud to be a member until they rejected his "heat creep" hypothesis). Like the PSI blog's "CEO and Acting Legal Counsel" John O'Sullivan, Dr. Ball has made some questionable claims about his career (e.g. See http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Tim_Ball and https://www.desmogblog.com/timothy-f-ball-tim-ball).
As you are probably aware Dr. Ball is currently defending a defamation claim made against him by Professor Michael (Hockey stick) Mann. Dougy claimed in an E-mail yesterday that on 8th Feb. during a QandA session in front of several hundred witnesses he had offered Dr. Mann AU $50,000 to prove him wrong. Doug then went on to rant to me " .. PS: I can prove that I hold shares on Wall Street and NASDAQ worth over AU $50,000 in total and I could sell these or even transfer them to someone in the US for example .. ".
I have to wonder if Doug is having an adverse reaction to one of his anti-ageing potions (http://www.slower-aging.com).
I am a philosopher and I specialize in argumentation. I and my entire philosophy club follow the assertion that our department head taught us over 47-years ago: "You don't have to be an astrophysicist to find a flaw in their arguments." (This we all did in the way they have attempted to date the age of the universe. That stands. They are still attempting to date it in the same manner as they were 30-years ago, which is clearly flawed.)
That said, this is the standard argument of those in the A Position who claim "the planet is heating up due to excess C02, Nitrogen, and other gases brought about by humans burning fossil fuels." I don't suppose it's changed much since our philosophy club was challenging them to present some evidence for their claims, and especially some correlating evidence. Which they would not do forty-years ago, and as far as I know have not done so yet.
Argument of Those Who Believe the Planet is Heating Up Due to Humans Burning Fossil Fuels
Our atmosphere is a closed system that traps C02, Nitrogen, and other gases that have the potential to cause the earth's temperature to rise. (They have over the years, and strangely so, zeroed in on C02. Little is heard of "nitrogen and other gases.")
The more of these substances the earth emits the more the system will cause the earth's temperatures to rise.
Therefore, humans continuing to burn fossil fuels will induce this problem to dangerous levels.
That's about it, is it not, gents?
To be perfectly honest, I've not seen anyone touch the major premise of this argument, much less correlate it to the conclusion. Let's work a little on the former, the major premise, however, before examining whether or not the A Position has correlated it to the conclusion, which let me tell you, requires quite a bit of work that has not been put forth by those in the A Position of this argument.
This is one of several papers we've read that puts forth an excellent challenge to those in the A Position. Believe me, folks, if the planet is about to boil over because of humans driving cars and warming themselves the way they are currently doing, I for one want to know it.
So neither I nor any of the others has a particular side in this debate, other than to repeat myself: I have yet to see the A Position do much more than attempt to discredit and demonize the Challenging Side. Those type of actions by one side of an argument always perks our ears to think in this manner: Danger! Danger! False statements absent empirical evidence at hand!
Many of us have read this pair's challenge to the A Position several times, and we can find no flaw in their work. One of their conclusions is that we do not live in a closed system. The A Position immediately attacked the two by claiming they worked for "Big Oil." (The old "guilt by association" ploy, another one that perks our ears.) Our fellow philosophers in Europe checked that out and it is a false assertion. They are neither funded by oil companies, nor does either one of them work for them.
The attempt to refute the paper finally came out and its authors claimed the two authors "did not understand the 2nd Law." (The old "you're stupid"; "you are thus discredited" attempt to rebut. The Challengers quite properly replied with questions for the A Position, which, as far as I know have gone unanswered. All reasons for a thinking, reason person to be extremely wary of the A Position's claims.)
Here is the paper, which I have not see rebutted other than as noted above, by slander and attempted demonization of the two authors.
Gerlich & Tsch paper
https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
Excellent commentary on the Gerlich & Tsch paper (This gentleman certainly understands the tactics used by the A Position to discredit and demonize their Challengers.
http://www.tech-know-group.com/papers/Falsification_of_the_Atmospheric_CO2_Greenhouse_Effects.pdf
I am a philosopher and I specialize in argumentation. I and my entire philosophy club follow the assertion that our department head taught us over 47-years ago: "You don't have to be an astrophysicist to find a flaw in their arguments." (This we all did in the way they have attempted to date the age of the universe. That stands. They are still attempting to date it in the same manner as they were 30-years ago, which is clearly flawed.)
That said, this is the standard argument of those in the A Position who claim "the planet is heating up due to excess C02, Nitrogen, and other gases brought about by humans burning fossil fuels." I don't suppose it's changed much since our philosophy club was challenging them to present some evidence for their claims, and especially some correlating evidence. Which they would not do forty-years ago, and as far as I know have not done so yet.
Argument of Those Who Believe the Planet is Heating Up Due to Humans Burning Fossil Fuels
Our atmosphere is a closed system that traps C02, Nitrogen, and other gases that have the potential to cause the earth's temperature to rise. (They have over the years, and strangely so, zeroed in on C02. Little is heard of "nitrogen and other gases.")
The more of these substances the earth emits the more the system will cause the earth's temperatures to rise.
Therefore, humans continuing to burn fossil fuels will induce this problem to dangerous levels.
That's about it, is it not, gents?
To be perfectly honest, I've not seen anyone touch the major premise of this argument, much less correlate it to the conclusion. Let's work a little on the former, the major premise, however, before examining whether or not the A Position has correlated it to the conclusion, which let me tell you, requires quite a bit of work that has not been put forth by those in the A Position of this argument.
This is one of several papers we've read that puts forth an excellent challenge to those in the A Position. Believe me, folks, if the planet is about to boil over because of humans driving cars and warming themselves the way they are currently doing, I for one want to know it.
So neither I nor any of the others has a particular side in this debate, other than to repeat myself: I have yet to see the A Position do much more than attempt to discredit and demonize the Challenging Side. Those type of actions by one side of an argument always perks our ears to think in this manner: Danger! Danger! False statements absent empirical evidence at hand!
Many of us have read this pair's challenge to the A Position several times, and we can find no flaw in their work. One of their conclusions is that we do not live in a closed system. The A Position immediately attacked the two by claiming they worked for "Big Oil." (The old "guilt by association" ploy, another one that perks our ears.) Our fellow philosophers in Europe checked that out and it is a false assertion. They are neither funded by oil companies, nor does either one of them work for them.
The attempt to refute the paper finally came out and its authors claimed the two authors "did not understand the 2nd Law." (The old "you're stupid"; "you are thus discredited" attempt to rebut. The Challengers quite properly replied with questions for the A Position, which, as far as I know have gone unanswered. All reasons for a thinking, reason person to be extremely wary of the A Position's claims.)
Here is the paper, which I have not see rebutted other than as noted above, by slander and attempted demonization of the two authors.
Gerlich & Tsch paper
https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
Excellent commentary on the Gerlich & Tsch paper (This gentleman certainly understands the tactics used by the A Position to discredit and demonize their Challengers.
http://www.tech-know-group.com/papers/Falsification_of_the_Atmospheric_CO2_Greenhouse_Effects.pdf
"Nitrogen," Lily? Nitrogen is not a greenhouse gas, and it is not produced by burning fossil fuels.
The reason that nitrogen is not a "greenhouse gas" (GHG) is because it is transparent, to infrared as well as visible light. CO2 is a GHG because it is not transparent to far infrared. It absorbs strongly at around 15,000 nm.
Scientists skeptical of climate alarmism generally understand that GHGs do cause warming of the Earth, by well-understood mechanisms. However, the direct warming effect of anthropogenic CO2 is modest and benign. Among scientists, the argument between climate alarmists and skeptics is not over whether the greenhouse effect is real, it is over it's size, and especially over whether factors such as positive (amplifying) feedbacks could make anthropogenic greenhouse warming large enough to be destructive.
Note: when I refer to "skeptics," I'm talking about mainstream skeptical scientists, not Doug Cotton. He is hopelessly confused.
The Gerlich & Tscheuschner paper is also a confused mess. I didn't read the whole thing, but it is apparent from the first few pages that they do not even understand how the (misnamed) "greenhouse effect" works.
They began, in chapter 1.1, with a complete non sequitur: a lengthy discussion of thermal conductivity of gases, which is completely irrelevant to the greenhouse effect. In fact, thermal conductivity of the atmosphere is inconsequential for just about everything, except perhaps the insulating properties of closed-cell foams, because heat transport in the atmosphere is dominated by the water cycle and air movement.
Their chapter 1.2 began with a straw man: "greenhouse effect [is] a mechanism heavily relying on the assumption that radiative heat transfer clearly dominates over the other forms of heat transfer such as thermal conductivity, convection, condensation et cetera"
That's nonsense. Although radiation is the only way that energy leaves the Earth (when considered including its atmosphere), the main ways that heat is removed from the Earth's surface are via convection and the water cycle, as just about every scientist knows.
CO2 causes atmospheric warming by acting as a dye or colorant. It tints the atmosphere. The tint is in the far IR (around 15,000 nm), which your eyes can't see, so it doesn't look tinted to the human eye, but it is tinted nevertheless.
If you've ever stepped from a light-colored sidewalk onto a black asphalt road, in bare feet, on a summer day, you are painfully aware of the fact that color can affect temperature!
The Earth emits as much radiant energy as it absorbs, but since nearly all of the energy emissions from the Earth are in the far infrared & longer bands, but over half of the incoming energy (from the Sun) is at shorter wavelengths (near infrared, visible & UV), tinting the atmosphere in the far infrared has a differential effect. Since there's more outgoing than incoming far infrared, GHGs absorb mostly outgoing radiation, preventing it from escaping into space. That causes warming. (It's not how actual greenhouses work, but it's still a real effect.)
Greenhouse warming of the air, in turn, warms the ground, by a couple of mechanisms, including increased "downwelling" infrared back-radiation from the air. Here's a good article:
http://barrettbellamyclimate.com/page8.htm
For a deeper treatment, I recommend this UNC Physics colloquium by Princeton atmospheric physicist Will Happer:
http://www.sealevel.info/Happer_UNC_2014-09-08/
After watching the lecture, be sure to also look at some of the follow-up links, including the "another_question" link.
Gerlich & Tscheuschner make much of the fact that CO2 is a very small percentage of the Earth's atmosphere (only about 0.04%). But they've got that backwards. The reason additional CO2 has only a modest warming effect is NOT because there is so little of it, but because there is already SO MUCH. As anyone who has ever added food coloring to a recipe can attest (if they do the arithmetic, comparing volumes of food coloring to the rest of the ingredients), it only takes a few ppm to tint a solution. We're way past the point of diminishing returns w/r/t the warming effect of CO2. MODTRAN Tropical Atmosphere calculates that just 20 ppmv CO2 would have fully half as much warming effect as the current 400 ppmv.
Then there's this hopelessly confused doozy on Gerlich & Tscheuschner's p.12:
"...the supposed CO2 greenhouse effect which refers to trace gas concentrations. Global climatologists claim that the Earth's natural greenhouse effect keeps the Earth 33 degrees C warmer than it would be without the trace gases in the atmosphere. About 80 percent of this warming is attributed to water vapor and 20 percent to the 0.03 volume percent CO2. If such an extreme effect existed, it would show up even in a laboratory experiment involving concentrated CO2 as a thermal conductivity anomaly. It would manifest itself as a new kind of "superinsulation" violating the conventional heat conduction equation. However, for CO2 such anomalous heat transport properties never have been observed..."
That's complete nonsensical gibberish. CO2 warms the air by dying it to a "color" which absorbs far infrared. It has nothing whatsoever to do with thermal conductivity or heat conduction, and it certainly doesn't violate any principles of heat conduction.
That's where I stopped reading. Gerlich & Tscheuschner is muddled nonsense. If you want to read some evaluations by scientists who waded through more of it, you could start here:
https://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/gerlich-tscheuschner/
You ask " .. That's about it, is it not, gents? .. ". Well, no, in fact that's a long way off.
You may well be a philosopher specialising in " .. the action or process of reasoning systematically in support of an idea, action, or theory .. but it appears to me that you have little understanding of the arguments pro and con the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) hypothesis.
With all due respect, I don't even think that you have any idea what is going on between the participants in the debate here about Douglas Cotton's booklet "Why it's not carbon dioxide after all".
Let me try to help you understand what's going on here, but I don't intend to spend much time, as I think that you need to spend an awful lot yourself getting up to date. I admire David for having the patience to make a start on it.
Dougy thinks that he has discovered a wonderful new 21st Century paradigm explaining why the temperature of the Earth and its atmosphere is what it is. In the process he claims to have proven that certain atmospheric constituents known as "greenhouse gasses" in fact cool rather than cause heating of the earth system.
Only one person in the world appears to accept Dougy's argument (I leave it to you to work out who that is).
You said " .. The attempt to refute the paper finally came out and its authors claimed the two authors "did not understand the 2nd Law." .. ". I assume that the "paper" and "two authors that you go on about are Gerlich and Tscheuschner.
That really is not the subject of the discussion here and has been debated ad nauseum elsewhere.
Best of luck, Pete
It is noticeable how he keeps ignoring my requests for him to name just ONE. So far he has come up with nothing, zilch, nada, nichts, rien, nichego!!!
His latest rant about the Stefan-Boltzmann and Wein's Displacement Laws does nothing to either support his "new paradigm shift" or disprove the existence of the inappropriately named "greenhouse effect".
Despite my efforts to help him learn about the sound physical basis for that effect by going to the blog of CACC sceptics Dr. Jack Barrett and Professor John Bellamy (http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com) Doug refuses to help himself to understand how "greenhouse gasses" warm our Earth system. Doug clamps his SLoT blinkers firmly in place and refuses to find out what the MODTRAN model of the Earth's atmosphere can teach him.
Doug's proclamation that " .. the whole radiative forcing greenhouse conjecture is based on fictitious, fiddled physics .. " is absolute nonsense. There is nothing fiddled about the physics used as the foundation of the MODTRAN and similar tools that model the Earth's atmosphere. He'd find that out if he had the gumption to visit the University of Chicago's web-site.
I'll try again, this time leading him by the hand in the hopes that he'll remove his blinkers for once. Here's the link - http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu . If Doug gets stuck then he just has to drop me an E-mail and I'll show him how to use it (although it really is quite easy).
Over to Doug, unless he's afraid of the TRUTH.
As for visiting his blog to have a go at that AU $50,000 - no thanks. I'll leave that for Michael Mann to collect. He might need it for his defamation case against Tim Ball.
At that time it was only my suspicion but now I am more convinced, by comments appearing to come from Dougy himself in Dec. 2015.
Comments on the blog of respected CACC sceptic Dr. Roy Spencer (which appeared to be posted by Doug using the variant "Dou gC o tt on" and the false name "lukesarewrongtoo" during his numerous rants there) said
QUOTE: ..
.. God is in control of climate. He knew the world would industrialize. He set the planets in place to regulate climate .. He placed the Moon to provide tides .. He made the atmosphere just the right height to provide a pleasant temperature range .. He added water and water vapor, that most prolific of greenhouse gases, to lower the temperature gradient with its radiation, as does carbon dioxide to a minute extent, thus reducing the effect of the gravitationally-induced temperature gradient and lowering surface temperatures.
God answers when we ask. He gives people like myself, who do ask, insight into how His climate system really works. People like Hansen, Pierrehumbert et al think they know better than their Creator, think mankind can outwit God and control climate with one molecule in every 2,500 other air molecules. Roy would do well to tune into what He has revealed through people like myself who understand physics. He must realize that AGW is evil .. God tells me I'm right Roy.
You should ask Him .. Hansen, Pierrehumbert et al .. have not gained insight from God as to how temperatures are determined, not only in the tropospheres and surfaces of planets and satellite moons, but also in any crusts, mantles and even their cores .. God has given me insight as to how these temperatures, and the necessary energy transfers, come about, and it's not by way of radiation reaching the surface ..
.. UNQUOTE
(http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/12/paris-pow-wow-heap-good/#comment-204193 , #comment-204199 and #comment-204211).
Two of those comments ended with a link to Doug's evangelical blog http://SavedByTheLamb.com.
One Ross responded " .. Dear Mr Cotton I would like you to know I have been saved by the Lamb too .. Stick with the gospel and get off web sites wasting your time and making a fool of yourself .. " (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/12/paris-pow-wow- heap-good/#comment-204228).
As we know, Dougy is not one to listen to well-intended advice, preferring to continue fantasising.
At that time it was only my suspicion but now I am more convinced, by comments appearing to come from Dougy himself in Dec. 2015.
Comments on the blog of respected CACC sceptic Dr. Roy Spencer (which appeared to be posted by Doug using the variant "Dou gC o tt on" and the false name "lukesarewrongtoo" during his numerous rants there) said
QUOTE: ..
.. God is in control of climate. He knew the world would industrialize. He set the planets in place to regulate climate .. He placed the Moon to provide tides .. He made the atmosphere just the right height to provide a pleasant temperature range .. He added water and water vapor, that most prolific of greenhouse gases, to lower the temperature gradient with its radiation, as does carbon dioxide to a minute extent, thus reducing the effect of the gravitationally-induced temperature gradient and lowering surface temperatures.
God answers when we ask. He gives people like myself, who do ask, insight into how His climate system really works. People like Hansen, Pierrehumbert et al think they know better than their Creator, think mankind can outwit God and control climate with one molecule in every 2,500 other air molecules. Roy would do well to tune into what He has revealed through people like myself who understand physics. He must realize that AGW is evil .. God tells me I'm right Roy.
You should ask Him .. Hansen, Pierrehumbert et al .. have not gained insight from God as to how temperatures are determined, not only in the tropospheres and surfaces of planets and satellite moons, but also in any crusts, mantles and even their cores .. God has given me insight as to how these temperatures, and the necessary energy transfers, come about, and it's not by way of radiation reaching the surface ..
.. UNQUOTE
(http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/12/paris-pow-wow-heap-good/#comment-204193 , #comment-204199 and #comment-204211).
Two of those comments ended with a link to Doug's evangelical blog http://SavedByTheLamb.com.
One Ross responded " .. Dear Mr Cotton I would like you to know I have been saved by the Lamb too .. Stick with the gospel and get off web sites wasting your time and making a fool of yourself .. " (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/12/paris-pow-wow- heap-good/#comment-204228).
As we know, Dougy is not one to listen to well-intended advice, preferring to continue fantasising.
QUOTE: ..
Douglas Cotton says: April 22, 2012 at 5:15 PM Because God loves, He also has to punish disobedience and disbelief in Himself as you will find out if you still disbelieve at death. When the tsunami struck down the disbelieving Muslims in Indonesian, He saved thousands of Christians who had celebrated Christmas all day in the mountains and then decided to camp out up there overnight.
For the Earth to be suitable for human life, countless factors had to be just right. This is no coincidence. Even the Moon is necessary to stabilise wobble and thus climate. The core heat being generated (probably by fission) does in fact play an important role also in stabilising temperatures, as I explain here.
Statisticians have shown that the probability of the simplest life form developing just once in the whole of known space and in the whole of known time is of the order of 1 in 10^250 so if you back evolution, then you back that kind of improbable event.
God knew we would need fossil fuels, and He designed an atmosphere that could handle the emissions without any effect whatsoever on climate. If you, or any reader, can't see His hand in all this, then that's sad for you, because you stand condemned by a God Who will not be mocked: John 3:18.
See another site of mine. I do know what I am talking about
.. UNQUOTE
(http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/04/new-evidence-our-record-warm-march-was-not-from-global-warming/#comment-44641).
Dougy again linked to his savedbytheLamb blog.
One week ago Dougy commented in his E-mail " .. Keep it up and I'll come down harder and harder on you .. You're a beggar for punishment .. ". That really puzzled me but now I wonder if he was thinking in terms of something along the lines of him influencing how I might be " .. condemned by a God Who will not be mocked .. ".
QUOTE: ..
Douglas Cotton says: April 22, 2012 at 5:15 PM Because God loves, He also has to punish disobedience and disbelief in Himself as you will find out if you still disbelieve at death. When the tsunami struck down the disbelieving Muslims in Indonesian, He saved thousands of Christians who had celebrated Christmas all day in the mountains and then decided to camp out up there overnight.
For the Earth to be suitable for human life, countless factors had to be just right. This is no coincidence. Even the Moon is necessary to stabilise wobble and thus climate. The core heat being generated (probably by fission) does in fact play an important role also in stabilising temperatures, as I explain here.
Statisticians have shown that the probability of the simplest life form developing just once in the whole of known space and in the whole of known time is of the order of 1 in 10^250 so if you back evolution, then you back that kind of improbable event.
God knew we would need fossil fuels, and He designed an atmosphere that could handle the emissions without any effect whatsoever on climate. If you, or any reader, can't see His hand in all this, then that's sad for you, because you stand condemned by a God Who will not be mocked: John 3:18.
See another site of mine. I do know what I am talking about
.. UNQUOTE
(http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/04/new-evidence-our-record-warm-march-was-not-from-global-warming/#comment-44641).
Dougy again linked to his savedbytheLamb blog.
One week ago Dougy commented in his E-mail " .. Keep it up and I'll come down harder and harder on you .. You're a beggar for punishment .. ". That really puzzled me but now I wonder if he was thinking in terms of something along the lines of him influencing how I might be " .. condemned by a God Who will not be mocked .. ".
I'm reading a book now in which a scholar is laying out his case that the first alphabet was created by speakers of Hebrew in Egypt starting in the time of Joseph (circa 1800BC). Still tentative and possibly a stretch, but there is material evidence. This is not so long after the time of Abraham (circa 2000BC) that his experience could not have been carried in human memory. Homer, who has been justified by physical evidence, likely wrote down the Illiad circa 850BC describing events of circa 1200BC. He used a bard's memory aids similar to those the writer of Genesis used. The Hebrews, like the later disciples, wrote very unflattering histories of themselves. Was it because they knew they had a much greater truth to convey than protecting their own reputations?
I am amazed by physical life - by cells that are marvelous nano-factories, by adaptability, reproduction, sight, consciousness, you name it. I'm also amazed by the physical universe that, as far as we know, popped into existence 13.7BYA, and that it would produce the conditions suitable for life (think anthropic principle). I don't know where Mr. Cotton's probability number came from, but if you start with say the probability of an electron/positron pair popping into existence, how far do you have to extrapolate to get what we see?
I'm impressed by the events and messages of 2000YA. It all seems so consistent. Shortly after God befriended Abraham, He asked him to sacrifice his son. Was that to get Himself committed - if the man will sacrifice his son for Me, how can I do anything less for the man?
Me? I have no problem believing.
On the other hand I detest extremist religious opinions. Doug Cotton's position concerning the horrific Boxing Day 2004 South Asian tsunami repulsed me. In my humble opinion, Doug Cotton's suggestion that a concerned omnipotent being had chosen to:
- kill hundreds of individuals from different non-Christian religious groups and of different ages, from infants to the elderly,
- spare worshipping Christians,
is despicable.
Other individuals, who believe, like Doug, that their version of religion is the "correct" one, be it Muslim, Hindu, Buddist, Sikh, Christian Baptist, etc. etc. have similar jaundiced opinions about that tsunami. The Canadian Religious Tolerance Organisation's 2005 article "Why did the South Asian Tsunami happen? Reasons given by some religious conservatives" gives some examples. The article begins " .. it is not clear exactly what God's warning is .. Speaking generally, most religious conservatives, whether Jewish, Christian, Muslim, or others, link God or deities directly to the devastation by tsunamis and other natural disasters. This is a logical outcome from their belief that God micromanages the world; i.e. that God is involved in every significant event on the planet .. " (http://www.religioustolerance.org/tsunami04c.htm).
That belief that their concerned, omnipotent, omniscient superpower is micromanaging what goes on in and of the world is in my opinion the fundamental flaw in their various faiths.
David, I'd be interested in your opinion of Christian commenter Tina M. of Holy Love Ministries in Elyria, OH.
There's still hope for me!!
That old stuck record again!
How many times do I have to explain to Dougy that the inappropriately named "greenhouse effect" is really about atmospheric "greenhouse gases" absorbing some IR radiation from the Earth which would otherwise radiate to space, passing some of that energy on to other non-radiating gases and sending some back to Earth, slowing its rate of cooling.
If he would only have a go at using the MODTRAN tool available at the University of Chicago (as I have repeatedly suggested to him) then he could learn all about it.
Maybe he'd have a go if a higher authority suggested it to him.
The nearest that I could get to it was Nahum 1:6 " .. His wrath is poured out like fire; .. ". Perhaps Dougy will be kind enough to advise where his quote comes from, otherwise it looks as though he dreamed up his quote just like he dreamed up his 21st Century Paradigm Shift "heat creep" hypothesis described in his booklet "Why it's not carbon dioxide after all".
Dougy claims that for the past 7+ years he has been a " .. Researcher in Atmospheric Physics .. " (https://au.linkedin.com/in/douglas-cotton-b794a871) and to have been " .. Manager, Climate Research Centre" (https://skepticalscience.com/climate-video-2-failed-at-science-attack-the-scientists.html#59797). " .. Our Climate Research Centre (founded by myself with extensive experience and training in Physics and decades of research experience) has very clearly and cogently exposed the inaccuracies in the IPCC model and their assumptions and prediction .. "(http://theconversation.com/explainer-what-we-know-and-dont-know-about-climate-change-1934).
That is not the only "research centre" that Dougy has created. He also has/had his "Natural Medicine Research Centre" (http://ageslowly.homestead.com/).
All of that energy to manage two research centres, his "Acclaim Wedding and General Photography" company (http://www.ozviews.com/BestPics01.html), his "Acclaim Technical Software" company (http://www.australianpracticesoftware.com/) and goodness knows what else (http://www.douglascotton.com/) must be down to those wonderful natural medicines in which he places so much faith and claims are so wonderful - and sells.
Let's not forget that amazing claim of Doug's " .. Here at the Natural Medicine Research Centre we research the research and you may be assured that everything we present is based on SOLID SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE (my capitals) .. You need to act now to save your own life, because it will be many years before doctors read and make use of the research that is already there .. With just one $55 consultation here in our Sydney Office you will learn how to prevent cancer, diabetes, arthritis, heart disease, Alzheimer's disease and other life threatening diseases by minimising oxidative stress and inflammation that are known to cause premature aging .. " (http://ageslowly.homestead.com).
It appears that the business studies that this multitalented researcher followed included intensive training in high-pressure "door-step" sales technique.
As such an experienced researcher Dougy should know by now that a claim is worthless without proof. Faith is no substitute for evidence! He may be convinced that he is himself enough proof that his "natural medicines" slow the ageing process (http://www.slower-aging.com) but, being a sceptic, I'm no more convinced of that than I am that he has discovered a 21st Century Paradigm Shift with his "heat creep" hypothesis.
In his condemnation of me to Hell's fire on 12th Feb. Doug also claimed that " .. God's audible voice from Heaven was heard to say Jesus is His Son .. ". I have been unable to find any solid scientific evidence in support of that claim, only a similar claim in Matthew: 3.17 that QUOTE: .. And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." .. UNQUOTE (http://biblehub.com/matthew/3-17.htm).
That is just another claim, not proof, so - over to Dougy, the claimed research centre manager and researcher, to provide the necessary PROOF - not FAITH, but PROOF! Claims such as " .. The Bible is God's Word .. " (http://www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com/10-amazing-bible-facts/) won't do. That is based upon FAITH not PROOF (i.e. solid scientific evidence, which experienced researcher Doug should know all about).
I have repeatedly tried to get Dougy to learn something about the effect of atmospheric "greenhouse gases" by playing with the atmospheric modelling tool MODTRAN available at the University of Chicago. I'm not the first and won't be the last to try helping him like this. During his discussions on John Cooke's Sceptical Science blog back in Aug. 2011 (2 years after Dougy started his "Climate Research Centre") Tom Curtis also tried to point Dougy in the same direction (https://skepticalscience.com/climate-video-2-failed-at-science-attack-the-scientists.html#59813).
Tom copied Fig. 6.2 from Chapter 6 "Radiation Calculations in a Clear Atmosphere" of the excellent book "Atmospheric Radiation: Theoretical Basis" by R. M. Goody (Harvard) and Y. L. Yung (CIT) (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Atmospheric-Radiation-Theoretical-R-Goody/dp/0195102916).
That book was first published in 1964 (when Dougy was studying physics at Sydney University) but was revised in 1997. If only he would spend some time studying the subject instead of ranting on about his 21st Century Paradgm Shift "heat creep" hypothesis.
Goody's book may be a little too advanced for Dougy but he should be able to cope with Professor Grant Petty's "A first course in Atmospheric Thermodynamics" (https://www.amazon.com/First-Course-Atmospheric-Thermodynamics/dp/0972903321).
Despite our best efforts to help him remove his SLoT(ted) blinkers it seems that Doug will only listen to the voices in his head.
Professor Robert G Brown, PhD - theoretical and mathematical condensed matter physics (https://www.phy.duke.edu/content/robert-g-brown - a real academic, unlike retired multi-talented businessman Doug) made it quite clear in his Jan 2012 "Refutation of Stable Thermal Equilibrium Lapse Rates" that Hans's (and Doug's) argument is fundamentally flawed.
Professor Brown summarised " .. In nature, the dry adiabatic lapse rate of air in the atmosphere is maintained because the system is differentially heated from below causing parcels of air to constantly move up and down. Reverse that to a cooling, like those observed during the winter in the air above Antarctica, and the lapse rate readily inverts. Follow the air column up above the tropospherejuu and the lapse rate fails to be observed in the stratosphere, precisely where vertical convection stops dominating heat transport. The EEJ assertion, that the dry adiabatic lapse rate alone explains the bulk of so-called "greenhouse warming" of the atmosphere as a stable feature of a bulk equilibrium gas, is incorrect .. " (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/24/refutation-of-stable-thermal-equilibrium-lapse-rates/).
Doug needs to have a careful read of and learn from Professor Brown's refutation and many of the subsequent comments. He needs to accept that flogging Hans's dead hypothesis will not bring Doug's "21st Century Paradigm Shift" to life.
Doug stated categorically that there is no "greenhouse effect" while apparently refusing to try to understand what the MODTRAN (and similar) radiative transfer model tells us about the effect on the OLR of IR absorbing/emitting gases in the atmosphere.
Professor Brown's comment on 24th Jan. 2012 is relevant " .. The Greenhouse Effect itself is positively confirmed by the actual measurements of the IR spectra from above the atmosphere. Asserting that it doesn't exist is just plain stupid when you can measure the actual radiation being given off by the CO2 and the surface .. The IR spectra render arguing about GH warming per se moot .. " (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/24/refutation-of-stable-thermal-equilibrium-lapse-rates/#comment-874328).
Best regards, Pete
Doug will probably find that the Alpha Institute of Advanced Studies would welcome him with open arms (https://crackpotwatch.wordpress.com/2017/03/23/so-where-is-it/).
" .. Here at the Natural Medicine Research Centre we research the research and you may be assured that everything we present is based on SOLID SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE (my capitals) .. You need to act now to save your own life, because it will be many years before doctors read and make use of the research that is already there .. With just one $55 consultation here in our Sydney Office you will learn how to prevent cancer, diabetes, arthritis, heart disease, Alzheimer's disease and other life threatening diseases by minimising oxidative stress and inflammation that are known to cause premature aging .. " (http://ageslowly.homestead.com).
It appears that the business studies that multitalented researcher Doug followed included intensive training in high-pressure "door-step" sales technique.
During those exchanges Doug made reference to his heroes Hans Jelbring and Claes Johnson, who were copied into the circulation. Neither has responded recently to the group with any comments.
Doug's comment here on the 25th March that " .. you made a big blunder in not knowing that Stefan Boltzmann calculations also work "in reverse" for blackbodies .. " underscores his ignorance of the "greenhouse effect". He appears to have closed his mind to the fact that the global system of atmos/aqua/litho/bio/cryo-spheres is NOT a black body. I have repeatedly tried to get him to use the MODTRAN model to educate himself on this fundamental bit of physics but he appears determined to ignore it.
Doug's refusal to acknowledge the basis of the "greenhouse effect" is summed up in his 1st March comment " .. Only an actual input or loss of THERMAL ENERGY (not e/m energy) determines the temperature .. Much of that thermal energy enters and leaves the surface by NON-radiative processes and thus has not been in the form of e/m energy at all .. ". Doug appears to have no regard for the heating effect of Earth's absorption of e/m radiation from the Sun and the cooling effect if its emission of e/m radiation to space.
On 28th Feb. Doug said " .. it's not the mean solar radiation of 168W/m^2 reaching the surface that is the predominant determinant of mean surface temperatures, because that low flux would only attain a mean temperature colder than -40°C on Earth .. ". It seems that Doug is unable to concede that the Earth system of spheres must continue heating up (thanks to absorbing e/m radiation from the Sun) until it is losing that same amount of energy to space. The only mechanism for such loss to space is by radiation and the Earth system does not radiate like a black body. This is clearly shown in the MODTRAN model spectral plots and the real measurements of OLR made by satellite instrumentation.
On 18th March 2012 Doug said " .. Radiation sets out on its journey from an object with a frequency distribution represented by the appropriate Planck curve for its temperature .. When radiation strikes a target, that portion that resonates (be it all or part) takes the place of radiation for which the target would have had to use its own energy. Hence the target, even if warmer, will cool more slowly, as is observed .. " (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/03/global-warming-as-cargo-cult-science/#comment-39203). Replacing "object" with "Sun" and "target" with "Earth" summarises the "greenhouse effect" that Doug denies exists.
Even his hero Professor Claes Johnson acknowledges that there is a "greenhouse effect" from IR absorbing gases like H2O' CO2, etc (http://claesjohnson.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/co2-vs-h2o-as-greenhouse-gas-ghg.html).
In that article Claes referred to the MODTRAN model which I have been trying to get Doug to learn from but even Claes was given the cold shoulder on that.
When I pointed him to Claes's article Doug's arrogant response was " .. I am here to discuss my hypothesis, not variations on GH garbage. Johnson got it right about radiation, but not other things .. ".
Doug's comment here on the 25th March that " .. you made a big blunder in not knowing that Stefan Boltzmann calculations also work "in reverse" for blackbodies .. " underscores his ignorance of the "greenhouse effect". He appears to have closed his mind to the fact that the global system of atmos/aqua/litho/bio/cryo-spheres is NOT A BLACK BODY. I have repeatedly tried to get him to use the MODTRAN model to educate himself on this fundamental bit of physics but he appears determined to ignore it.
Doug's comment here on the 25th March that " .. you made a big blunder in not knowing that Stefan Boltzmann calculations also work "in reverse" for blackbodies .. " underscores his ignorance of the "greenhouse effect". He appears to have closed his mind to the fact that the global system of atmos/aqua/litho/bio/cryo-spheres is NOT A BLACK BODY. I have repeatedly tried to get him to use the MODTRAN model to educate himself on this fundamental bit of physics but he appears determined to ignore it.
Loschmitt's conjecture cannot pass even the simplest smell test.
Principle of detailed balance and a dilute gas in gravitationalfield
Kai Zhang and Yong-Jun Zhang
Science College, Liaoning Technical University, Fuxin, Liaoning 123000, China
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1607.06692
"Josef Loschmidt claimed that the equilibrium temperature of a gas column subject to gravity should be lower at the top of the column and higher at its base. This is known as LOSCHMIDT'S GRAVITO-THERMAL EFFECT about which some experiments have been carried out. However, as Maxwell noted, this effect VIOLATES THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS."
Principle of detailed balance and a dilute gas in gravitational field
arXiv:1607.06692v3 [cond-mat.stat-mech] 30 Nov 2016
Kai Zhang and Yong-Jun Zhang
Science College, Liaoning Technical University, Fuxin, Liaoning 123000, China
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1607.06692
Principle of detailed balance and a dilute gas in gravitational field
arXiv:1607.06692v3 [cond-mat.stat-mech] 30 Nov 2016
Kai Zhang and Yong-Jun Zhang
Science College, Liaoning Technical University, Fuxin, Liaoning 123000, China
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1607.06692
Principle of detailed balance and a dilute gas in gravitational field
arXiv:1607.06692v3 [cond-mat.stat-mech] 30 Nov 2016
Kai Zhang and Yong-Jun Zhang
Science College, Liaoning Technical University, Fuxin, Liaoning 123000, China
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1607.06692
Thermodynamic equilibrium
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_equilibrium
That is wrong, and it is trivially disproved by the observation that dry air and humid air have dramatically different temperature lapse rates. Adding three percent water vapor to the atmosphere approximately halves the lapse rate, despite the fact that it reduces atmospheric density by only 1.14%.
Doug Cotton continued, "Atmospheric radiation cannot and does not cause heat [he meant heat transfer] into the warmer surface, and so does not raise the temperature."
That is also nonsense. It matters not a whit whether the surface is warmer than the air. The surface does not and cannot tell what temperature the molecule was which radiated the photon which strikes that surface.
Photons do not have little tags attached which say, "my emitter was at temperature xxx.xx Kelvin when I was emitted." Photons have only wavelength (and direction, and polarization), and materials at any particular temperature emit photons of a broad range of wavelengths.
Doug Cotton's determined delusion on this point is the most obvious proof that his so-called "physics" is utter baloney. He would have you believe that a surface of, say, 30°C temperature can absorb photons emitted by a material of 31°C temperature, but cannot absorb photons of identical wavelength emitted by a material at 29°C temperature. That is complete blithering nonsense.
That is wrong, and it is trivially disproved by the observation that dry air and humid air have dramatically different temperature lapse rates. Adding three percent water vapor to the atmosphere approximately halves the lapse rate, despite the fact that it reduces atmospheric density by only 1.14%.
Doug Cotton continued, "Atmospheric radiation cannot and does not cause heat [he meant heat transfer] into the warmer surface, and so does not raise the temperature."
That is also nonsense. It matters not a whit whether the surface is warmer than the air. The surface does not and cannot tell what temperature the molecule was which radiated the photon which strikes that surface.
Photons do not have little tags attached which say, "my emitter was at temperature xxx.xx Kelvin when I was emitted." Photons have only wavelength (and direction, and polarization), and materials at any particular temperature emit photons of a broad range of wavelengths.
Doug Cotton's determined delusion on this point is the most obvious proof that his so-called "physics" is utter baloney. He would have you believe that a surface of, say, 30°C temperature can absorb photons emitted by a material of 31°C temperature, but cannot absorb photons of identical wavelength emitted by a material at 29°C temperature. That is complete blithering nonsense.
Your confusion is in assuming that the background radiation in the non-empty-space situation is zero. It’s not. So in that case, the required radiator is much weaker and the radiation on the cheek is not multiplied by 16 when the 15 more radiators are added. If you always manage to get the basics wrong, how are you qualified to lecture on the more subtle?
If Doug would only take a look at the evidence of Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) measurements and play with the MODTRAN model made available by the University of Chicago then he should quickly clear up his confusion over use of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. Once again I provide him with the link to a plot of OLR (https://earthzine.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/6.1.jpg) which should guide him to a proper understanding of the "greenhouse effect" which he refuses to recognise. I refer Doug to the E-mail that I sent him and Joe Olson (see FOOTNOTE) on 27/02/2017 @ 12:43. Here is a pertinent extract
QUOTE: ..
Let's get back to that set of helpful spectral plots to which I pointed you. Take a closer look, beyond the notches for H2O, CO2, CH4 and O3 and the lack of notches for N2, O2 and Ar (all obvious even to someone like me, who only understands "skoolboy fissics") and see what happens between wavenumbers 800 to 1000 and 1100 to 1250. When you recognise what that tells you about the effect of location and water vapour on OLR then think about those large deserts, e.g. Sahara, Arabia, Gobi, Kalahari, Southern Iraq, Greenland, Arctic and Antarctica (about 15% of the Earth's surface?) and how the atmosphere above those locations and the surface itself might react to IR from the surface. A hint might help you - ATMOSPHERIC WINDOW and Wien's Displacement Law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien's_displacement_law#/media/File:Wiens_law.svg).
(Inserted here was a set of OLR plots for mid-latitude winter, summer and tropical locations, available at https://earthzine.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/6.1.jpg)
A better set of IR plots (OLR and "back radiation") are available at https://skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=76&&n=200#14568 (I'm usually averse to referring anyone to John Cook's CACC propaganda blog but needs must) .. I recommend that you get hold of a copy of Professor Grant Petty's excellent book "A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation" (http://www.sundogpublishing.com/shop/a-first-course-in-atmospheric-radiation-2nd-ed/) and learn from it. At $36 it is in my opinion far better value than what you have on offer ..
UNQUOTE.
If Doug is sceptical about the scientific validity if the MODTRAN model then he could spend some time reading and understanding this 1995 report (http://web.gps.caltech.edu/~vijay/pdf/modrept.pdf), rather than spamming the globe with his "heat creep" hypothesis"
FOOTNOTE: Joe Olson is a founding member of the PSI blog of which Doug was once proud to be a member and delighted to have his articles posted thereon. Since then " .. Doug Cotton has been banned from PSI – all his posts, comments and contributions are unwelcome here due to his unlawful impersonations of real scientists; harassment, disrespect and general unpleasantness .. " (http://principia-scientific.org/tag/douglas-cotton/).
Doug Cotton wrote, "If and when you get around to reading my websites, papers and book, David Burton, you will understand... my response to your childish ideas about what 'the surface does not and cannot tell' is in my 2012 paper..."
Don't hold your breath waiting for me to read your websites, papers and book, Mr. Cotton. But do tell: what's the DOI of that "paper" which presciently responded to my childish ideas?
A much more relevant question is:-
Does any recognised expert in atmospheric physics support our friend Doug Cotton's "heat creep hypothesis"?
To my knowledge not a single one does, whereas many support the existence of a "greenhouse effect" that Doug denies.