Skip to main content
Show more comments
Get fast, free delivery with Amazon Prime
Prime members enjoy FREE Two-Day Delivery and exclusive access to music, movies, TV shows, original audio series, and Kindle books.
Sign in
New customer? Start here.
Your Lists
Create a ListFind a GiftSave Items from the WebWedding RegistryBaby RegistryFriends & Family GiftingAmazonSmile Charity ListsPantry ListsYour HeartsExplore Idea ListsExplore ShowroomDiscoverTake the Home Style QuizYour Account
Your AccountYour OrdersYour ListsYour RecommendationsYour Subscribe & Save ItemsMemberships & SubscriptionsYour Service RequestsYour Prime MembershipYour GarageYour FanshopYour PetsStart a Selling AccountRegister for a Business AccountYour Amazon Credit CardsYour Content and DevicesYour Music LibraryYour Amazon PhotosYour Amazon DriveYour Prime VideoYour Kindle UnlimitedYour WatchlistYour Video LibraryYour Android Apps & DevicesSign in
New customer? Start here.
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.
AHistory&BiographyLover2 years ago (Edited)In reply toan earlier post
Vaughan Pratt2 years ago
@AH&BL: "He should have taken an expandable box of particles from bottom to top of the column, and noted the effect of gravity on their average kinetic energy. There is none according to Feynman."
That sounds fallacious to me. There's a big difference between being carried up 10,000' in the basket of a balloon vs. having to walk up 10,000 one-foot steps under your own steam. When the box of particles is carried up the particles are getting an assist from the rising bottom of the box: even if the box itself is weightless the particles inside are not, and work is being done by an outside agent to raise the particles. Why? Well, if they depend on their own kinetic energy to rise up then they're going to be converting it to potential energy throughout the rise. If however the parcel inside the box does not cool while expanding, the sum of its potential and kinetic energy is going to rise because the PE is clearly rising while KE by hypothesis does not decrease. Hence under the constant-temperature-inside-the-box hypothesis work must be done to raise the expanding parcel: where else could the energy needed to raise that sum come from?
[An earlier version of this comment did not mention adiabatic expansion and compression. After thinking over my first version I decided that the following argument might make the reasoning clearer. It's still a bit subtle so I wouldn't blame people for wanting to find fault with my reasoning.]
If you take the point of view that at all times this weightless expanding box has neutral buoyancy and therefore no work need be done to raise it, we can analyze that point of view by treating the air inside the box and outside separately. The inside air is undergoing adiabatic expansion against the outside air pressure and is therefore cooling, while the outside air is undergoing adiabatic compression due to the expanding box and is therefore warming, albeit not detectably given the outside air's volume.
Did Feynman really make that argument without mentioning the point that adiabatic expansion cools? I find this very hard to believe. Have people since Feynman been revising his class notes?
That sounds fallacious to me. There's a big difference between being carried up 10,000' in the basket of a balloon vs. having to walk up 10,000 one-foot steps under your own steam. When the box of particles is carried up the particles are getting an assist from the rising bottom of the box: even if the box itself is weightless the particles inside are not, and work is being done by an outside agent to raise the particles. Why? Well, if they depend on their own kinetic energy to rise up then they're going to be converting it to potential energy throughout the rise. If however the parcel inside the box does not cool while expanding, the sum of its potential and kinetic energy is going to rise because the PE is clearly rising while KE by hypothesis does not decrease. Hence under the constant-temperature-inside-the-box hypothesis work must be done to raise the expanding parcel: where else could the energy needed to raise that sum come from?
[An earlier version of this comment did not mention adiabatic expansion and compression. After thinking over my first version I decided that the following argument might make the reasoning clearer. It's still a bit subtle so I wouldn't blame people for wanting to find fault with my reasoning.]
If you take the point of view that at all times this weightless expanding box has neutral buoyancy and therefore no work need be done to raise it, we can analyze that point of view by treating the air inside the box and outside separately. The inside air is undergoing adiabatic expansion against the outside air pressure and is therefore cooling, while the outside air is undergoing adiabatic compression due to the expanding box and is therefore warming, albeit not detectably given the outside air's volume.
Did Feynman really make that argument without mentioning the point that adiabatic expansion cools? I find this very hard to believe. Have people since Feynman been revising his class notes?
In my example, if the box walls are thermally conductive and if both temperature measurements are make at thermal equilibrium (or if you just transport the box up the column slow enough); then they are the same. Gibbs shows that an isolated isothermal system at thermal equilibrium is at maximum entropy regardless of gravity.
And I did concede in my next comment that I had not distinguished between Feynman and my interpretation (“PS: I'm not sure if everything I said is justified by what Feynman said.”). I suspect he wouldn’t be too worried about me usurping his authority if he were still around, but you never know. : )
And I did concede in my next comment that I had not distinguished between Feynman and my interpretation (“PS: I'm not sure if everything I said is justified by what Feynman said.”). I suspect he wouldn’t be too worried about me usurping his authority if he were still around, but you never know. : )
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Vaughan Pratt2 years ago (Edited)In reply toan earlier post
AHistory&BiographyLover2 years ago
Here are two paragraphs from the beginning of Chapter 40, The Principles of Statistical Mechanics of The Feynman Lectures on Physics: The New Millennium Edition, Vol. 1.
"So, these are the two questions that we shall try to answer: How are the molecules distributed in space when there are forces acting on them, and how are they distributed in velocity?
It turns out that the two questions are completely independent, and that the distribution of velocities is always the same. We already received a hint of the latter fact when we found that the average kinetic energy is the same, kT/2 per degree of freedom, no matter what forces are acting on the molecules. The distribution of the velocities on the molecules is independent of the forces, because the collision rates do not depend upon the forces."
Herein may lie an explanation of where Loschmidt went wrong. I only have second hand knowledge of his argument, but it seems it was essentially that since a particle of gas in a sparsely populated column will lose kinetic energy (a measure of temperature) as it travels up the column, and gain kinetic energy as it falls, the temperature will rise as you go down the column. He then seemed to have tacitly extrapolated that result to a more densely populated column, ignoring the interaction with other particles. He should have taken an expandable box of particles from bottom to top of the column, and noted the effect of gravity on their average kinetic energy. There is none according to Feynman. Only density and pressure change, and in equal proportions. That cancels the temperature change in the ideal gas law.
I have no idea how he extended his result to liquids and solids. Must be lost in the dustbin of (justly forgotten) history.
PS: Where is Mr. Cotton? He get banned from here too?
"So, these are the two questions that we shall try to answer: How are the molecules distributed in space when there are forces acting on them, and how are they distributed in velocity?
It turns out that the two questions are completely independent, and that the distribution of velocities is always the same. We already received a hint of the latter fact when we found that the average kinetic energy is the same, kT/2 per degree of freedom, no matter what forces are acting on the molecules. The distribution of the velocities on the molecules is independent of the forces, because the collision rates do not depend upon the forces."
Herein may lie an explanation of where Loschmidt went wrong. I only have second hand knowledge of his argument, but it seems it was essentially that since a particle of gas in a sparsely populated column will lose kinetic energy (a measure of temperature) as it travels up the column, and gain kinetic energy as it falls, the temperature will rise as you go down the column. He then seemed to have tacitly extrapolated that result to a more densely populated column, ignoring the interaction with other particles. He should have taken an expandable box of particles from bottom to top of the column, and noted the effect of gravity on their average kinetic energy. There is none according to Feynman. Only density and pressure change, and in equal proportions. That cancels the temperature change in the ideal gas law.
I have no idea how he extended his result to liquids and solids. Must be lost in the dustbin of (justly forgotten) history.
PS: Where is Mr. Cotton? He get banned from here too?
@AH&BL: "He should have taken an expandable box of particles from bottom to top of the column, and noted the effect of gravity on their average kinetic energy. There is none according to Feynman."
That sounds fallacious to me. There's a big difference between being carried up 10,000' in the basket of a balloon vs. having to walk up 10,000 one-foot steps under your own steam. When the box of particles is carried up the particles are getting an assist from the rising bottom of the box: even if the box itself is weightless the particles inside are not, and work is being done by an outside agent to raise the particles. Why? Well, if they depend on their own kinetic energy to rise up then they're going to be converting it to potential energy throughout the rise. If however the parcel inside the box does not cool while expanding, the sum of its potential and kinetic energy is going to rise because the PE is clearly rising while KE by hypothesis does not decrease. Hence under the constant-temperature-inside-the-box hypothesis work must be done to raise the expanding parcel: where else could the energy needed to raise that sum come from?
[An earlier version of this comment did not mention adiabatic expansion and compression. After thinking over my first version I decided that the following argument might make the reasoning clearer. It's still a bit subtle so I wouldn't blame people for wanting to find fault with my reasoning.]
If you take the point of view that at all times this weightless expanding box has neutral buoyancy and therefore no work need be done to raise it, we can analyze that point of view by treating the air inside the box and outside separately. The inside air is undergoing adiabatic expansion against the outside air pressure and is therefore cooling, while the outside air is undergoing adiabatic compression due to the expanding box and is therefore warming, albeit not detectably given the outside air's volume.
Did Feynman really make that argument without mentioning the point that adiabatic expansion cools? I find this very hard to believe. Have people since Feynman been revising his class notes?
That sounds fallacious to me. There's a big difference between being carried up 10,000' in the basket of a balloon vs. having to walk up 10,000 one-foot steps under your own steam. When the box of particles is carried up the particles are getting an assist from the rising bottom of the box: even if the box itself is weightless the particles inside are not, and work is being done by an outside agent to raise the particles. Why? Well, if they depend on their own kinetic energy to rise up then they're going to be converting it to potential energy throughout the rise. If however the parcel inside the box does not cool while expanding, the sum of its potential and kinetic energy is going to rise because the PE is clearly rising while KE by hypothesis does not decrease. Hence under the constant-temperature-inside-the-box hypothesis work must be done to raise the expanding parcel: where else could the energy needed to raise that sum come from?
[An earlier version of this comment did not mention adiabatic expansion and compression. After thinking over my first version I decided that the following argument might make the reasoning clearer. It's still a bit subtle so I wouldn't blame people for wanting to find fault with my reasoning.]
If you take the point of view that at all times this weightless expanding box has neutral buoyancy and therefore no work need be done to raise it, we can analyze that point of view by treating the air inside the box and outside separately. The inside air is undergoing adiabatic expansion against the outside air pressure and is therefore cooling, while the outside air is undergoing adiabatic compression due to the expanding box and is therefore warming, albeit not detectably given the outside air's volume.
Did Feynman really make that argument without mentioning the point that adiabatic expansion cools? I find this very hard to believe. Have people since Feynman been revising his class notes?
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Vaughan Pratt2 years agoIn reply toan earlier post
Stickler4 years ago
This review dismisses Joseph Loschmidt's argument about the source of the temperature lapse rate in the atmosphere. Now since William Thompson and Paul Ehrenfest shared Loschmidt's analysis but expressed it differently (without even referring to Loschmidt) does he reject these also? All three of these 'skeptics' based their argument on the effect gravitational energy. Were they wrong?
As I wrote in my review, Loschmidt is a red herring here because the greenhouse effect does not depend on the cause of the lapse rate but only on its existence.
However with the counterfactual hypothesis of a zero lapse rate in the absence of GH gases it becomes an interesting question as to whether introduction of GH gases would increase the lapse rate above zero. I imagine it would for roughly the same reason that when you connect a variable resistor across a constant-current source, raising the resistance raises the voltage across the resistor. If you define the emissivity of Earth in terms of the temperature at the surface and the radiation to space at top of atmosphere (TOA), then without GH gases Earth's emissivity should be 1, and (according to tables of emissivity of CO2 at a fixed temperature and increasing partial pressure) should decrease with increasing CO2, thereby lowering the radiation at TOA. The resulting imbalance will then require Earth's surface to warm until the radiation at TOA is just enough to balance the absorbed solar irradiance.
However with the counterfactual hypothesis of a zero lapse rate in the absence of GH gases it becomes an interesting question as to whether introduction of GH gases would increase the lapse rate above zero. I imagine it would for roughly the same reason that when you connect a variable resistor across a constant-current source, raising the resistance raises the voltage across the resistor. If you define the emissivity of Earth in terms of the temperature at the surface and the radiation to space at top of atmosphere (TOA), then without GH gases Earth's emissivity should be 1, and (according to tables of emissivity of CO2 at a fixed temperature and increasing partial pressure) should decrease with increasing CO2, thereby lowering the radiation at TOA. The resulting imbalance will then require Earth's surface to warm until the radiation at TOA is just enough to balance the absorbed solar irradiance.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Vaughan Pratt2 years agoIn reply toan earlier post
Werner Munter5 years ago
"Energy absorption does not depend on the source temperature". Brand new physics to save the hypothesis of th IPCC? heat always flows from warmer to cooler, never in the opposite direction. If the cooler upper atmosphere would warm up the warmer lower atmosphere at our feet (temperature is measured 2m above the ground) we would be burned to death for a long time. Nature cannot work if cold flows to warm! Creator was more intelligent than the warmists...
"Nature cannot work if cold flows to warm!"
This is easily refuted. Consider a warm radiator above a cold very fast shutter above a hot surface. According to you radiation will flow from the warm radiator towards the cold shutter. Now open the shutter suddenly. What do you believe will happen to the photons that have already left the radiator but have not yet reached the shutter? Will they change course and follow the shutter? Will the heat from the hot surface turn them around and push them back to where they came from? No, photons just pass through each other.
Or will they simply continue on their way to the hot surface and make Nature very angry?
In case you doubt a shutter could be that fast, consider a cold disk with a thousand radial cuts around its perimeter spinning at 60,000 RPM (a thousand revolutions a second), and consider all radiation from a very large warm surface a thousand feet (one light-microsecond) above the disk to a stationary region just above the disk the size and shape of one cut. (While this is only a very tiny part of all the thermal radiation from the warm radiator it nevertheless contains enough photons to make the point.) The disk will slice each thousand feet of that radiation into one part that hits the cold disk and a second part that passes through a cut and onwards to a hot surface placed below the disk.
According to you the second part had no business leaving the warm radiator during the previous microsecond. But how was it to know?
This is easily refuted. Consider a warm radiator above a cold very fast shutter above a hot surface. According to you radiation will flow from the warm radiator towards the cold shutter. Now open the shutter suddenly. What do you believe will happen to the photons that have already left the radiator but have not yet reached the shutter? Will they change course and follow the shutter? Will the heat from the hot surface turn them around and push them back to where they came from? No, photons just pass through each other.
Or will they simply continue on their way to the hot surface and make Nature very angry?
In case you doubt a shutter could be that fast, consider a cold disk with a thousand radial cuts around its perimeter spinning at 60,000 RPM (a thousand revolutions a second), and consider all radiation from a very large warm surface a thousand feet (one light-microsecond) above the disk to a stationary region just above the disk the size and shape of one cut. (While this is only a very tiny part of all the thermal radiation from the warm radiator it nevertheless contains enough photons to make the point.) The disk will slice each thousand feet of that radiation into one part that hits the cold disk and a second part that passes through a cut and onwards to a hot surface placed below the disk.
According to you the second part had no business leaving the warm radiator during the previous microsecond. But how was it to know?
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
AHistory&BiographyLover2 years ago (Edited)In reply toan earlier post
Peter Ridley2 years ago
Latest from Dougy, again promoting his distorted interpretation of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law QUOTE: ..
From: its.not.co2@gmail.com
Date: 07/05/2017 13:06
To: <peterridley ..
Subj: I will only comment on my blog ... not Amazon now after they deleted my comments
PR
Insolation of 168 W/m^2 absorbed by Earth's surface CANNOT make the mean surface temperature hotter than 233K .. (followed by more of his previous ranting about the S-B Law) ..
DC
UNQUOTE.
At least we now know that it was Amazon that deleted his comments. It would be interesting to know what inspired Amazon to do that, yet still be happy to sell his nonsense booklet..
From: its.not.co2@gmail.com
Date: 07/05/2017 13:06
To: <peterridley ..
Subj: I will only comment on my blog ... not Amazon now after they deleted my comments
PR
Insolation of 168 W/m^2 absorbed by Earth's surface CANNOT make the mean surface temperature hotter than 233K .. (followed by more of his previous ranting about the S-B Law) ..
DC
UNQUOTE.
At least we now know that it was Amazon that deleted his comments. It would be interesting to know what inspired Amazon to do that, yet still be happy to sell his nonsense booklet..
Maybe his reputation precedes him. Or maybe it was his constant repetition. Or maybe they can’t afford the storage space. Or maybe the moderator has his own climate opinion. Or . . . And maybe we shouldn’t look a gift horse in the mouth. I think my original comment has been reasonably defended though. So I’m happy. But I don't think I will be commenting negatively much anymore. [Although this one really deserved it and I'd probably do it again. : )]
Thanks,
AH&BL
Thanks,
AH&BL
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Peter Ridley2 years ago (Edited)In reply toan earlier post
AHistory&BiographyLover2 years ago
Thanks for the update. At least he’s alive and well; as well as he gets anyway. I suppose he does drive us to try to better understand what we should have learned long ago. The gadfly effect.
I took a trip to the Judith Curry website. Wow, climate debate is a booming industry producing thousands of words, and perhaps little of anything else of value. Seems like Cotton is just the visible tip of the iceberg of confusion.
I took a trip to the Judith Curry website. Wow, climate debate is a booming industry producing thousands of words, and perhaps little of anything else of value. Seems like Cotton is just the visible tip of the iceberg of confusion.
Latest from Dougy, again promoting his distorted interpretation of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law QUOTE: ..
From: its.not.co2@gmail.com
Date: 07/05/2017 13:06
To: <peterridley ..
Subj: I will only comment on my blog ... not Amazon now after they deleted my comments
PR
Insolation of 168 W/m^2 absorbed by Earth's surface CANNOT make the mean surface temperature hotter than 233K .. (followed by more of his previous ranting about the S-B Law) ..
DC
UNQUOTE.
At least we now know that it was Amazon that deleted his comments. It would be interesting to know what inspired Amazon to do that, yet still be happy to sell his nonsense booklet..
From: its.not.co2@gmail.com
Date: 07/05/2017 13:06
To: <peterridley ..
Subj: I will only comment on my blog ... not Amazon now after they deleted my comments
PR
Insolation of 168 W/m^2 absorbed by Earth's surface CANNOT make the mean surface temperature hotter than 233K .. (followed by more of his previous ranting about the S-B Law) ..
DC
UNQUOTE.
At least we now know that it was Amazon that deleted his comments. It would be interesting to know what inspired Amazon to do that, yet still be happy to sell his nonsense booklet..
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
AHistory&BiographyLover2 years ago (Edited)In reply toan earlier post
Peter Ridley2 years ago
Latest E-mails from Dougy (but nothing of scientific merit, just regurgitation of earlier rants).
QUOTE: ..
Subject: It must really grate on smart Peter Ridley that solid empirical evidence now shows why I have been right all along.
From:Doug Cotton ..
Date:06/05/2017 02:28
To:"peterridley ..
Cc:
To our friend, the smart Peter Ridley (BCC to over 300 others)
Bad Luck, Petey boy ... you backed the wrong horse due to you pathetic lack of understanding of thermodynamics and maximum entropy production, and your gullibility in believing the fictitious fiddled physics of climatology that is entirely based on the false assumption that the brilliant 19th century physicist Josef Loschmidt was wrong about force fields like gravity (and centrifugal force) causing there to be a non-zero temperature gradient - as is seen in every planetary troposphere, every vortex cooling tube, over 850 experiments by Roderich Graeff and as can be correctly explained directly from the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If it did not happen then nobody (not even you) could explain planetary temperatures and heat transfers ..
From: DougCotton ..
Date: 06/05/2017 02:55
To: "peterridley ..
Subj: I don’t normally waste time on you these days, but while it's in my clipboard ....
it seems I must reiterate that there is no valid physics and no empirical evidence that greenhouse gas (like water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane) could possibly warm the surfaces of planets like Earth and Venus. Rain forests are not 50 or more degrees hotter than deserts at similar latitude and altitude, and that tells us the IPCC claim that such “greenhouse” gasses supposed warm the Earth by “33 degrees” at average concentrations is totally false. The correct physics was explained in 1876 by the brilliant physicist Josef Loschmidt, and has never been proven wrong. Now in the 21st century we have solid empirical evidence that his “gravito-thermal” effect is indeed a reality. That single fact is sufficient to refute all the fictitious fiddled physics of climatology.
This comment is continued on my blog at itsnotco2 where you may read (free) my papers including “Comprehensive Refutation of the Radiative Forcing Greenhouse Hypothesis” and “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures” and where you can apply for a reward of tens of thousands if you can prove me wrong
.. UNQUOTE.
QUOTE: ..
Subject: It must really grate on smart Peter Ridley that solid empirical evidence now shows why I have been right all along.
From:Doug Cotton ..
Date:06/05/2017 02:28
To:"peterridley ..
Cc:
To our friend, the smart Peter Ridley (BCC to over 300 others)
Bad Luck, Petey boy ... you backed the wrong horse due to you pathetic lack of understanding of thermodynamics and maximum entropy production, and your gullibility in believing the fictitious fiddled physics of climatology that is entirely based on the false assumption that the brilliant 19th century physicist Josef Loschmidt was wrong about force fields like gravity (and centrifugal force) causing there to be a non-zero temperature gradient - as is seen in every planetary troposphere, every vortex cooling tube, over 850 experiments by Roderich Graeff and as can be correctly explained directly from the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If it did not happen then nobody (not even you) could explain planetary temperatures and heat transfers ..
From: DougCotton ..
Date: 06/05/2017 02:55
To: "peterridley ..
Subj: I don’t normally waste time on you these days, but while it's in my clipboard ....
it seems I must reiterate that there is no valid physics and no empirical evidence that greenhouse gas (like water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane) could possibly warm the surfaces of planets like Earth and Venus. Rain forests are not 50 or more degrees hotter than deserts at similar latitude and altitude, and that tells us the IPCC claim that such “greenhouse” gasses supposed warm the Earth by “33 degrees” at average concentrations is totally false. The correct physics was explained in 1876 by the brilliant physicist Josef Loschmidt, and has never been proven wrong. Now in the 21st century we have solid empirical evidence that his “gravito-thermal” effect is indeed a reality. That single fact is sufficient to refute all the fictitious fiddled physics of climatology.
This comment is continued on my blog at itsnotco2 where you may read (free) my papers including “Comprehensive Refutation of the Radiative Forcing Greenhouse Hypothesis” and “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures” and where you can apply for a reward of tens of thousands if you can prove me wrong
.. UNQUOTE.
Thanks for the update. At least he’s alive and well; as well as he gets anyway. I suppose he does drive us to try to better understand what we should have learned long ago. The gadfly effect.
I took a trip to the Judith Curry website. Wow, climate debate is a booming industry producing thousands of words, and perhaps little of anything else of value. Seems like Cotton is just the visible tip of the iceberg of confusion.
I took a trip to the Judith Curry website. Wow, climate debate is a booming industry producing thousands of words, and perhaps little of anything else of value. Seems like Cotton is just the visible tip of the iceberg of confusion.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Latest E-mails from Dougy (but nothing of scientific merit, just regurgitation of earlier rants).
QUOTE: ..
Subject: It must really grate on smart Peter Ridley that solid empirical evidence now shows why I have been right all along.
From:Doug Cotton ..
Date:06/05/2017 02:28
To:"peterridley ..
Cc:
To our friend, the smart Peter Ridley (BCC to over 300 others)
Bad Luck, Petey boy ... you backed the wrong horse due to you pathetic lack of understanding of thermodynamics and maximum entropy production, and your gullibility in believing the fictitious fiddled physics of climatology that is entirely based on the false assumption that the brilliant 19th century physicist Josef Loschmidt was wrong about force fields like gravity (and centrifugal force) causing there to be a non-zero temperature gradient - as is seen in every planetary troposphere, every vortex cooling tube, over 850 experiments by Roderich Graeff and as can be correctly explained directly from the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If it did not happen then nobody (not even you) could explain planetary temperatures and heat transfers ..
From: DougCotton ..
Date: 06/05/2017 02:55
To: "peterridley ..
Subj: I don’t normally waste time on you these days, but while it's in my clipboard ....
it seems I must reiterate that there is no valid physics and no empirical evidence that greenhouse gas (like water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane) could possibly warm the surfaces of planets like Earth and Venus. Rain forests are not 50 or more degrees hotter than deserts at similar latitude and altitude, and that tells us the IPCC claim that such “greenhouse” gasses supposed warm the Earth by “33 degrees” at average concentrations is totally false. The correct physics was explained in 1876 by the brilliant physicist Josef Loschmidt, and has never been proven wrong. Now in the 21st century we have solid empirical evidence that his “gravito-thermal” effect is indeed a reality. That single fact is sufficient to refute all the fictitious fiddled physics of climatology.
This comment is continued on my blog at itsnotco2 where you may read (free) my papers including “Comprehensive Refutation of the Radiative Forcing Greenhouse Hypothesis” and “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures” and where you can apply for a reward of tens of thousands if you can prove me wrong
.. UNQUOTE.
QUOTE: ..
Subject: It must really grate on smart Peter Ridley that solid empirical evidence now shows why I have been right all along.
From:Doug Cotton ..
Date:06/05/2017 02:28
To:"peterridley ..
Cc:
To our friend, the smart Peter Ridley (BCC to over 300 others)
Bad Luck, Petey boy ... you backed the wrong horse due to you pathetic lack of understanding of thermodynamics and maximum entropy production, and your gullibility in believing the fictitious fiddled physics of climatology that is entirely based on the false assumption that the brilliant 19th century physicist Josef Loschmidt was wrong about force fields like gravity (and centrifugal force) causing there to be a non-zero temperature gradient - as is seen in every planetary troposphere, every vortex cooling tube, over 850 experiments by Roderich Graeff and as can be correctly explained directly from the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If it did not happen then nobody (not even you) could explain planetary temperatures and heat transfers ..
From: DougCotton ..
Date: 06/05/2017 02:55
To: "peterridley ..
Subj: I don’t normally waste time on you these days, but while it's in my clipboard ....
it seems I must reiterate that there is no valid physics and no empirical evidence that greenhouse gas (like water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane) could possibly warm the surfaces of planets like Earth and Venus. Rain forests are not 50 or more degrees hotter than deserts at similar latitude and altitude, and that tells us the IPCC claim that such “greenhouse” gasses supposed warm the Earth by “33 degrees” at average concentrations is totally false. The correct physics was explained in 1876 by the brilliant physicist Josef Loschmidt, and has never been proven wrong. Now in the 21st century we have solid empirical evidence that his “gravito-thermal” effect is indeed a reality. That single fact is sufficient to refute all the fictitious fiddled physics of climatology.
This comment is continued on my blog at itsnotco2 where you may read (free) my papers including “Comprehensive Refutation of the Radiative Forcing Greenhouse Hypothesis” and “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures” and where you can apply for a reward of tens of thousands if you can prove me wrong
.. UNQUOTE.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Peter Ridley2 years ago (Edited)In reply toan earlier post
AHistory&BiographyLover2 years ago
Understand. Not being a physicist, I tend to be sloppy in the language. I operate more by instinct and mental images. And yes, I was thinking of the troposphere. But the hottest radiates more than the cooler, so the net tendency is upward, which is what I meant to imply.
Did Mr. Cotton give up, or was he booted? Seems like the latter.
Did Mr. Cotton give up, or was he booted? Seems like the latter.
Dougy has often said that he was finished commenting then returns very quickly to continue defending his position. Although it is possible that he was booted by Amazon, it could be that he has asked for removal of his comments because he recognises that his rants might undermine his credibility.
After all, he has boasted about how he will be using his "paradigm shift" hypothesis in class actions that will shake the world in 2018.
" .. 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).
After all, he has boasted about how he will be using his "paradigm shift" hypothesis in class actions that will shake the world in 2018.
" .. 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).
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
AHistory&BiographyLover2 years agoIn reply toan earlier post
Peter Ridley2 years ago
Hi AH&BL,
When discussing David's attempt to deduce the atmospheric lapse rate you said " .. when you start adding heat at the bottom and let it escape from the top, you need a temperature gradient to get heat energy moving upward .. ". Some readers may imagine that:
- your "bottom" and "top" are referring to the Earth's atmosphere,
- the "heat energy" is the result of insolation absorbed by the Earth's surface and
- that heat energy then works its way through the atmosphere before escaping to space (the reverse of Doug's "heat creep" from TOA to surface).
On numerous occasions when debating the CACC issue I have found individuals incorrectly using the terms heat and energy interchangeably instead of drawing a clear distinction between the kinetic energy of molecules and the energy associated with e/m radiation (e.g. See https://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-131952).
Just a clarification - radiated e/m energy (insolation) causes heating of the Earth, which returns e/m energy (not heat) to space via the atmosphere, some components of which (the "greenhouse" gases, mainly water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane and ozone - see the absorption spectrogram at https://earthzine.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/6.1.jpg) absorb and reradiate a portion of that e/m energy in all directions.
(Not the full story but enough of an outline).
When discussing David's attempt to deduce the atmospheric lapse rate you said " .. when you start adding heat at the bottom and let it escape from the top, you need a temperature gradient to get heat energy moving upward .. ". Some readers may imagine that:
- your "bottom" and "top" are referring to the Earth's atmosphere,
- the "heat energy" is the result of insolation absorbed by the Earth's surface and
- that heat energy then works its way through the atmosphere before escaping to space (the reverse of Doug's "heat creep" from TOA to surface).
On numerous occasions when debating the CACC issue I have found individuals incorrectly using the terms heat and energy interchangeably instead of drawing a clear distinction between the kinetic energy of molecules and the energy associated with e/m radiation (e.g. See https://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-131952).
Just a clarification - radiated e/m energy (insolation) causes heating of the Earth, which returns e/m energy (not heat) to space via the atmosphere, some components of which (the "greenhouse" gases, mainly water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane and ozone - see the absorption spectrogram at https://earthzine.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/6.1.jpg) absorb and reradiate a portion of that e/m energy in all directions.
(Not the full story but enough of an outline).
Understand. Not being a physicist, I tend to be sloppy in the language. I operate more by instinct and mental images. And yes, I was thinking of the troposphere. But the hottest radiates more than the cooler, so the net tendency is upward, which is what I meant to imply.
Did Mr. Cotton give up, or was he booted? Seems like the latter.
Did Mr. Cotton give up, or was he booted? Seems like the latter.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Peter Ridley2 years ago (Edited)In reply toan earlier post
AHistory&BiographyLover2 years ago
Can't find it there. Do you use a different name?
Never mind. Found it.
PS: I'm not sure if everything I said is justified by what Feynman said.
To me, in a static isolated system, horizontal or vertical, lapse rate should be zero. The hot parts should conduct and radiate more heat energy to the cold parts than visa versa. Temperature (the measure of heat energy) should even out. But when you start adding heat at the bottom and let it escape from the top, you need a temperature gradient to get heat energy moving upward. Adiabatic lapse rate is the gradient which is just on the verge of instability. Dump too much heat in at bottom and convection will start. Dump way too much in at the bottom, and the column will overturn as in a thunder storm. Or else there'll be phase changes. Too complicated for me.
PS: Obviously, I know that's no answer to your question. : )
PPS: I don't think ballistics is supposed to work in a crowded room. You can't pretend all those people aren't there.
PPPS: I guess that's the point you were trying to make.
Never mind. Found it.
PS: I'm not sure if everything I said is justified by what Feynman said.
To me, in a static isolated system, horizontal or vertical, lapse rate should be zero. The hot parts should conduct and radiate more heat energy to the cold parts than visa versa. Temperature (the measure of heat energy) should even out. But when you start adding heat at the bottom and let it escape from the top, you need a temperature gradient to get heat energy moving upward. Adiabatic lapse rate is the gradient which is just on the verge of instability. Dump too much heat in at bottom and convection will start. Dump way too much in at the bottom, and the column will overturn as in a thunder storm. Or else there'll be phase changes. Too complicated for me.
PS: Obviously, I know that's no answer to your question. : )
PPS: I don't think ballistics is supposed to work in a crowded room. You can't pretend all those people aren't there.
PPPS: I guess that's the point you were trying to make.
Hi AH&BL,
When discussing David's attempt to deduce the atmospheric lapse rate you said " .. when you start adding heat at the bottom and let it escape from the top, you need a temperature gradient to get heat energy moving upward .. ". Some readers may imagine that:
- your "bottom" and "top" are referring to the Earth's atmosphere,
- the "heat energy" is the result of insolation absorbed by the Earth's surface and
- that heat energy then works its way through the atmosphere before escaping to space (the reverse of Doug's "heat creep" from TOA to surface).
On numerous occasions when debating the CACC issue I have found individuals incorrectly using the terms heat and energy interchangeably instead of drawing a clear distinction between the kinetic energy of molecules and the energy associated with e/m radiation (e.g. See https://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-131952).
Just a clarification - radiated e/m energy (insolation) causes heating of the Earth, which returns e/m energy (not heat) to space via the atmosphere, some components of which (the "greenhouse" gases, mainly water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane and ozone - see the absorption spectrogram at https://earthzine.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/6.1.jpg) absorb and reradiate a portion of that e/m energy in all directions.
(Not the full story but enough of an outline).
When discussing David's attempt to deduce the atmospheric lapse rate you said " .. when you start adding heat at the bottom and let it escape from the top, you need a temperature gradient to get heat energy moving upward .. ". Some readers may imagine that:
- your "bottom" and "top" are referring to the Earth's atmosphere,
- the "heat energy" is the result of insolation absorbed by the Earth's surface and
- that heat energy then works its way through the atmosphere before escaping to space (the reverse of Doug's "heat creep" from TOA to surface).
On numerous occasions when debating the CACC issue I have found individuals incorrectly using the terms heat and energy interchangeably instead of drawing a clear distinction between the kinetic energy of molecules and the energy associated with e/m radiation (e.g. See https://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-131952).
Just a clarification - radiated e/m energy (insolation) causes heating of the Earth, which returns e/m energy (not heat) to space via the atmosphere, some components of which (the "greenhouse" gases, mainly water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane and ozone - see the absorption spectrogram at https://earthzine.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/6.1.jpg) absorb and reradiate a portion of that e/m energy in all directions.
(Not the full story but enough of an outline).
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
AHistory&BiographyLover2 years ago (Edited)In reply toan earlier post
David A. Burton2 years ago
A&BL, last year I tried to calculate the effect you're describing. It was an educational exercise:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/14/climate-skeptics-behaving-badly/comment-page-1/#comment-2300871
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/14/climate-skeptics-behaving-badly/comment-page-1/#comment-2300871
Can't find it there. Do you use a different name?
Never mind. Found it.
PS: I'm not sure if everything I said is justified by what Feynman said.
To me, in a static isolated system, horizontal or vertical, lapse rate should be zero. The hot parts should conduct and radiate more heat energy to the cold parts than visa versa. Temperature (the measure of heat energy) should even out. But when you start adding heat at the bottom and let it escape from the top, you need a temperature gradient to get heat energy moving upward. Adiabatic lapse rate is the gradient which is just on the verge of instability. Dump too much heat in at bottom and convection will start. Dump way too much in at the bottom, and the column will overturn as in a thunder storm. Or else there'll be phase changes. Too complicated for me.
PS: Obviously, I know that's no answer to your question. : )
PPS: I don't think ballistics is supposed to work in a crowded room. You can't pretend all those people aren't there.
PPPS: I guess that's the point you were trying to make.
Never mind. Found it.
PS: I'm not sure if everything I said is justified by what Feynman said.
To me, in a static isolated system, horizontal or vertical, lapse rate should be zero. The hot parts should conduct and radiate more heat energy to the cold parts than visa versa. Temperature (the measure of heat energy) should even out. But when you start adding heat at the bottom and let it escape from the top, you need a temperature gradient to get heat energy moving upward. Adiabatic lapse rate is the gradient which is just on the verge of instability. Dump too much heat in at bottom and convection will start. Dump way too much in at the bottom, and the column will overturn as in a thunder storm. Or else there'll be phase changes. Too complicated for me.
PS: Obviously, I know that's no answer to your question. : )
PPS: I don't think ballistics is supposed to work in a crowded room. You can't pretend all those people aren't there.
PPPS: I guess that's the point you were trying to make.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
David A. Burton2 years agoIn reply toan earlier post
AHistory&BiographyLover2 years ago
Here are two paragraphs from the beginning of Chapter 40, The Principles of Statistical Mechanics of The Feynman Lectures on Physics: The New Millennium Edition, Vol. 1.
"So, these are the two questions that we shall try to answer: How are the molecules distributed in space when there are forces acting on them, and how are they distributed in velocity?
It turns out that the two questions are completely independent, and that the distribution of velocities is always the same. We already received a hint of the latter fact when we found that the average kinetic energy is the same, kT/2 per degree of freedom, no matter what forces are acting on the molecules. The distribution of the velocities on the molecules is independent of the forces, because the collision rates do not depend upon the forces."
Herein may lie an explanation of where Loschmidt went wrong. I only have second hand knowledge of his argument, but it seems it was essentially that since a particle of gas in a sparsely populated column will lose kinetic energy (a measure of temperature) as it travels up the column, and gain kinetic energy as it falls, the temperature will rise as you go down the column. He then seemed to have tacitly extrapolated that result to a more densely populated column, ignoring the interaction with other particles. He should have taken an expandable box of particles from bottom to top of the column, and noted the effect of gravity on their average kinetic energy. There is none according to Feynman. Only density and pressure change, and in equal proportions. That cancels the temperature change in the ideal gas law.
I have no idea how he extended his result to liquids and solids. Must be lost in the dustbin of (justly forgotten) history.
PS: Where is Mr. Cotton? He get banned from here too?
"So, these are the two questions that we shall try to answer: How are the molecules distributed in space when there are forces acting on them, and how are they distributed in velocity?
It turns out that the two questions are completely independent, and that the distribution of velocities is always the same. We already received a hint of the latter fact when we found that the average kinetic energy is the same, kT/2 per degree of freedom, no matter what forces are acting on the molecules. The distribution of the velocities on the molecules is independent of the forces, because the collision rates do not depend upon the forces."
Herein may lie an explanation of where Loschmidt went wrong. I only have second hand knowledge of his argument, but it seems it was essentially that since a particle of gas in a sparsely populated column will lose kinetic energy (a measure of temperature) as it travels up the column, and gain kinetic energy as it falls, the temperature will rise as you go down the column. He then seemed to have tacitly extrapolated that result to a more densely populated column, ignoring the interaction with other particles. He should have taken an expandable box of particles from bottom to top of the column, and noted the effect of gravity on their average kinetic energy. There is none according to Feynman. Only density and pressure change, and in equal proportions. That cancels the temperature change in the ideal gas law.
I have no idea how he extended his result to liquids and solids. Must be lost in the dustbin of (justly forgotten) history.
PS: Where is Mr. Cotton? He get banned from here too?
A&BL, last year I tried to calculate the effect you're describing. It was an educational exercise:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/14/climate-skeptics-behaving-badly/comment-page-1/#comment-2300871
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/14/climate-skeptics-behaving-badly/comment-page-1/#comment-2300871
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
AHistory&BiographyLover2 years ago (Edited)In reply toan earlier post
Peter Ridley2 years ago
Hi Dave, I'd like a copy please. You have my E-mail address.
Here are two paragraphs from the beginning of Chapter 40, The Principles of Statistical Mechanics of The Feynman Lectures on Physics: The New Millennium Edition, Vol. 1.
"So, these are the two questions that we shall try to answer: How are the molecules distributed in space when there are forces acting on them, and how are they distributed in velocity?
It turns out that the two questions are completely independent, and that the distribution of velocities is always the same. We already received a hint of the latter fact when we found that the average kinetic energy is the same, kT/2 per degree of freedom, no matter what forces are acting on the molecules. The distribution of the velocities on the molecules is independent of the forces, because the collision rates do not depend upon the forces."
Herein may lie an explanation of where Loschmidt went wrong. I only have second hand knowledge of his argument, but it seems it was essentially that since a particle of gas in a sparsely populated column will lose kinetic energy (a measure of temperature) as it travels up the column, and gain kinetic energy as it falls, the temperature will rise as you go down the column. He then seemed to have tacitly extrapolated that result to a more densely populated column, ignoring the interaction with other particles. He should have taken an expandable box of particles from bottom to top of the column, and noted the effect of gravity on their average kinetic energy. There is none according to Feynman. Only density and pressure change, and in equal proportions. That cancels the temperature change in the ideal gas law.
I have no idea how he extended his result to liquids and solids. Must be lost in the dustbin of (justly forgotten) history.
PS: Where is Mr. Cotton? He get banned from here too?
"So, these are the two questions that we shall try to answer: How are the molecules distributed in space when there are forces acting on them, and how are they distributed in velocity?
It turns out that the two questions are completely independent, and that the distribution of velocities is always the same. We already received a hint of the latter fact when we found that the average kinetic energy is the same, kT/2 per degree of freedom, no matter what forces are acting on the molecules. The distribution of the velocities on the molecules is independent of the forces, because the collision rates do not depend upon the forces."
Herein may lie an explanation of where Loschmidt went wrong. I only have second hand knowledge of his argument, but it seems it was essentially that since a particle of gas in a sparsely populated column will lose kinetic energy (a measure of temperature) as it travels up the column, and gain kinetic energy as it falls, the temperature will rise as you go down the column. He then seemed to have tacitly extrapolated that result to a more densely populated column, ignoring the interaction with other particles. He should have taken an expandable box of particles from bottom to top of the column, and noted the effect of gravity on their average kinetic energy. There is none according to Feynman. Only density and pressure change, and in equal proportions. That cancels the temperature change in the ideal gas law.
I have no idea how he extended his result to liquids and solids. Must be lost in the dustbin of (justly forgotten) history.
PS: Where is Mr. Cotton? He get banned from here too?
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Peter Ridley2 years agoIn reply toan earlier post
David A. Burton2 years ago
That is strange, indeed.
I have a saved copy of this comment thread, from before the Cotton comments were deleted. Email me if you want a copy of it. (If you email me to ask for a copy, then please remind me that I saved it in the "Doug_Cotton" folder under "Downloads.")
I have a saved copy of this comment thread, from before the Cotton comments were deleted. Email me if you want a copy of it. (If you email me to ask for a copy, then please remind me that I saved it in the "Doug_Cotton" folder under "Downloads.")
Hi Dave, I'd like a copy please. You have my E-mail address.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
David A. Burton2 years ago (Edited)In reply toan earlier post
Peter Ridley2 years ago
I'm puzzled why all of Doug Cotton's comments on all of the Amazon reviews of his self-published booklet have been " .. Deleted by Amazon on Apr 16, 2017 .. ".
On 13th April David Burton refuted Doug's theory of how a Diesel engine works. Until then Doug had been firing off comments here as though there would be no tomorrow - now silence!! This is so unlike Doug.
Since February Doug has blasted me with over 150 E-mails but I've had nothing from him since the 19th April. Those of the 18th/19th April are typical QUOTE: ..
18th .. Subj: You can easily rubbish History & Biography Lover
Tell him to half-fill his cylinder with ball bearings and then use the energy when they fall to create his perpetual motion machine (LOL). By the way, Roderich Graeff did H&BL's suggested experiment over 850 times, turning the cylinders upside down and noting that the temperature gradient virtually always formed and re-formed with cooler temperatures at the top.
18th .. Subj: A challenge
Feel free to quote this on Amazon or any blog and try to counter it, smart PR.
The Radiative Forcing Greenhouse Hypothesis is false because there is no valid physics supporting its underlying assumption that the surface temperature can be explained by adding to the solar radiation about twice as much radiation from the colder atmosphere. If climatology physics were correct, then, if one electric bar radiator warmed something to 42°C in an ambient temperature of 10°C, sixteen such radiators would have to warm it to over 200°C, but they don't. The hypothesis in the book is developed directly from a correct statement (and understanding) of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. That law gives only one result in a gravitational field, namely a stable density gradient and stable temperature gradient. I suggest it is time that the reviewer (H&BL) read the rest of the book, especially the study that showed water vapor cools ..
19th .. Subj: Why GREENHOUSE gas COOLS and CANNOT WARM us. There's $50,000 if I'm wrong.
Dear Politicians, Scientists and others .. The Radiative Forcing Greenhouse Hypothesis is false because ... (The remainder was a repeat of Doug's E-mail to me on 18th .. Subj: A challeng) ..
.. UNQUOTE.
Included among Doug Cotton's many questionable pronouncements in his E-mails, blog comments and here are his repeated claims about how the Stefan-Boltzmann Law can be used to determine the temperature of a body that is absorbing electromagnetic radiation.
During E-mail exchanges on 10th Oct. 2011 with members of the PSI blog (see FOOTNOTE 1) and others on the subject of "John O'Sullivan's specious claims" Dr. Grant Petty, Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Wisconson (http://sleet.aos.wisc.edu/~gpetty/wp/?page_id=12) said to Professor Claes Johnson (one of Doug's heroes - see FOOTNOTE 2) " .. the SB law isn't two-way because it is UNDERSTOOD by anyone who actually works with radiation to apply only to the radiation EMITTED by a surface .. This is not climate science. This is routine undergraduate-level physics .. ".
It's a shame that at that time Doug was not included in those exchanges therefore did not benefit from the sound physics that Professor Petty offered to the group. It was several months later, in March 2012 (http://www.webcommentary.com/docs/jo120314.pdf) that Doug became " .. proud to be an active member of PSI and .. in daily email contact with many of these main stream scientists, including professors and PhD’s in various disciplines such as physics, applied mathematics, chemistry, climatology and astro physics .. " (http://www.climate-resistance.org/2012/04/how-to-talk-like-an-oily-dishonest-creep.html#comment-51573).
Never mind, if Doug ever becomes inclined to properly educate himself about the relevant physics then he can always get copies of Professor Petty's text books "A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation" and "A First Course in Atmospheric Thermodynamics". They should remove all of his misconceptions about atmospheric radiation and the SLoT.
FOOTNOTES:
1) The Principia Scientific International (PSI) blog was set up in 2010 by ex-high school art teacher John O'Sullivan. He envisaged establishing PSI as a successful publishing business with himself as CEO and thousands of members, each paying an annual fee of £50 (see https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2012/02/18/the-cotton-war/#comment-71990 and the subsequent exchanges, noting Doug's use of the pseudonym "retiredphysicseducator").
For more information on PSI see https://www.desmogblog.com/principia-scientific-international .
2) Claes Johnson is Professor of Applied Mathematics, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden. He was a prominent contributor to the 2010 booklet "Slaying the sky dragon .. " (https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/customer-reviews/R2VT54CSOB9NNI/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B004DNWJN6) and to the subsequent discussions about John O'Sullivan's proposals for the role and structure of PSI. In March 2012 Doug Cotton said " .. The whole world should acknowledge the work of Claes Johnson .. This .. is the foundation for my writings here .. " (http://principia-scientific.org/publications/psi_radiated_energy.pdf).
On 13th April David Burton refuted Doug's theory of how a Diesel engine works. Until then Doug had been firing off comments here as though there would be no tomorrow - now silence!! This is so unlike Doug.
Since February Doug has blasted me with over 150 E-mails but I've had nothing from him since the 19th April. Those of the 18th/19th April are typical QUOTE: ..
18th .. Subj: You can easily rubbish History & Biography Lover
Tell him to half-fill his cylinder with ball bearings and then use the energy when they fall to create his perpetual motion machine (LOL). By the way, Roderich Graeff did H&BL's suggested experiment over 850 times, turning the cylinders upside down and noting that the temperature gradient virtually always formed and re-formed with cooler temperatures at the top.
18th .. Subj: A challenge
Feel free to quote this on Amazon or any blog and try to counter it, smart PR.
The Radiative Forcing Greenhouse Hypothesis is false because there is no valid physics supporting its underlying assumption that the surface temperature can be explained by adding to the solar radiation about twice as much radiation from the colder atmosphere. If climatology physics were correct, then, if one electric bar radiator warmed something to 42°C in an ambient temperature of 10°C, sixteen such radiators would have to warm it to over 200°C, but they don't. The hypothesis in the book is developed directly from a correct statement (and understanding) of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. That law gives only one result in a gravitational field, namely a stable density gradient and stable temperature gradient. I suggest it is time that the reviewer (H&BL) read the rest of the book, especially the study that showed water vapor cools ..
19th .. Subj: Why GREENHOUSE gas COOLS and CANNOT WARM us. There's $50,000 if I'm wrong.
Dear Politicians, Scientists and others .. The Radiative Forcing Greenhouse Hypothesis is false because ... (The remainder was a repeat of Doug's E-mail to me on 18th .. Subj: A challeng) ..
.. UNQUOTE.
Included among Doug Cotton's many questionable pronouncements in his E-mails, blog comments and here are his repeated claims about how the Stefan-Boltzmann Law can be used to determine the temperature of a body that is absorbing electromagnetic radiation.
During E-mail exchanges on 10th Oct. 2011 with members of the PSI blog (see FOOTNOTE 1) and others on the subject of "John O'Sullivan's specious claims" Dr. Grant Petty, Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Wisconson (http://sleet.aos.wisc.edu/~gpetty/wp/?page_id=12) said to Professor Claes Johnson (one of Doug's heroes - see FOOTNOTE 2) " .. the SB law isn't two-way because it is UNDERSTOOD by anyone who actually works with radiation to apply only to the radiation EMITTED by a surface .. This is not climate science. This is routine undergraduate-level physics .. ".
It's a shame that at that time Doug was not included in those exchanges therefore did not benefit from the sound physics that Professor Petty offered to the group. It was several months later, in March 2012 (http://www.webcommentary.com/docs/jo120314.pdf) that Doug became " .. proud to be an active member of PSI and .. in daily email contact with many of these main stream scientists, including professors and PhD’s in various disciplines such as physics, applied mathematics, chemistry, climatology and astro physics .. " (http://www.climate-resistance.org/2012/04/how-to-talk-like-an-oily-dishonest-creep.html#comment-51573).
Never mind, if Doug ever becomes inclined to properly educate himself about the relevant physics then he can always get copies of Professor Petty's text books "A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation" and "A First Course in Atmospheric Thermodynamics". They should remove all of his misconceptions about atmospheric radiation and the SLoT.
FOOTNOTES:
1) The Principia Scientific International (PSI) blog was set up in 2010 by ex-high school art teacher John O'Sullivan. He envisaged establishing PSI as a successful publishing business with himself as CEO and thousands of members, each paying an annual fee of £50 (see https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2012/02/18/the-cotton-war/#comment-71990 and the subsequent exchanges, noting Doug's use of the pseudonym "retiredphysicseducator").
For more information on PSI see https://www.desmogblog.com/principia-scientific-international .
2) Claes Johnson is Professor of Applied Mathematics, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden. He was a prominent contributor to the 2010 booklet "Slaying the sky dragon .. " (https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/customer-reviews/R2VT54CSOB9NNI/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B004DNWJN6) and to the subsequent discussions about John O'Sullivan's proposals for the role and structure of PSI. In March 2012 Doug Cotton said " .. The whole world should acknowledge the work of Claes Johnson .. This .. is the foundation for my writings here .. " (http://principia-scientific.org/publications/psi_radiated_energy.pdf).
That is strange, indeed.
I have a saved copy of this comment thread, from before the Cotton comments were deleted. Email me if you want a copy of it. (If you email me to ask for a copy, then please remind me that I saved it in the "Doug_Cotton" folder under "Downloads.")
I have a saved copy of this comment thread, from before the Cotton comments were deleted. Email me if you want a copy of it. (If you email me to ask for a copy, then please remind me that I saved it in the "Doug_Cotton" folder under "Downloads.")
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
I'm puzzled why all of Doug Cotton's comments on all of the Amazon reviews of his self-published booklet have been " .. Deleted by Amazon on Apr 16, 2017 .. ".
On 13th April David Burton refuted Doug's theory of how a Diesel engine works. Until then Doug had been firing off comments here as though there would be no tomorrow - now silence!! This is so unlike Doug.
Since February Doug has blasted me with over 150 E-mails but I've had nothing from him since the 19th April. Those of the 18th/19th April are typical QUOTE: ..
18th .. Subj: You can easily rubbish History & Biography Lover
Tell him to half-fill his cylinder with ball bearings and then use the energy when they fall to create his perpetual motion machine (LOL). By the way, Roderich Graeff did H&BL's suggested experiment over 850 times, turning the cylinders upside down and noting that the temperature gradient virtually always formed and re-formed with cooler temperatures at the top.
18th .. Subj: A challenge
Feel free to quote this on Amazon or any blog and try to counter it, smart PR.
The Radiative Forcing Greenhouse Hypothesis is false because there is no valid physics supporting its underlying assumption that the surface temperature can be explained by adding to the solar radiation about twice as much radiation from the colder atmosphere. If climatology physics were correct, then, if one electric bar radiator warmed something to 42°C in an ambient temperature of 10°C, sixteen such radiators would have to warm it to over 200°C, but they don't. The hypothesis in the book is developed directly from a correct statement (and understanding) of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. That law gives only one result in a gravitational field, namely a stable density gradient and stable temperature gradient. I suggest it is time that the reviewer (H&BL) read the rest of the book, especially the study that showed water vapor cools ..
19th .. Subj: Why GREENHOUSE gas COOLS and CANNOT WARM us. There's $50,000 if I'm wrong.
Dear Politicians, Scientists and others .. The Radiative Forcing Greenhouse Hypothesis is false because ... (The remainder was a repeat of Doug's E-mail to me on 18th .. Subj: A challeng) ..
.. UNQUOTE.
Included among Doug Cotton's many questionable pronouncements in his E-mails, blog comments and here are his repeated claims about how the Stefan-Boltzmann Law can be used to determine the temperature of a body that is absorbing electromagnetic radiation.
During E-mail exchanges on 10th Oct. 2011 with members of the PSI blog (see FOOTNOTE 1) and others on the subject of "John O'Sullivan's specious claims" Dr. Grant Petty, Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Wisconson (http://sleet.aos.wisc.edu/~gpetty/wp/?page_id=12) said to Professor Claes Johnson (one of Doug's heroes - see FOOTNOTE 2) " .. the SB law isn't two-way because it is UNDERSTOOD by anyone who actually works with radiation to apply only to the radiation EMITTED by a surface .. This is not climate science. This is routine undergraduate-level physics .. ".
It's a shame that at that time Doug was not included in those exchanges therefore did not benefit from the sound physics that Professor Petty offered to the group. It was several months later, in March 2012 (http://www.webcommentary.com/docs/jo120314.pdf) that Doug became " .. proud to be an active member of PSI and .. in daily email contact with many of these main stream scientists, including professors and PhD’s in various disciplines such as physics, applied mathematics, chemistry, climatology and astro physics .. " (http://www.climate-resistance.org/2012/04/how-to-talk-like-an-oily-dishonest-creep.html#comment-51573).
Never mind, if Doug ever becomes inclined to properly educate himself about the relevant physics then he can always get copies of Professor Petty's text books "A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation" and "A First Course in Atmospheric Thermodynamics". They should remove all of his misconceptions about atmospheric radiation and the SLoT.
FOOTNOTES:
1) The Principia Scientific International (PSI) blog was set up in 2010 by ex-high school art teacher John O'Sullivan. He envisaged establishing PSI as a successful publishing business with himself as CEO and thousands of members, each paying an annual fee of £50 (see https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2012/02/18/the-cotton-war/#comment-71990 and the subsequent exchanges, noting Doug's use of the pseudonym "retiredphysicseducator").
For more information on PSI see https://www.desmogblog.com/principia-scientific-international .
2) Claes Johnson is Professor of Applied Mathematics, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden. He was a prominent contributor to the 2010 booklet "Slaying the sky dragon .. " (https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/customer-reviews/R2VT54CSOB9NNI/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B004DNWJN6) and to the subsequent discussions about John O'Sullivan's proposals for the role and structure of PSI. In March 2012 Doug Cotton said " .. The whole world should acknowledge the work of Claes Johnson .. This .. is the foundation for my writings here .. " (http://principia-scientific.org/publications/psi_radiated_energy.pdf).
On 13th April David Burton refuted Doug's theory of how a Diesel engine works. Until then Doug had been firing off comments here as though there would be no tomorrow - now silence!! This is so unlike Doug.
Since February Doug has blasted me with over 150 E-mails but I've had nothing from him since the 19th April. Those of the 18th/19th April are typical QUOTE: ..
18th .. Subj: You can easily rubbish History & Biography Lover
Tell him to half-fill his cylinder with ball bearings and then use the energy when they fall to create his perpetual motion machine (LOL). By the way, Roderich Graeff did H&BL's suggested experiment over 850 times, turning the cylinders upside down and noting that the temperature gradient virtually always formed and re-formed with cooler temperatures at the top.
18th .. Subj: A challenge
Feel free to quote this on Amazon or any blog and try to counter it, smart PR.
The Radiative Forcing Greenhouse Hypothesis is false because there is no valid physics supporting its underlying assumption that the surface temperature can be explained by adding to the solar radiation about twice as much radiation from the colder atmosphere. If climatology physics were correct, then, if one electric bar radiator warmed something to 42°C in an ambient temperature of 10°C, sixteen such radiators would have to warm it to over 200°C, but they don't. The hypothesis in the book is developed directly from a correct statement (and understanding) of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. That law gives only one result in a gravitational field, namely a stable density gradient and stable temperature gradient. I suggest it is time that the reviewer (H&BL) read the rest of the book, especially the study that showed water vapor cools ..
19th .. Subj: Why GREENHOUSE gas COOLS and CANNOT WARM us. There's $50,000 if I'm wrong.
Dear Politicians, Scientists and others .. The Radiative Forcing Greenhouse Hypothesis is false because ... (The remainder was a repeat of Doug's E-mail to me on 18th .. Subj: A challeng) ..
.. UNQUOTE.
Included among Doug Cotton's many questionable pronouncements in his E-mails, blog comments and here are his repeated claims about how the Stefan-Boltzmann Law can be used to determine the temperature of a body that is absorbing electromagnetic radiation.
During E-mail exchanges on 10th Oct. 2011 with members of the PSI blog (see FOOTNOTE 1) and others on the subject of "John O'Sullivan's specious claims" Dr. Grant Petty, Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Wisconson (http://sleet.aos.wisc.edu/~gpetty/wp/?page_id=12) said to Professor Claes Johnson (one of Doug's heroes - see FOOTNOTE 2) " .. the SB law isn't two-way because it is UNDERSTOOD by anyone who actually works with radiation to apply only to the radiation EMITTED by a surface .. This is not climate science. This is routine undergraduate-level physics .. ".
It's a shame that at that time Doug was not included in those exchanges therefore did not benefit from the sound physics that Professor Petty offered to the group. It was several months later, in March 2012 (http://www.webcommentary.com/docs/jo120314.pdf) that Doug became " .. proud to be an active member of PSI and .. in daily email contact with many of these main stream scientists, including professors and PhD’s in various disciplines such as physics, applied mathematics, chemistry, climatology and astro physics .. " (http://www.climate-resistance.org/2012/04/how-to-talk-like-an-oily-dishonest-creep.html#comment-51573).
Never mind, if Doug ever becomes inclined to properly educate himself about the relevant physics then he can always get copies of Professor Petty's text books "A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation" and "A First Course in Atmospheric Thermodynamics". They should remove all of his misconceptions about atmospheric radiation and the SLoT.
FOOTNOTES:
1) The Principia Scientific International (PSI) blog was set up in 2010 by ex-high school art teacher John O'Sullivan. He envisaged establishing PSI as a successful publishing business with himself as CEO and thousands of members, each paying an annual fee of £50 (see https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2012/02/18/the-cotton-war/#comment-71990 and the subsequent exchanges, noting Doug's use of the pseudonym "retiredphysicseducator").
For more information on PSI see https://www.desmogblog.com/principia-scientific-international .
2) Claes Johnson is Professor of Applied Mathematics, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden. He was a prominent contributor to the 2010 booklet "Slaying the sky dragon .. " (https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/customer-reviews/R2VT54CSOB9NNI/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B004DNWJN6) and to the subsequent discussions about John O'Sullivan's proposals for the role and structure of PSI. In March 2012 Doug Cotton said " .. The whole world should acknowledge the work of Claes Johnson .. This .. is the foundation for my writings here .. " (http://principia-scientific.org/publications/psi_radiated_energy.pdf).
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
“Josiah Willard Gibbs (February 11, 1839 – April 28, 1903)”
“… he became the earliest theoretical scientist in the United States to earn an international reputation and was praised by Albert Einstein as "the greatest mind in American history.”
“Together with James Clerk Maxwell and Ludwig Boltzmann, he created statistical mechanics (a term that he coined), explaining the laws of thermodynamics as consequences of the statistical properties of ensembles of the possible states of a physical system composed of many particles.”
“Unassuming in manner, genial and kindly in his intercourse with his fellow-men, never showing impatience or irritation, devoid of personal ambition of the baser sort or of the slightest desire to exalt himself, he went far toward realizing the ideal of the unselfish, Christian gentleman. In the minds of those who knew him, the greatness of his intellectual achievements will never overshadow the beauty and dignity of his life.”
— H. A. Bumstead, 1903”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josiah_Willard_Gibbs
AHistory&BiographyLover
“… he became the earliest theoretical scientist in the United States to earn an international reputation and was praised by Albert Einstein as "the greatest mind in American history.”
“Together with James Clerk Maxwell and Ludwig Boltzmann, he created statistical mechanics (a term that he coined), explaining the laws of thermodynamics as consequences of the statistical properties of ensembles of the possible states of a physical system composed of many particles.”
“Unassuming in manner, genial and kindly in his intercourse with his fellow-men, never showing impatience or irritation, devoid of personal ambition of the baser sort or of the slightest desire to exalt himself, he went far toward realizing the ideal of the unselfish, Christian gentleman. In the minds of those who knew him, the greatness of his intellectual achievements will never overshadow the beauty and dignity of his life.”
— H. A. Bumstead, 1903”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josiah_Willard_Gibbs
AHistory&BiographyLover
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
AHistory&BiographyLover2 years ago (Edited)In reply toan earlier post
Peter Ridley2 years ago
On 9th April 2017 Doug Cotton claimed here that " .. compression "heating" is a myth .. ".
On 14th June 2014 James Stevens claimed on his "Heat Transfer and Applied Thermodynamics" blog that " .. Compression Heating of a Gas .. An ideal gas, like air, or helium, will tend to heat up when it is compressed. Unless measures are taken to cool the gas during the compression process, this can lead to a pretty large temperature increase for relatively modest pressure increases. If we assume that no cooling takes place (adiabatic) it is easy to calculate the minimum temperature to which the gas is heated from the compression process alone .. " (http://heat-transfer-thermodynamics.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/compression-heating-of-gas.html).
Whereas Doug Cotton has provided only hot air, James Stevens was good enough to provide a T/P graph for several gases.
Some readers of these comments may have difficulty deciding which of these two claims is correct. It may help them to know a bit more about the two individuals who made them:
- Dr. James W Stevens " .. a professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs .. Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering, Brigham Young University , 1991, M.S., Mechanical Engineering, BYU, 1988, B.S., Mechanical Engineering, BYU, 1987, Minor in Mathematics .. " (https://sites.google.com/site/heatxferconsulting/Home/vitae).
- Mr Douglas J Cotton - " .. Retired IT Businessman / Part-time Educator / Now Researcher in Atmospheric & Subterrestrial Physics, Self-employed consultant March 1967 – Present .. " (https://au.linkedin.com/in/douglas-cotton-b794a871) " .. climate change greenhouse effect global warming carbon dioxide carbon tax radiative forcing Christianity Jesus Christ salvation rate of ageing slower aging human aging health heart disease cancer photography landscape photography photos of tasmania photos of UK photos of Europe .. " (http://www.infositeshow.com/sites/douglascotton.com) and goodness knows what else " .. B.Sc (physics), B.A. (economics), Dip.Bus.Admin Sydney and Macquarie Universities (1963 to 1972 inclusive)
Awarded four academic scholarships including one by the Physics Dept of the University of Sydney .. ".
My money's on Dr. Stevens being correct!!
On 14th June 2014 James Stevens claimed on his "Heat Transfer and Applied Thermodynamics" blog that " .. Compression Heating of a Gas .. An ideal gas, like air, or helium, will tend to heat up when it is compressed. Unless measures are taken to cool the gas during the compression process, this can lead to a pretty large temperature increase for relatively modest pressure increases. If we assume that no cooling takes place (adiabatic) it is easy to calculate the minimum temperature to which the gas is heated from the compression process alone .. " (http://heat-transfer-thermodynamics.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/compression-heating-of-gas.html).
Whereas Doug Cotton has provided only hot air, James Stevens was good enough to provide a T/P graph for several gases.
Some readers of these comments may have difficulty deciding which of these two claims is correct. It may help them to know a bit more about the two individuals who made them:
- Dr. James W Stevens " .. a professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs .. Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering, Brigham Young University , 1991, M.S., Mechanical Engineering, BYU, 1988, B.S., Mechanical Engineering, BYU, 1987, Minor in Mathematics .. " (https://sites.google.com/site/heatxferconsulting/Home/vitae).
- Mr Douglas J Cotton - " .. Retired IT Businessman / Part-time Educator / Now Researcher in Atmospheric & Subterrestrial Physics, Self-employed consultant March 1967 – Present .. " (https://au.linkedin.com/in/douglas-cotton-b794a871) " .. climate change greenhouse effect global warming carbon dioxide carbon tax radiative forcing Christianity Jesus Christ salvation rate of ageing slower aging human aging health heart disease cancer photography landscape photography photos of tasmania photos of UK photos of Europe .. " (http://www.infositeshow.com/sites/douglascotton.com) and goodness knows what else " .. B.Sc (physics), B.A. (economics), Dip.Bus.Admin Sydney and Macquarie Universities (1963 to 1972 inclusive)
Awarded four academic scholarships including one by the Physics Dept of the University of Sydney .. ".
My money's on Dr. Stevens being correct!!
“Regardless of the presence of gravity, Gibbs’s isothermal solution is the maximum-entropy state in a thermally-isolated (energy-conserving) atmosphere.”
On the energetics of maximum-entropy temperature profiles
R. A. Akmaev
QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY
Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 134: 187–197 (2008)
Published online in Wiley InterScience
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.209/pdf
This is precisely the situation that Loschmidt talked about – static equilibrium in an isolated column of gas. But Loschmidt didn’t finish the solution. If you stand a horizontal isothermal isolated column of gas up vertically you may well get an TRANSIENT temperature gradient because of the gas slumping (compressing in the lower part, expanding in the upper part). If so, the upper and lower parts of the column will then exchange energy (via conduction, radiation, and/or convection) to maximize system entropy by restoring the ISOTHERMAL condition. You cannot maintain a temperature gradient with gravity alone. You must disrupt the isolation of the column somehow to do that.
Once again, the troposphere is a dynamic open system (heat entering at the bottom, exiting at the top, and for many other reasons). Loschmidt, even if he had been correct, doesn't even apply.
On the energetics of maximum-entropy temperature profiles
R. A. Akmaev
QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY
Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 134: 187–197 (2008)
Published online in Wiley InterScience
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.209/pdf
This is precisely the situation that Loschmidt talked about – static equilibrium in an isolated column of gas. But Loschmidt didn’t finish the solution. If you stand a horizontal isothermal isolated column of gas up vertically you may well get an TRANSIENT temperature gradient because of the gas slumping (compressing in the lower part, expanding in the upper part). If so, the upper and lower parts of the column will then exchange energy (via conduction, radiation, and/or convection) to maximize system entropy by restoring the ISOTHERMAL condition. You cannot maintain a temperature gradient with gravity alone. You must disrupt the isolation of the column somehow to do that.
Once again, the troposphere is a dynamic open system (heat entering at the bottom, exiting at the top, and for many other reasons). Loschmidt, even if he had been correct, doesn't even apply.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Doug Cotton wrote, "(12.9) I quote Ted Hutch at https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-compression-temperature-of-Diesel-engine 'Most engines run at between 195F and 220F but the fuel ignites at any temperature that is conducive to the fuel’s flash point. The range is 90F to 220F. Compression ignites the fuel in a diesel engine and the temperature of the cylinder when the fuel is introduced needs to be stable to achieve a clean burn. Enrichment plays a role in how well the engine runs.' Go and argue with him about whether fuel can ignite at a mere 90°F!"
You didn't understand what he was talking about. He was talking about "the temperature of the CYLINDER," not the temperature of the compressed air.
Diesel fuel does NOT "ignite at a mere 90°F." When the cylinder walls are too cool, fuel that is in contact with the cylinder walls won't burn. That's why you often see black smoke when a diesel engine is starting: because a portion of the injected fuel doesn't burn. On that first stroke, the AIR is hot enough to ignite the fuel which is injected into the air, so the engine fires and develops enough power to come up to speed. But some of the fuel, which is in contact with the cold cylinder walls, doesn't burn, resulting in smoke. When the inside surfaces of the cylinder walls get hot enough to quickly vaporize the fuel, then you get a much cleaner burn.
Read the upvoted answers to that Quora question, by Amrendra Jha and Stephen Carey. Even in relatively low-compression diesel engines, the compressed air temperature approaches 600°C (which is well above the autoignition temperature of diesel fuel).
You didn't understand what he was talking about. He was talking about "the temperature of the CYLINDER," not the temperature of the compressed air.
Diesel fuel does NOT "ignite at a mere 90°F." When the cylinder walls are too cool, fuel that is in contact with the cylinder walls won't burn. That's why you often see black smoke when a diesel engine is starting: because a portion of the injected fuel doesn't burn. On that first stroke, the AIR is hot enough to ignite the fuel which is injected into the air, so the engine fires and develops enough power to come up to speed. But some of the fuel, which is in contact with the cold cylinder walls, doesn't burn, resulting in smoke. When the inside surfaces of the cylinder walls get hot enough to quickly vaporize the fuel, then you get a much cleaner burn.
Read the upvoted answers to that Quora question, by Amrendra Jha and Stephen Carey. Even in relatively low-compression diesel engines, the compressed air temperature approaches 600°C (which is well above the autoignition temperature of diesel fuel).
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Doug Cotton wrote, "(13.1) There is a hell of a lot of confused thinking on the internet about the issue as to whether or not, or by how much compression raises the temperature of a gas."
Not really. YOU are confused. But I've given you a link to an online calculator where you can calculate by how much the compression will raise the temperature of a gas:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/adiab.html
I've also given you two examples of how to use that calculator.
.
Mr. Cotton wrote, "(13.2) Read the opening comment by tomtraxler at https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/why-does-temperature-rise-with-pressure.39446/where he writes ..."
The correct answer to his question was "#5" given on Aug 15, 2004 by "Chi Meson."
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/why-does-temperature-rise-with-pressure.39446/#post-286039
.
Mr. Cotton wrote, "(13.5) So go and buy your fire syringe and feel how hot the glass gets without any cotton wool. At least it will be a highlight at your next kid's party, and not too hot to pass around I would suggest."
Transparent fire syringes are made with thick walls, and they compress very small volumes of air. So you won't feel much heat on the outside. But if you pump up an automobile tire with an old-fashioned manual tire pump, the barrel of the tire pump will, indeed, become too hot to comfortably handle.
.
Mr. Cotton wrote, "(13.6) I don't dispute that internal combustion engines run at high "compression" temperatures, but the temperature has been built up over thousands of cycles as the engine warms up in the first few minutes..."
Wrong. Small marine diesel engines often come with hand cranks, so that they can be started without using the electric starter motor. Such engines should start immediately, when cold.
The starting technique is to first activate the compression release, so that the engine can be manually turned. Then spin the engine as fast as you can with the crank, and deactivate the compression release, so that the momentum of the fly wheel will carry it through the compression stroke. If everything is working properly, the engine will fire immediately, because the compression ALONE drives the air temperature to above 600 °C, even on a cold day, so that when the fuel is injected it will ignite.
The one I'm personally familiar with is my friend's Volvo Penta MD2 (two-cylinder) engine, similar to these:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mu1KDLYUCBM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZ1zbjZ2FS0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KYivg9xTkA
Note that there are no glow plugs, and there is no need to crank the engine "thousands of cycles" before it will run. The compression ratio is 17.5:1, and ONE compression cycle is all that is needed to ignite the fuel and start the engine.
Here's someone starting an MD1 (one-cylinder version) manually. That lever he throws on top is the compression release valve.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAzpeHGmvXg
Not really. YOU are confused. But I've given you a link to an online calculator where you can calculate by how much the compression will raise the temperature of a gas:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/adiab.html
I've also given you two examples of how to use that calculator.
.
Mr. Cotton wrote, "(13.2) Read the opening comment by tomtraxler at https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/why-does-temperature-rise-with-pressure.39446/where he writes ..."
The correct answer to his question was "#5" given on Aug 15, 2004 by "Chi Meson."
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/why-does-temperature-rise-with-pressure.39446/#post-286039
.
Mr. Cotton wrote, "(13.5) So go and buy your fire syringe and feel how hot the glass gets without any cotton wool. At least it will be a highlight at your next kid's party, and not too hot to pass around I would suggest."
Transparent fire syringes are made with thick walls, and they compress very small volumes of air. So you won't feel much heat on the outside. But if you pump up an automobile tire with an old-fashioned manual tire pump, the barrel of the tire pump will, indeed, become too hot to comfortably handle.
.
Mr. Cotton wrote, "(13.6) I don't dispute that internal combustion engines run at high "compression" temperatures, but the temperature has been built up over thousands of cycles as the engine warms up in the first few minutes..."
Wrong. Small marine diesel engines often come with hand cranks, so that they can be started without using the electric starter motor. Such engines should start immediately, when cold.
The starting technique is to first activate the compression release, so that the engine can be manually turned. Then spin the engine as fast as you can with the crank, and deactivate the compression release, so that the momentum of the fly wheel will carry it through the compression stroke. If everything is working properly, the engine will fire immediately, because the compression ALONE drives the air temperature to above 600 °C, even on a cold day, so that when the fuel is injected it will ignite.
The one I'm personally familiar with is my friend's Volvo Penta MD2 (two-cylinder) engine, similar to these:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mu1KDLYUCBM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZ1zbjZ2FS0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KYivg9xTkA
Note that there are no glow plugs, and there is no need to crank the engine "thousands of cycles" before it will run. The compression ratio is 17.5:1, and ONE compression cycle is all that is needed to ignite the fuel and start the engine.
Here's someone starting an MD1 (one-cylinder version) manually. That lever he throws on top is the compression release valve.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAzpeHGmvXg
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
On 9th April 2017 Doug Cotton claimed here that " .. compression "heating" is a myth .. ".
On 14th June 2014 James Stevens claimed on his "Heat Transfer and Applied Thermodynamics" blog that " .. Compression Heating of a Gas .. An ideal gas, like air, or helium, will tend to heat up when it is compressed. Unless measures are taken to cool the gas during the compression process, this can lead to a pretty large temperature increase for relatively modest pressure increases. If we assume that no cooling takes place (adiabatic) it is easy to calculate the minimum temperature to which the gas is heated from the compression process alone .. " (http://heat-transfer-thermodynamics.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/compression-heating-of-gas.html).
Whereas Doug Cotton has provided only hot air, James Stevens was good enough to provide a T/P graph for several gases.
Some readers of these comments may have difficulty deciding which of these two claims is correct. It may help them to know a bit more about the two individuals who made them:
- Dr. James W Stevens " .. a professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs .. Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering, Brigham Young University , 1991, M.S., Mechanical Engineering, BYU, 1988, B.S., Mechanical Engineering, BYU, 1987, Minor in Mathematics .. " (https://sites.google.com/site/heatxferconsulting/Home/vitae).
- Mr Douglas J Cotton - " .. Retired IT Businessman / Part-time Educator / Now Researcher in Atmospheric & Subterrestrial Physics, Self-employed consultant March 1967 – Present .. " (https://au.linkedin.com/in/douglas-cotton-b794a871) " .. climate change greenhouse effect global warming carbon dioxide carbon tax radiative forcing Christianity Jesus Christ salvation rate of ageing slower aging human aging health heart disease cancer photography landscape photography photos of tasmania photos of UK photos of Europe .. " (http://www.infositeshow.com/sites/douglascotton.com) and goodness knows what else " .. B.Sc (physics), B.A. (economics), Dip.Bus.Admin Sydney and Macquarie Universities (1963 to 1972 inclusive)
Awarded four academic scholarships including one by the Physics Dept of the University of Sydney .. ".
My money's on Dr. Stevens being correct!!
On 14th June 2014 James Stevens claimed on his "Heat Transfer and Applied Thermodynamics" blog that " .. Compression Heating of a Gas .. An ideal gas, like air, or helium, will tend to heat up when it is compressed. Unless measures are taken to cool the gas during the compression process, this can lead to a pretty large temperature increase for relatively modest pressure increases. If we assume that no cooling takes place (adiabatic) it is easy to calculate the minimum temperature to which the gas is heated from the compression process alone .. " (http://heat-transfer-thermodynamics.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/compression-heating-of-gas.html).
Whereas Doug Cotton has provided only hot air, James Stevens was good enough to provide a T/P graph for several gases.
Some readers of these comments may have difficulty deciding which of these two claims is correct. It may help them to know a bit more about the two individuals who made them:
- Dr. James W Stevens " .. a professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs .. Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering, Brigham Young University , 1991, M.S., Mechanical Engineering, BYU, 1988, B.S., Mechanical Engineering, BYU, 1987, Minor in Mathematics .. " (https://sites.google.com/site/heatxferconsulting/Home/vitae).
- Mr Douglas J Cotton - " .. Retired IT Businessman / Part-time Educator / Now Researcher in Atmospheric & Subterrestrial Physics, Self-employed consultant March 1967 – Present .. " (https://au.linkedin.com/in/douglas-cotton-b794a871) " .. climate change greenhouse effect global warming carbon dioxide carbon tax radiative forcing Christianity Jesus Christ salvation rate of ageing slower aging human aging health heart disease cancer photography landscape photography photos of tasmania photos of UK photos of Europe .. " (http://www.infositeshow.com/sites/douglascotton.com) and goodness knows what else " .. B.Sc (physics), B.A. (economics), Dip.Bus.Admin Sydney and Macquarie Universities (1963 to 1972 inclusive)
Awarded four academic scholarships including one by the Physics Dept of the University of Sydney .. ".
My money's on Dr. Stevens being correct!!
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
(12.1) That video about the fire syringe is riddled with errors. They refer to the auto-ignition temperature (AIT) of cotton being about 400°C but that is under atmospheric pressure. The AIT of all such substances becomes significantly lower under increasing pressure.
(12.2) If the AIT were not reduced significantly, then the speed of the piston would have to be of the order of over 700 m/sec to accelerate the molecules from about 500 m/sec at ambient temperature to a temperature that is well over double the original temperature, because kinetic energy (and thus temperature) is proportional to the square of the velocity of the molecules between collisions.
(12.3) At the very least you would need to produce actual temperature measurements in experiments using this gadget without any fuel, because once the fuel ignites it is obvious that combustion is raising the temperature of just a very small piece of cotton-wool fuel. The only evidence you have of a hotter temperature is in that small burning piece of cotton wool: not in the air because the glass in the container is touched many times in the video and so does not appear to be warmed much even after a few plunges. I wonder what temperature you would observe if the piston were stopped by, say, a rubber washer, leaving just a small area of highly compressed air in which the temperature could be measured in the absence of ignition. There is no published peer-reviewed paper in a reputable journal to which you have referred me, so I need comment no more.
(12.4) You will note that the small piece of well-aired cotton wool does not ignite if the cylinder is not pushed down fast enough. Supposedly (according to the video) the "heat escapes" if you don't do it very quickly. Well, since when is the temperature supposed to relate to the speed of compression? If the "heat escapes" when you move it marginally slower, then you would expect to feel it warming the glass right through. Watch the video and we don't get the impression that the device is about 400°C when they touch it several times. Suppose you moved the piston only three quarters of the way down. Would you expect about 300°C? Surely the lowest quarter of the glass would then be far too hot to handle, especially after a few such three-quarter compressions. It's all garbage science my friends with a simple explanation; it would make a good magician's trick.
(12.5) I have explained what happens in (11.6) though I accept being misled by one commenter who referred to a small amount of fuel in the gadget he purchased. He may well have been referring to a small amount of cotton wool. If there were a liquid fuel added then it would have been evaporating into the lower air before compression and the piston movement would "blow" it around the whole remaining space as the piston moved down. But it doesn't matter anyway, for apparently the AIT of the cotton wool can be lowered sufficiently below whatever slightly higher temperature may be achieved perhaps even mostly by friction as in a bicycle pump. I refer you back to 11.1.
(12.6) The whole experiment is a red herring because the cotton wool does not ignite when the piston is moved slowly, even though the compression is equivalent.
(12.7) This is all totally irrelevant because their experiment is not adiabatic at all, for their own energy pushing the cylinder down is transferred into the gas, mostly as potential energy as explained in 11.1. There are no such pistons in the troposphere. The tropospheric density gradient forms (and tends to be restored) in perfectly calm conditions at night. The same Second Law of Thermodynamics process of maximum entropy production simultaneously forms (or restores) the temperature gradient, for which climatologists like to use the term "lapse rate" even though there is no lapsing process involved.
(12.8) The commenter in the video is totally and utterly wrong in assuming that "pushing all these air molecules together" raises the temperature, because there is no physics that says that would happen. The mean kinetic energy does not increase due to molecules colliding more often. His lack of knowledge and experience in physics is epitomized by his phrase "an enormous amount of temperature."
(12.9) I quote Ted Hutch at https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-compression-temperature-of-Diesel-engine "Most engines run at between 195F and 220F but the fuel ignites at any temperature that is conducive to the fuel’s flash point. The range is 90F to 220F. Compression ignites the fuel in a diesel engine and the temperature of the cylinder when the fuel is introduced needs to be stable to achieve a clean burn. Enrichment plays a role in how well the engine runs." Go and argue with him about whether fuel can ignite at a mere 90°F!
(12.2) If the AIT were not reduced significantly, then the speed of the piston would have to be of the order of over 700 m/sec to accelerate the molecules from about 500 m/sec at ambient temperature to a temperature that is well over double the original temperature, because kinetic energy (and thus temperature) is proportional to the square of the velocity of the molecules between collisions.
(12.3) At the very least you would need to produce actual temperature measurements in experiments using this gadget without any fuel, because once the fuel ignites it is obvious that combustion is raising the temperature of just a very small piece of cotton-wool fuel. The only evidence you have of a hotter temperature is in that small burning piece of cotton wool: not in the air because the glass in the container is touched many times in the video and so does not appear to be warmed much even after a few plunges. I wonder what temperature you would observe if the piston were stopped by, say, a rubber washer, leaving just a small area of highly compressed air in which the temperature could be measured in the absence of ignition. There is no published peer-reviewed paper in a reputable journal to which you have referred me, so I need comment no more.
(12.4) You will note that the small piece of well-aired cotton wool does not ignite if the cylinder is not pushed down fast enough. Supposedly (according to the video) the "heat escapes" if you don't do it very quickly. Well, since when is the temperature supposed to relate to the speed of compression? If the "heat escapes" when you move it marginally slower, then you would expect to feel it warming the glass right through. Watch the video and we don't get the impression that the device is about 400°C when they touch it several times. Suppose you moved the piston only three quarters of the way down. Would you expect about 300°C? Surely the lowest quarter of the glass would then be far too hot to handle, especially after a few such three-quarter compressions. It's all garbage science my friends with a simple explanation; it would make a good magician's trick.
(12.5) I have explained what happens in (11.6) though I accept being misled by one commenter who referred to a small amount of fuel in the gadget he purchased. He may well have been referring to a small amount of cotton wool. If there were a liquid fuel added then it would have been evaporating into the lower air before compression and the piston movement would "blow" it around the whole remaining space as the piston moved down. But it doesn't matter anyway, for apparently the AIT of the cotton wool can be lowered sufficiently below whatever slightly higher temperature may be achieved perhaps even mostly by friction as in a bicycle pump. I refer you back to 11.1.
(12.6) The whole experiment is a red herring because the cotton wool does not ignite when the piston is moved slowly, even though the compression is equivalent.
(12.7) This is all totally irrelevant because their experiment is not adiabatic at all, for their own energy pushing the cylinder down is transferred into the gas, mostly as potential energy as explained in 11.1. There are no such pistons in the troposphere. The tropospheric density gradient forms (and tends to be restored) in perfectly calm conditions at night. The same Second Law of Thermodynamics process of maximum entropy production simultaneously forms (or restores) the temperature gradient, for which climatologists like to use the term "lapse rate" even though there is no lapsing process involved.
(12.8) The commenter in the video is totally and utterly wrong in assuming that "pushing all these air molecules together" raises the temperature, because there is no physics that says that would happen. The mean kinetic energy does not increase due to molecules colliding more often. His lack of knowledge and experience in physics is epitomized by his phrase "an enormous amount of temperature."
(12.9) I quote Ted Hutch at https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-compression-temperature-of-Diesel-engine "Most engines run at between 195F and 220F but the fuel ignites at any temperature that is conducive to the fuel’s flash point. The range is 90F to 220F. Compression ignites the fuel in a diesel engine and the temperature of the cylinder when the fuel is introduced needs to be stable to achieve a clean burn. Enrichment plays a role in how well the engine runs." Go and argue with him about whether fuel can ignite at a mere 90°F!
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
David A. Burton2 years ago
Doug Cotton wrote, "What happens [in fire syringes] is that gas is released from the small amount of fuel in the cotton wool and the auto-ignition temperature of the gas is lowered dramatically by extreme compression, so the gas ignites at perhaps just a little above room temperature."
LOL! Mr. Cotton just makes up random nonsense, and states it as fact.
No, Mr. Cotton, cotton does not burst into flame at "just a little above room temperature" under extreme pressure.
Also, high air pressure does not cause "gas" or "fuel in the cotton wool" to be released.
In fact, if you want to draw volatiles out of a substance, it is LOW pressures which will do that, not high pressures.
The cotton IS the fuel. Compressing the air raises its temperature to 400°C or more, which is well above the ~360°C autoignition temperature of cotton. It is that high temperature which causes the cotton to burst into flame.
In a diesel engine with 20:1 compression, compressing the air causes it to reach even higher temperatures -- typically well above 650°C. That's how a diesel engine can start with no spark plug: the fuel injectors spray fuel into the cylinder near the top of the stroke, when the air has been compressed to more than 650°C, which causes the diesel fuel to instantly burn.
Here's a fire syringe sold for educational demonstrations which has 72% 4-star & 5-star reviews:
https://www.amazon.com/Carolina-Biological-Supply-Company-Syringe/dp/B0064CPODG/
Here's a fire piston sold as a fire-starter, with 82% five-star reviews:
https://www.amazon.com/CampfirePiston-Campfirepiston-Hickory-Fire-Piston/dp/B00X6L3KG6/
LOL! Mr. Cotton just makes up random nonsense, and states it as fact.
No, Mr. Cotton, cotton does not burst into flame at "just a little above room temperature" under extreme pressure.
Also, high air pressure does not cause "gas" or "fuel in the cotton wool" to be released.
In fact, if you want to draw volatiles out of a substance, it is LOW pressures which will do that, not high pressures.
The cotton IS the fuel. Compressing the air raises its temperature to 400°C or more, which is well above the ~360°C autoignition temperature of cotton. It is that high temperature which causes the cotton to burst into flame.
In a diesel engine with 20:1 compression, compressing the air causes it to reach even higher temperatures -- typically well above 650°C. That's how a diesel engine can start with no spark plug: the fuel injectors spray fuel into the cylinder near the top of the stroke, when the air has been compressed to more than 650°C, which causes the diesel fuel to instantly burn.
Here's a fire syringe sold for educational demonstrations which has 72% 4-star & 5-star reviews:
https://www.amazon.com/Carolina-Biological-Supply-Company-Syringe/dp/B0064CPODG/
Here's a fire piston sold as a fire-starter, with 82% five-star reviews:
https://www.amazon.com/CampfirePiston-Campfirepiston-Hickory-Fire-Piston/dp/B00X6L3KG6/
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Peter Ridley2 years ago (Edited)In reply toan earlier post
David A. Burton2 years ago
Sadly, I was right. Doug Cotton still refuses to admit he was wrong, despite proof like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qe1Ueifekg
I'd rather have been wrong about him.
BTW, you can buy one of these "fire syringes" on Amazon for less than US$30.
https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?field-keywords=Fire+Syringe
Fire syringes are also sold as survival gear, for starting fires. Those are usually called "fire pistons," and they aren't usually transparent. Amazon sells them, too:
https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?field-keywords="fire+piston"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qe1Ueifekg
I'd rather have been wrong about him.
BTW, you can buy one of these "fire syringes" on Amazon for less than US$30.
https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?field-keywords=Fire+Syringe
Fire syringes are also sold as survival gear, for starting fires. Those are usually called "fire pistons," and they aren't usually transparent. Amazon sells them, too:
https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?field-keywords="fire+piston"
David Burton is wasting his time trying to prove, using real-world empirical evidence, that compression heating occurs in Cottton-world. As he should have cottoned onto by now, in Cottonland laws of physics such as the Ideal Gas Law and Stefan-Boltzmann Law are turned on their head. All of that "compression heating" that we experience in real-world is caused by friction in Cottonland.
In my comment of 10th April I said " .. I mistakenly though that the IGL also explained why releasing gas from the (CO2 fire) extinguisher caused dramatic cooling of the air and condensation .. ". No doubt in Cottonland such cooling is caused by lanoitcirf conductance, the same mechanism upon which Cottonland Diesel engines and fire syringes depend.
In my comment of 10th April I said " .. I mistakenly though that the IGL also explained why releasing gas from the (CO2 fire) extinguisher caused dramatic cooling of the air and condensation .. ". No doubt in Cottonland such cooling is caused by lanoitcirf conductance, the same mechanism upon which Cottonland Diesel engines and fire syringes depend.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Sadly, I was right. Doug Cotton still refuses to admit he was wrong, despite proof like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qe1Ueifekg
I'd rather have been wrong about him.
BTW, you can buy one of these "fire syringes" on Amazon for less than US$30.
https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?field-keywords=Fire+Syringe
Fire syringes are also sold as survival gear, for starting fires. Those are usually called "fire pistons," and they aren't usually transparent. Amazon sells them, too:
https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?field-keywords="fire+piston"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qe1Ueifekg
I'd rather have been wrong about him.
BTW, you can buy one of these "fire syringes" on Amazon for less than US$30.
https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?field-keywords=Fire+Syringe
Fire syringes are also sold as survival gear, for starting fires. Those are usually called "fire pistons," and they aren't usually transparent. Amazon sells them, too:
https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?field-keywords="fire+piston"
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Shortly after asserting that, "So-called compression 'heating' is a myth," Doug Cotton now says, "Physics HAS to be confirmed with experiments." That would be hilarious, if it weren't so sad. Doug actually doesn't care about experimental confirmation or falsification. He firmly holds onto his confusion with complete disregard for experimental evidence.
Anyone who's ever used a manual tire pump has "confirmed with experiment" that AHistory&BiographyLover is correct, and Mr. Cotton is wrong.
Even though Mr. Cotton QUOTED FROM a lengthy comment in which I showed him how to use an online calculator to CALCULATE from first principles HOW MUCH a gas will HEAT UP when it is compressed, he is STILL unable or unwilling to comprehend or admit that compressing a gas causes it to heat up.
Mr. Cotton says he used to own a diesel car. That means every time he drove his own car, his confusion was "confirmed with experiment," since diesel engines rely on the heat of compressed air to ignite their fuel. In a diesel engine with 20:1 compression, every other stroke of the cylinder heats the air within the cylinder by more than 600 °C. (On alternate strokes the exhaust port is open, to expel exhaust gases.)
Here's a video of another experiment. I particularly like this one, because in it COTTON proves Cotton is clueless! :-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qe1Ueifekg
Here're a couple of others:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EszEbVEcAQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PD15UFiDRyM
Nice demo, eh?
Mr. Cotton wrote, "if even just one experiment shows it is wrong, then you scrap the hypothesis." Well, there's your one experiment, Mr. Cotton. Will you now scrap your hypothesis?
Of course not. Cotton doesn't care about evidence.
Google finds many other videos explaining and/or demonstrating this principle:
https://www.google.com/search?q=adiabatic+compression+temperature&tbm=vid
Mr. Cotton might be able to learn from them, if he were willing to try. But he won't.
"If an honest man is wrong, after it is demonstrated that he is wrong he either stops being wrong or he stops being honest."
- unknown (related by Andre Bijkerk)
Despite abundant proof, Mr. Cotton will STILL insist that compressing a gas does not raise its temperature, because he is not honest.
You can prove ME wrong about you, Mr. Cotton, by admitting that YOU were wrong about the compression heating of gases. But you won't.
Anyone who's ever used a manual tire pump has "confirmed with experiment" that AHistory&BiographyLover is correct, and Mr. Cotton is wrong.
Even though Mr. Cotton QUOTED FROM a lengthy comment in which I showed him how to use an online calculator to CALCULATE from first principles HOW MUCH a gas will HEAT UP when it is compressed, he is STILL unable or unwilling to comprehend or admit that compressing a gas causes it to heat up.
Mr. Cotton says he used to own a diesel car. That means every time he drove his own car, his confusion was "confirmed with experiment," since diesel engines rely on the heat of compressed air to ignite their fuel. In a diesel engine with 20:1 compression, every other stroke of the cylinder heats the air within the cylinder by more than 600 °C. (On alternate strokes the exhaust port is open, to expel exhaust gases.)
Here's a video of another experiment. I particularly like this one, because in it COTTON proves Cotton is clueless! :-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qe1Ueifekg
Here're a couple of others:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EszEbVEcAQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PD15UFiDRyM
Nice demo, eh?
Mr. Cotton wrote, "if even just one experiment shows it is wrong, then you scrap the hypothesis." Well, there's your one experiment, Mr. Cotton. Will you now scrap your hypothesis?
Of course not. Cotton doesn't care about evidence.
Google finds many other videos explaining and/or demonstrating this principle:
https://www.google.com/search?q=adiabatic+compression+temperature&tbm=vid
Mr. Cotton might be able to learn from them, if he were willing to try. But he won't.
"If an honest man is wrong, after it is demonstrated that he is wrong he either stops being wrong or he stops being honest."
- unknown (related by Andre Bijkerk)
Despite abundant proof, Mr. Cotton will STILL insist that compressing a gas does not raise its temperature, because he is not honest.
You can prove ME wrong about you, Mr. Cotton, by admitting that YOU were wrong about the compression heating of gases. But you won't.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Climate Physicist2 years ago
Silent readers will note that Burton doesn't even read my comments to which he replies. For example, my last comment ended with ...
"In general, at normal temperatures, air molecules move at about 1,800 Km/hr (or 500m/sec) and, unless the piston actually moves at a significant speed relative to that 500m/sec, it will not significantly increase the mean velocity (and thus temperature) of the molecules. There is no piston moving like that in the troposphere anyway."
and in his reply, Burton writes ...
"At the microscopic scale, the moving piston head accelerates ricocheting gas molecules like a tennis racket accelerates tennis balls, which causes the gas to heat ..."
Yes, well, the speed of the tennis racquet is comparable with that of the ball. Burton still doesn't realize that this relatively small heating effect (due to a piston moving much slower than the molecules) has nothing to do with the Ideal Gas Law (because it depends on the speed of the piston) and is not a general proof that compression always causes warming. That is especially the case in a planet's troposphere because there is no moving piston bumping up the speed of molecules that it collides with. The density and temperature gradients in the troposphere are caused by gravity and the pressure gradient is just a corollary, because the Ideal Gas Law tells us that pressure is proportional to the product of density and temperature and nothing more. The high pressure at the base of the troposphere is neither creating or maintaining the high temperatures found there. Nor is atmospheric radiation helping the solar radiation to do so.
The higher temperatures seen at the base of every planetary troposphere are NOT the result of radiation of any form reaching that region - they are the result of the Second Law process of maximum entropy production operating in a gravitational field. That is why it is about 320K (hotter than Earth's surface) at the base of the nominal troposphere of the planet Uranus, even though the solar radiation can only maintain a temperature of about 60K (-213°C) in the methane layer that absorbs most of the radiation up near the top of the Uranus troposphere. That answers the question that you avoid answering.
"In general, at normal temperatures, air molecules move at about 1,800 Km/hr (or 500m/sec) and, unless the piston actually moves at a significant speed relative to that 500m/sec, it will not significantly increase the mean velocity (and thus temperature) of the molecules. There is no piston moving like that in the troposphere anyway."
and in his reply, Burton writes ...
"At the microscopic scale, the moving piston head accelerates ricocheting gas molecules like a tennis racket accelerates tennis balls, which causes the gas to heat ..."
Yes, well, the speed of the tennis racquet is comparable with that of the ball. Burton still doesn't realize that this relatively small heating effect (due to a piston moving much slower than the molecules) has nothing to do with the Ideal Gas Law (because it depends on the speed of the piston) and is not a general proof that compression always causes warming. That is especially the case in a planet's troposphere because there is no moving piston bumping up the speed of molecules that it collides with. The density and temperature gradients in the troposphere are caused by gravity and the pressure gradient is just a corollary, because the Ideal Gas Law tells us that pressure is proportional to the product of density and temperature and nothing more. The high pressure at the base of the troposphere is neither creating or maintaining the high temperatures found there. Nor is atmospheric radiation helping the solar radiation to do so.
The higher temperatures seen at the base of every planetary troposphere are NOT the result of radiation of any form reaching that region - they are the result of the Second Law process of maximum entropy production operating in a gravitational field. That is why it is about 320K (hotter than Earth's surface) at the base of the nominal troposphere of the planet Uranus, even though the solar radiation can only maintain a temperature of about 60K (-213°C) in the methane layer that absorbs most of the radiation up near the top of the Uranus troposphere. That answers the question that you avoid answering.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
The sun’s surface temperature is 5777 K and its radius is 696000 Km. The radius of the earth’s orbit is 149.6e6 km. Thus the solar intensity at the earth orbit is 1368 W/m**2. The earth’s albedo is roughly 0.3. Thus its surface (four times the area of its disk) receives an average of 240 W/m**2. Ignoring the effect of the fourth power character of S-B on averaging, some part of the earth would have to average -18 degree C to radiate that much power intensity back out to space. What part of the earth? Well as another crude estimate, pick the atmosphere center of mass at 500 millibar or 5.5 km up. The lapse rate of the troposphere averages -6.5 K/km. so the surface has to be 35 degree C hotter than 5.5 km up, or 17 degree C.
The actual answer is more like 15 degree C. Pretty darn close for a bunch of estimates.
How does the surface of the earth get hotter than the -18 degree C required to cool the earth/atmosphere system? Well, you guessed it, back radiation from the atmosphere. How much back radiation? That's hard to tell. There is radiation, convection, conduction, and phase change taking place at the surface. How much do you allot to each? You do know that it is radiating 390 W/m**2 (assuming a blackbody), but not how much it is absorbing. I don't know. Anyone help?
The actual answer is more like 15 degree C. Pretty darn close for a bunch of estimates.
How does the surface of the earth get hotter than the -18 degree C required to cool the earth/atmosphere system? Well, you guessed it, back radiation from the atmosphere. How much back radiation? That's hard to tell. There is radiation, convection, conduction, and phase change taking place at the surface. How much do you allot to each? You do know that it is radiating 390 W/m**2 (assuming a blackbody), but not how much it is absorbing. I don't know. Anyone help?
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
With the blackbody initially in equilibrium with its 10 degree C surroundings, it is absorbing and emitting 364 W/m**2. With the black body raised to 42 degree C, it is emitting 558W/m**2 or an extra 195 W/m**2. To get 16 times this extra emission, it has to be raised to 225 degree C.
If it wasn’t receiving the background 364 W/m**2 from its surroundings, it would have to raised to 357 degree C to emit 16 times what it was emitting at 42 degree C. Similarly, it would have to be raised to 293 degree C to emit 16 times what it was emitting at 10 degree C.
What’s the point? Take away the background 364 W/m**2 from the surroundings in your test case and the fourth power character of S-B is apparent.
(Somebody please check my math. The S-B constant I used was 5.6704e-8 W/m**2/K**4 with degree C = K - 273.)
If it wasn’t receiving the background 364 W/m**2 from its surroundings, it would have to raised to 357 degree C to emit 16 times what it was emitting at 42 degree C. Similarly, it would have to be raised to 293 degree C to emit 16 times what it was emitting at 10 degree C.
What’s the point? Take away the background 364 W/m**2 from the surroundings in your test case and the fourth power character of S-B is apparent.
(Somebody please check my math. The S-B constant I used was 5.6704e-8 W/m**2/K**4 with degree C = K - 273.)
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Climate Physicist2 years ago
Any of you: quantify the surface temperatures of Earth and Venus using whatever data you wish to cite and correct physics. If you, Burton wish to believe that high pressure is what causes the surface temperature to be warmer than that at the radiating altitude (even when there is no piston in the troposphere) then you agree with me that it is not back radiation. Also quantify what you think the 16 radiators would achieve in an ambient temperature of, say, 10°C if one warms a target to 42°C. Until you can answer these questions correctly, I see no point in continuing this discussion.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Peter Ridley2 years ago (Edited)In reply toan earlier post
AHistory&BiographyLover2 years ago
Actually, Mr. Cotton, the compression ratio of gasoline engine is set below 14 to avoid pre-ignition of the already existing fuel/air mixture in the cylinder. The compression ratio of a diesel engine is set above 14 to guarantee ignition when the fuel is injected into the already compressed air in the cylinder.
It seems you missed that day in high school shop class. Those things in your diesel engine that you thought were spark plugs were really only glow plugs used to get the engine warm enough to start.
It seems you missed that day in high school shop class. Those things in your diesel engine that you thought were spark plugs were really only glow plugs used to get the engine warm enough to start.
No doubt the authors of "Compression Heating and Temperature Control for High-Pressure Destruction of Bacterial Spores: An Experimental Method for Kinetics Evaluation" (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11947-008-0057-y) will be distraught if they ever hear that "heat creep" Doug has decreed that " .. compression "heating" is a myth .. ".
I've been fooling myself for decades thinking that the Ideal Gas Law explained why my bicycle pump became warm if I was in a hurry to get on the road again after repairing a puncture.
A couple of years ago when researching the fractionation of atmospheric gasses in ice (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2010/12/smogbound-on-molecular-fractionation-in.html) I experimented with a CO2 fire extinguisher. I mistakenly though that the IGL also explained why releasing gas from the extinguisher caused dramatic cooling of the air and condensation.
Damn that "skoolboy fissix" from 60 years ago". Hopefully Doug will help future generations by writing an elementary physics text book. - NO, NO, Doug. I'm only joking!!
David Burton said " .. It is very difficult for me to believe that someone could have a physics or chemistry degree of any sort, yet be unfamiliar with the Gas Laws. That much, at least, is high school material, not college material .. ".
Giving credit where it is due, it does appear that when in his final year at Sydney Church of England Grammar School Doug did earn a certificate of merit for maths, a place at Sydney University's summer school in physics and went on to earn a degree in physics/pure maths. Let's not be unkind but make allowance for the fact that that that was over half a century ago. Perhaps Doug has forgotten some of the basics that he was taught at high school.
" .. Research out of Harvard Medical School identifies what researchers call the “four horsemen of forgetfulness” - depression, stress, anxiety, and sleep deprivation .. " (http://www.activebeat.co/your-health/6-times-memory-loss-has-nothing-to-do-with-alzheimers/6/).
I've been fooling myself for decades thinking that the Ideal Gas Law explained why my bicycle pump became warm if I was in a hurry to get on the road again after repairing a puncture.
A couple of years ago when researching the fractionation of atmospheric gasses in ice (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2010/12/smogbound-on-molecular-fractionation-in.html) I experimented with a CO2 fire extinguisher. I mistakenly though that the IGL also explained why releasing gas from the extinguisher caused dramatic cooling of the air and condensation.
Damn that "skoolboy fissix" from 60 years ago". Hopefully Doug will help future generations by writing an elementary physics text book. - NO, NO, Doug. I'm only joking!!
David Burton said " .. It is very difficult for me to believe that someone could have a physics or chemistry degree of any sort, yet be unfamiliar with the Gas Laws. That much, at least, is high school material, not college material .. ".
Giving credit where it is due, it does appear that when in his final year at Sydney Church of England Grammar School Doug did earn a certificate of merit for maths, a place at Sydney University's summer school in physics and went on to earn a degree in physics/pure maths. Let's not be unkind but make allowance for the fact that that that was over half a century ago. Perhaps Doug has forgotten some of the basics that he was taught at high school.
" .. Research out of Harvard Medical School identifies what researchers call the “four horsemen of forgetfulness” - depression, stress, anxiety, and sleep deprivation .. " (http://www.activebeat.co/your-health/6-times-memory-loss-has-nothing-to-do-with-alzheimers/6/).
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Actually, Mr. Cotton, the compression ratio of gasoline engine is set below 14 to avoid pre-ignition of the already existing fuel/air mixture in the cylinder. The compression ratio of a diesel engine is set above 14 to guarantee ignition when the fuel is injected into the already compressed air in the cylinder.
It seems you missed that day in high school shop class. Those things in your diesel engine that you thought were spark plugs were really only glow plugs used to get the engine warm enough to start.
It seems you missed that day in high school shop class. Those things in your diesel engine that you thought were spark plugs were really only glow plugs used to get the engine warm enough to start.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Doug Cotton wrote, "there is no law in physics which says an increase in pressure always causes an increase in temperature."
There is, actually. It's called Gay-Lussac's law: for a fixed volume of air, the pressure is proportional to the absolute temperature. So if you heat up a sealed container filled with air, the pressure goes up, and if you cool it down the pressure goes down.
It's part of the Combined Gas Law (of which the Ideal Gas Law is a particular case). The Combined Gas Law is:
PV = kT
Where P is pressure, V is volume, T is absolute temperature, and (as long as the amount of gas being considered doesn't change) k is a constant.
Now, if you change the volume, things get a lot more complicated. If you have a volume of air and compress it to a smaller volume, e.g., with a piston in a diesel engine, you are doing work. That's called "adiabatic compression." At the sub-microscopic scale, the moving piston head accelerates ricocheting gas molecules like a tennis racket accelerates tennis balls, which causes the gas to heat.
https://www.google.com/search?q=temperature+change+from+adiabatic+compression
The amount by which the gas heats is a function of the work done (moving the piston head against pressure), and the specific heat of the gas. The later depends on whether the gas is monatomic, diatomic, triatomic, etc. (Dry atmospheric air is about 99% diatomic and 1% monatomic.)
At this point, we've exceeded the physics I can pull out of the cobwebs in my head. But here's an online calculator:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/adiab.html
(Scroll about halfway down the page to find the calculator.)
For example, if the initial volume is 1 cubic meter of air at about 1 atm pressure and 20°C (=68°F, =293.15K), and you intend to compress it to half the original volume, let's find out what the resulting temperature and pressure will be.
One cubic meter of air at room temperature and 1 Atm pressure is roughly 42 moles.
So using the online calculator you'd enter:
n = 42 (moles)
Vi = 1 (cubic meter, the initial volume)
Vf = 0.5 (one-half cubic meter, the final volume)
Ti = 293.15 (Kelvin, the initial temperature)
The calculator uses the ideal gas law to calculate the approximate initial pressure:
Pi = 102.37 kPa (which is about 1.0103 atm, close enough for gov't work).
Then skip down a couple of lines and enter the Cp/Cv ratio, which is about 1.4 for diatomic gases (N2 & O2). It is higher for monatomic gases like Argon, and lower for triatomic gases like CO2 and H2O, but the atmosphere is mostly N2 and O2 so we'll just use 1.4.
The calculator fills in Cp & Cv values immediately above; you may ignore them.
The calculator then calculates the work W done by compressing the gas to half its volume.
The calculator also then calculates and fills in the final pressure and temperature:
Pf = 270.17 kPa = 2.67 Atm
Tf = 386.81 K = 113.66 °C = 236.59 °F
As you can see, as the volume goes down so does the T/P ratio, which means that as volume goes down AND temperature goes up, pressure goes up as the product of the volume and temperature changes.
Now, for a more realistic example, let's use a compression ratio of 20:1, which is typical for a diesel engine, and 1 liter volume.
1 liter = 1 thousandth of a cubic meter, so:
n = .042
Vi = 0.001
A compression ratio of 20:1 means Vf = Vi/20:
Vf = 0.00005
As before, the intake air is at 20 °C (Ti = 293.15 K)
and Cp/Cv is 1.4
The calculator finds:
Pf = 6786 kPa = 67 Atm = 984 PSI
Tf = 972 K = 700 °C = 1300 °F
That's right: 1300 °F just from compressing the air, BEFORE burning the fuel!
And now you know why, in a pinch, you can burn almost any sort of liquid oil in a diesel engine!
.
Mr. Cotton continued, "This discussion of diesel engines highlights DAVID BURTON'S ignorance. What happens is that the higher pressure lowers the auto-self-ignition (ASI) temperature... For diesel it is around 210°C..." and he cited an article entitled, "Pressure dependence of the auto-ignition temperature of methane/air mixtures."
1. That's wrong. As we've seen above, compression of the air increases its temperature to way above the auto-self-ignition temperature of diesel fuel, which is why the diesel fuel immediately burns when injected into the very hot air in the cylinder.
If you'd bothered to click the link, you could have read any number of sources which explain this. Even Wikipedia gets it right:
"In [the Diesel cycle] fuel is ignited by heat generated during the compression of air in the combustion chamber, into which fuel is then injected."
2. Methane is not diesel fuel. Methane is the main component of natural gas.
3. It is very difficult for me to believe that someone could have a physics or chemistry degree of any sort, yet be unfamiliar with the Gas Laws. That much, at least, is high school material, not college material.
There is, actually. It's called Gay-Lussac's law: for a fixed volume of air, the pressure is proportional to the absolute temperature. So if you heat up a sealed container filled with air, the pressure goes up, and if you cool it down the pressure goes down.
It's part of the Combined Gas Law (of which the Ideal Gas Law is a particular case). The Combined Gas Law is:
PV = kT
Where P is pressure, V is volume, T is absolute temperature, and (as long as the amount of gas being considered doesn't change) k is a constant.
Now, if you change the volume, things get a lot more complicated. If you have a volume of air and compress it to a smaller volume, e.g., with a piston in a diesel engine, you are doing work. That's called "adiabatic compression." At the sub-microscopic scale, the moving piston head accelerates ricocheting gas molecules like a tennis racket accelerates tennis balls, which causes the gas to heat.
https://www.google.com/search?q=temperature+change+from+adiabatic+compression
The amount by which the gas heats is a function of the work done (moving the piston head against pressure), and the specific heat of the gas. The later depends on whether the gas is monatomic, diatomic, triatomic, etc. (Dry atmospheric air is about 99% diatomic and 1% monatomic.)
At this point, we've exceeded the physics I can pull out of the cobwebs in my head. But here's an online calculator:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/adiab.html
(Scroll about halfway down the page to find the calculator.)
For example, if the initial volume is 1 cubic meter of air at about 1 atm pressure and 20°C (=68°F, =293.15K), and you intend to compress it to half the original volume, let's find out what the resulting temperature and pressure will be.
One cubic meter of air at room temperature and 1 Atm pressure is roughly 42 moles.
So using the online calculator you'd enter:
n = 42 (moles)
Vi = 1 (cubic meter, the initial volume)
Vf = 0.5 (one-half cubic meter, the final volume)
Ti = 293.15 (Kelvin, the initial temperature)
The calculator uses the ideal gas law to calculate the approximate initial pressure:
Pi = 102.37 kPa (which is about 1.0103 atm, close enough for gov't work).
Then skip down a couple of lines and enter the Cp/Cv ratio, which is about 1.4 for diatomic gases (N2 & O2). It is higher for monatomic gases like Argon, and lower for triatomic gases like CO2 and H2O, but the atmosphere is mostly N2 and O2 so we'll just use 1.4.
The calculator fills in Cp & Cv values immediately above; you may ignore them.
The calculator then calculates the work W done by compressing the gas to half its volume.
The calculator also then calculates and fills in the final pressure and temperature:
Pf = 270.17 kPa = 2.67 Atm
Tf = 386.81 K = 113.66 °C = 236.59 °F
As you can see, as the volume goes down so does the T/P ratio, which means that as volume goes down AND temperature goes up, pressure goes up as the product of the volume and temperature changes.
Now, for a more realistic example, let's use a compression ratio of 20:1, which is typical for a diesel engine, and 1 liter volume.
1 liter = 1 thousandth of a cubic meter, so:
n = .042
Vi = 0.001
A compression ratio of 20:1 means Vf = Vi/20:
Vf = 0.00005
As before, the intake air is at 20 °C (Ti = 293.15 K)
and Cp/Cv is 1.4
The calculator finds:
Pf = 6786 kPa = 67 Atm = 984 PSI
Tf = 972 K = 700 °C = 1300 °F
That's right: 1300 °F just from compressing the air, BEFORE burning the fuel!
And now you know why, in a pinch, you can burn almost any sort of liquid oil in a diesel engine!
.
Mr. Cotton continued, "This discussion of diesel engines highlights DAVID BURTON'S ignorance. What happens is that the higher pressure lowers the auto-self-ignition (ASI) temperature... For diesel it is around 210°C..." and he cited an article entitled, "Pressure dependence of the auto-ignition temperature of methane/air mixtures."
1. That's wrong. As we've seen above, compression of the air increases its temperature to way above the auto-self-ignition temperature of diesel fuel, which is why the diesel fuel immediately burns when injected into the very hot air in the cylinder.
If you'd bothered to click the link, you could have read any number of sources which explain this. Even Wikipedia gets it right:
"In [the Diesel cycle] fuel is ignited by heat generated during the compression of air in the combustion chamber, into which fuel is then injected."
2. Methane is not diesel fuel. Methane is the main component of natural gas.
3. It is very difficult for me to believe that someone could have a physics or chemistry degree of any sort, yet be unfamiliar with the Gas Laws. That much, at least, is high school material, not college material.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Doug Cotton wrote, "Pathetic David Burton. The tire pumping produces friction that warms the air."
"Friction?" Good grief! You think diesel engines ignite their fuel by "FRICTION," Mr. Cotton?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+does+a+diesel+engine+work
"Friction?" Good grief! You think diesel engines ignite their fuel by "FRICTION," Mr. Cotton?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+does+a+diesel+engine+work
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
David A. Burton2 years agoIn reply toan earlier post
AHistory&BiographyLover2 years ago
Am I talking to a spamming ‘bot?
Doug Cotton wrote, "So-called compression 'heating' is a myth. To raise a temperature requires an input of thermal energy - an increase in the mean molecular kinetic energy. Compressing a gas does NOT increase the mean molecular kinetic energy: each molecule still has the same KE - they are just closer..."
AH&BL replied, "Am I talking to a spamming ‘bot?"
Well, if so, it's a spam bot who apparently doesn't believe in diesel engines:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+does+a+diesel+engine+work
The spam bot also apparently has never pumped up a car tire with an old fashioned manual tire pump, and then put his hand on the hot tire pump body.
AH&BL replied, "Am I talking to a spamming ‘bot?"
Well, if so, it's a spam bot who apparently doesn't believe in diesel engines:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+does+a+diesel+engine+work
The spam bot also apparently has never pumped up a car tire with an old fashioned manual tire pump, and then put his hand on the hot tire pump body.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
AHistory&BiographyLover2 years ago
Am I talking to a spamming ‘bot?
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
AHistory&BiographyLover2 years ago
Mr. Cotton, Loschmidt was talking about STATIC EQUILIBRIUM in a column of gas. The troposphere is a DYNAMIC OPEN system heated from the bottom and constantly transporting heat upward (and radiating it in all directions). Likewise, the Ranque-Hilsch vortex is a DYNAMIC OPEN system constantly transporting gas from near its center (expansion, cooling) to its outer circumference (compression, heating). Even if it were correct (and it’s not), Loschmidt’s conjecture does not even apply to either. The only thing common about the real troposphere and the fictitious Loschmidt column is adiabatic lapse rate. Correlation is not cause.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Climate Physicist2 years ago
As for David Burton, he is narcissistic and unteachable. He STILL refers to THERMAL equilibrium even though I have explained to him that he should be talking about THERMODYNAMIC equilibrium, and that makes all the difference. Entropy is maximized in THERMODYNAMIC equilibrium which is determined by BOTH kinetic energy and GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL ENERGY such that (PE+KE)=constant for all altitudes in an ideal troposphere in the state that the Second Law says will evolve, namely THERMODYNAMIC equilibrium. That is why the brilliant 19th century physicist Josef Loschmidt (first to determine the size of air molecules) was correct in 1876 when he said gravity forms a stable equilibrium non-zero temperature gradient. LOSCHMIDT HAS BEEN PROVEN CORRECT WITH EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE IN THE 21st CENTURY. Do you get it yet, you clot? It is NOT a good idea to assume I'm wrong, for that is not the case. Keep it up and I'll come down harder and harder on you.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Climate Physicist2 years ago
The physics presented in this book is correct. It is supported by overwhelming evidence, such as you can read about in my website http://whyitsnotco2.com, my "Comprehensive Refutation of the Radiative Forcing Greenhouse Hypothesis" at https://ssrn.com/author=2627605 and in my blog https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com where there is offered a reward of AU $50,000 for the first to prove me wrong in what is now over four years. I do not read attempted refutations anywhere else and nobody will get the reward unless he or she reads my material and then submits in the comment thread for the above blog.
As physicists learn and understand in degree-level university physics courses, such as I completed at Sydney University in 1966 and was awarded early in 1967, we cannot use Stefan-Boltzmann calculations for an input of two or more sources of radiation because that Law is based on the integral of a single Planck function. Likewise the temperature is inversely related to the peak wavelength as per Wien's Displace Law which also only applies for a single source of radiation. Yet climatologists do add radiative fluxes (with their self-taught one year course on atmospheric physics) because they could think of no other explanation as to how the necessary thermal energy gets into Earth's surface. In fact, as Dr Roy Spencer admitted, their figure of 324W/m^2 for atmospheric radiation is just a calculated value that gives 288K for the surface temperature as explained here: http://whyitsnotco2.com/PSI.html. It is an overstated and totally impossible flux for the atmosphere to emit, anyway, and virtually all atmospheric radiation impinging on the surface undergoes the process of resonant (or pseudo) scattering that Prof Johnson explained and I cited in my "Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics" in 2012.
The correct physics which, in complete contrast, does explain temperatures and the required heat transfers in the atmospheres and sub-surface regions of planets and satellite moons first appeared in my "Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures" in 2013 and that document (on which this book is based) is being subjected to a full five (5) years of review in open media, with the above-mentioned reward of AU $50,000 (about US $35,000) offered at https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com for the first to prove the physics substantially wrong and to produce a counter study to mine that showed the greenhouse gas water vapor cooling, as my hypothesis predicts it should. Carbon dioxide cools for the same reasons, but by less than 0.1 degree.
For a brief summary read my six-page "Comprehensive Refutation of the Radiative Forcing Greenhouse Hypothesis" linked from my website http://whyitsnotco2.com. Any questions or attempted refutations will only be read and answered on my blog that, along with my videos, is also linked from http://climate-change-theory.com. See also my earlier website http://earth-climate.com and join over 100,000 others who have visited my websites or viewed my videos about the breakthrough science that the world will come to understand hopefully within the next twenty years or so.
Douglas Cotton B.Sc (physics), B.A. (economics), Dip.Bus.Admin
Sydney and Macquarie Universities (1963 to 1972 inclusive)
Awarded four academic scholarships including one by the Physics Dept of the University of Sydney
As physicists learn and understand in degree-level university physics courses, such as I completed at Sydney University in 1966 and was awarded early in 1967, we cannot use Stefan-Boltzmann calculations for an input of two or more sources of radiation because that Law is based on the integral of a single Planck function. Likewise the temperature is inversely related to the peak wavelength as per Wien's Displace Law which also only applies for a single source of radiation. Yet climatologists do add radiative fluxes (with their self-taught one year course on atmospheric physics) because they could think of no other explanation as to how the necessary thermal energy gets into Earth's surface. In fact, as Dr Roy Spencer admitted, their figure of 324W/m^2 for atmospheric radiation is just a calculated value that gives 288K for the surface temperature as explained here: http://whyitsnotco2.com/PSI.html. It is an overstated and totally impossible flux for the atmosphere to emit, anyway, and virtually all atmospheric radiation impinging on the surface undergoes the process of resonant (or pseudo) scattering that Prof Johnson explained and I cited in my "Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics" in 2012.
The correct physics which, in complete contrast, does explain temperatures and the required heat transfers in the atmospheres and sub-surface regions of planets and satellite moons first appeared in my "Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures" in 2013 and that document (on which this book is based) is being subjected to a full five (5) years of review in open media, with the above-mentioned reward of AU $50,000 (about US $35,000) offered at https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com for the first to prove the physics substantially wrong and to produce a counter study to mine that showed the greenhouse gas water vapor cooling, as my hypothesis predicts it should. Carbon dioxide cools for the same reasons, but by less than 0.1 degree.
For a brief summary read my six-page "Comprehensive Refutation of the Radiative Forcing Greenhouse Hypothesis" linked from my website http://whyitsnotco2.com. Any questions or attempted refutations will only be read and answered on my blog that, along with my videos, is also linked from http://climate-change-theory.com. See also my earlier website http://earth-climate.com and join over 100,000 others who have visited my websites or viewed my videos about the breakthrough science that the world will come to understand hopefully within the next twenty years or so.
Douglas Cotton B.Sc (physics), B.A. (economics), Dip.Bus.Admin
Sydney and Macquarie Universities (1963 to 1972 inclusive)
Awarded four academic scholarships including one by the Physics Dept of the University of Sydney
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
In his Apr 8, 2017, 3:41:04 AM PDT comment in this chain, Mr. Cotton disputes that radiative power adds stating:
“As physicists learn and understand in degree-level university physics courses, such as I completed at Sydney University in 1966, we cannot use Stefan-Boltzmann calculations for an input of two or more sources of radiation because that Law is based on the integral of a single Planck function.”
Indeed, the part about Stefan-Boltzmann being the integral of the Plank Law is correct. But this only disproves his whole point. Any mathematician or physicist knows that an integral is a sum of infinitesimal contributions by definition. So, Stefan-Boltzmann is already a sum of infinitesimal powers over wavelength.
Further the integral of a sum is the sum of the individual integrals. So, the power delivered by two spectra is the sum of the power they deliver individually.
It appears that the calculus that physicists have understood and applied since Newton’s time is not one of Mr. Cotton’s strong suits.
“As physicists learn and understand in degree-level university physics courses, such as I completed at Sydney University in 1966, we cannot use Stefan-Boltzmann calculations for an input of two or more sources of radiation because that Law is based on the integral of a single Planck function.”
Indeed, the part about Stefan-Boltzmann being the integral of the Plank Law is correct. But this only disproves his whole point. Any mathematician or physicist knows that an integral is a sum of infinitesimal contributions by definition. So, Stefan-Boltzmann is already a sum of infinitesimal powers over wavelength.
Further the integral of a sum is the sum of the individual integrals. So, the power delivered by two spectra is the sum of the power they deliver individually.
It appears that the calculus that physicists have understood and applied since Newton’s time is not one of Mr. Cotton’s strong suits.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Doug Cotton again wrote, "In a comment below David Burton wrote 'In the troposphere >99.99999% of the LWIR photons which CO2 absorbs are not re-emitted.' Well what is it emitting? Does a carbon dioxide molecule 'know that a certain portion of its thermal energy came from collisions? Can it distinguish that thermal energy from what it attained via absorption of radiation?"
Mr. Cotton, you just asked that very confused question, and I just answered it, Apr 6, 2017, 3:35:11 PM PDT, here:
https://www.amazon.com/review/R3L4RWMLCPUD1O/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?ie=UTF8&asin=1478729228&cdForum=FxGKOKBYP090RE&cdMsgID=Mx8DNTM4TAF2VA&cdMsgNo=164&cdPage=17&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx1P6O3C1OQHC5J&store=books#Mx8DNTM4TAF2VA
.
Mr. Cotton continued, "over 98% of the thermal energy in Earth's atmosphere is in oxygen, nitrogen and argon molecules."
That's true, but irrelevant. The various gases in the atmosphere remain in thermal equilibrium via collisional energy transfer.
.
Mr. Cotton continued, "It is the IR-active (so-called 'greenhouse') molecules that are the only ones cooling the atmosphere by radiating energy back to space: they act like holes in a blanket."
They do, indeed, radiate energy from the upper atmosphere to space. But if they weren't in the atmosphere then LWIR radiation could pass directly from the ground to space.
I don't much like blanket analogies, but if you want to use one, the GHG-laden atmosphere is not like holes in a blanket, it is more like the blanket, itself. A blanket is warmed from the underside by your body, and radiates IR from the top. Even though it radiates IR from the top, it still keeps your body warmer than it otherwise would be.
.
Mr. Cotton continued, "Whatever radiation strikes a warmer target below undergoes resonant (or 'pseudo') scattering and so does not add any thermal energy to that target."
That's absolute nonsense!
When you write, "a warmer target" the question is, "warmer than what?"
A photon has NO temperature.
A photon has NO characteristic which is indicative of the temperature of the molecule which emitted it.
CO2 molecules DO absorb LWIR 15,000 nm photons WITHOUT REGARD to the temperature of the source.
Please, PLEASE find a physicist, ANY physicist, ANYWHERE, and ask him or her about this.
.
Mr. Cotton continued, "As for Burton's question, it is answered here .... Douglas Cotton B.Sc (physics), Sydney University (completed 1966 with graduation ceremony early in 1967)"
Thank you for answering my question!
.
Mr. Cotton continued, "...you cite no references for your assertive claims, as usual."
Here's a very informative lecture by a leading atmospheric physicist, Dr. Wm Happer:
http://www.sealevel.info/Happer_UNC_2014-09-08/
Here's a follow-up email conversation, in which he very generously explained it to me in greater depth:
http://www.sealevel.info/Happer_UNC_2014-09-08/Another_question.html
Note, especially, the email from Prof. Robert G. Brown, of Duke Univ.
Also, near the end of that page you'll find an email from me to Prof. Happer, with a link to an article by Dr. Joshua Halpern (who blogs under the pen name of Eli Rabett). Halpern calculated that 1 in 10^5 rather than 1 in 10^9 IR-stimulated CO2 molecules will give up that energy by re-emission of an IR photon, rather than collision with another air molecule. He gets about the same radiative lifetime as Dr. Happer (approx. one second), but a collisional lifetime of about 10 microseconds rather than one nanosecond, apparently because he failed to consider collisional transfers of energy with N2 and O2 molecules.
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2013/04/this-is-where-eli-came-in.html
.
Mr. Cotton continued, "The portion of the radiation which is pseudo-scattered is re-emitted almost instantaneously, its electro-magnetic energy never having been converted to thermal energy."
That is wrong. This is an excerpt from the email from Prof. Brown, referenced above:
"...CO_2 doesn't 'scatter' LWIR radiation, it absorbs it (typically within a few meters, the mean free path at atmospheric concentrations) and the energy is almost instantly transferred to the surrounding air. That doesn't mean that they don't radiate. It just means that their radiation temperature is in equilibrium in the surrounding air, and it isn't reradiating of a photon it absorbed, it is radiation initiated by e.g. a collision with an air molecule."
.
Mr. Cotton continued, "Collisions... does not necessarily raise an electron through one or more quantum states as a result of the collision, as you appear to think: that is a separate process in preparation for the emission of a photon."
You are confused. 15,000 nm LWIR absorption and emission is NOT associated with electron orbital transitions. The photons associated with those transitions are MUCH shorter wavelength. 15,000 nm photons are absorbed and emitted through CO2 molecular bending mode vibrations.
Mr. Cotton, you just asked that very confused question, and I just answered it, Apr 6, 2017, 3:35:11 PM PDT, here:
https://www.amazon.com/review/R3L4RWMLCPUD1O/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?ie=UTF8&asin=1478729228&cdForum=FxGKOKBYP090RE&cdMsgID=Mx8DNTM4TAF2VA&cdMsgNo=164&cdPage=17&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx1P6O3C1OQHC5J&store=books#Mx8DNTM4TAF2VA
.
Mr. Cotton continued, "over 98% of the thermal energy in Earth's atmosphere is in oxygen, nitrogen and argon molecules."
That's true, but irrelevant. The various gases in the atmosphere remain in thermal equilibrium via collisional energy transfer.
.
Mr. Cotton continued, "It is the IR-active (so-called 'greenhouse') molecules that are the only ones cooling the atmosphere by radiating energy back to space: they act like holes in a blanket."
They do, indeed, radiate energy from the upper atmosphere to space. But if they weren't in the atmosphere then LWIR radiation could pass directly from the ground to space.
I don't much like blanket analogies, but if you want to use one, the GHG-laden atmosphere is not like holes in a blanket, it is more like the blanket, itself. A blanket is warmed from the underside by your body, and radiates IR from the top. Even though it radiates IR from the top, it still keeps your body warmer than it otherwise would be.
.
Mr. Cotton continued, "Whatever radiation strikes a warmer target below undergoes resonant (or 'pseudo') scattering and so does not add any thermal energy to that target."
That's absolute nonsense!
When you write, "a warmer target" the question is, "warmer than what?"
A photon has NO temperature.
A photon has NO characteristic which is indicative of the temperature of the molecule which emitted it.
CO2 molecules DO absorb LWIR 15,000 nm photons WITHOUT REGARD to the temperature of the source.
Please, PLEASE find a physicist, ANY physicist, ANYWHERE, and ask him or her about this.
.
Mr. Cotton continued, "As for Burton's question, it is answered here .... Douglas Cotton B.Sc (physics), Sydney University (completed 1966 with graduation ceremony early in 1967)"
Thank you for answering my question!
.
Mr. Cotton continued, "...you cite no references for your assertive claims, as usual."
Here's a very informative lecture by a leading atmospheric physicist, Dr. Wm Happer:
http://www.sealevel.info/Happer_UNC_2014-09-08/
Here's a follow-up email conversation, in which he very generously explained it to me in greater depth:
http://www.sealevel.info/Happer_UNC_2014-09-08/Another_question.html
Note, especially, the email from Prof. Robert G. Brown, of Duke Univ.
Also, near the end of that page you'll find an email from me to Prof. Happer, with a link to an article by Dr. Joshua Halpern (who blogs under the pen name of Eli Rabett). Halpern calculated that 1 in 10^5 rather than 1 in 10^9 IR-stimulated CO2 molecules will give up that energy by re-emission of an IR photon, rather than collision with another air molecule. He gets about the same radiative lifetime as Dr. Happer (approx. one second), but a collisional lifetime of about 10 microseconds rather than one nanosecond, apparently because he failed to consider collisional transfers of energy with N2 and O2 molecules.
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2013/04/this-is-where-eli-came-in.html
.
Mr. Cotton continued, "The portion of the radiation which is pseudo-scattered is re-emitted almost instantaneously, its electro-magnetic energy never having been converted to thermal energy."
That is wrong. This is an excerpt from the email from Prof. Brown, referenced above:
"...CO_2 doesn't 'scatter' LWIR radiation, it absorbs it (typically within a few meters, the mean free path at atmospheric concentrations) and the energy is almost instantly transferred to the surrounding air. That doesn't mean that they don't radiate. It just means that their radiation temperature is in equilibrium in the surrounding air, and it isn't reradiating of a photon it absorbed, it is radiation initiated by e.g. a collision with an air molecule."
.
Mr. Cotton continued, "Collisions... does not necessarily raise an electron through one or more quantum states as a result of the collision, as you appear to think: that is a separate process in preparation for the emission of a photon."
You are confused. 15,000 nm LWIR absorption and emission is NOT associated with electron orbital transitions. The photons associated with those transitions are MUCH shorter wavelength. 15,000 nm photons are absorbed and emitted through CO2 molecular bending mode vibrations.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
David A. Burton2 years ago
Doug Cotton wrote, "...in degree-level university physics courses, such as I completed at Sydney University in 1966..."
Are you claiming that you received a B.Sc in physics in 1966 from Sydney University, Mr. Cotton?
If not, then when and where were you awarded a B.Sc in physics?
Are you claiming that you received a B.Sc in physics in 1966 from Sydney University, Mr. Cotton?
If not, then when and where were you awarded a B.Sc in physics?
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Climate Physicist2 years ago
As physicists learn and understand in degree-level university physics courses, such as I completed at Sydney University in 1966, we cannot use Stefan-Boltzmann calculations for an input of two or more sources of radiation because that Law is based on the integral of a single Planck function. Yet that is what climatologists do (with their self-taught one year course on atmospheric physics) because they could think of no other explanation as to how the necessary thermal energy gets into Earth's surface. In fact, as Dr Roy Spencer admitted, their figure of 324W/m^2 for atmospheric radiation is just a calculated value that gives 288K for the surface temperature as explained here: http://whyitsnotco2.com/PSI.html. It is an overstated and totally impossible flux for the atmosphere to emit, anyway, and virtually all atmospheric radiation impinging on the surface undergoes the process of resonant (or pseudo) scattering that Prof Johnson explained and I cited in my "Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics" in 2012.
The correct physics which, in complete contrast, does explain temperatures and the required heat transfers in the atmospheres and sub-surface regions of planets and satellite moons first appeared in my "Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures" in 2013 and that document (on which this book is based) is being subjected to a full five (5) years of review in open media, with a reward of AU $50,000 (about US $35,000) offered at https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com for the first to prove the physics substantially wrong and to produce a counter study to mine that showed the greenhouse gas water vapor cooling, as my hypothesis predicts it should. Carbon dioxide cools for the same reasons, but by less than 0.1 degree.
For a brief summary read my six-page "Comprehensive Refutation of the Radiative Forcing Greenhouse Hypothesis" linked from my website http://whyitsnotco2.com. Any questions or attempted refutations will only be read and answered on my blog that, along with my videos, is also linked from http://climate-change-theory.com. See also my earlier website http://earth-climate.com and join over 100,000 others who have visited my websites or viewed my videos about the breakthrough science that the world will come to understand hopefully within the next twenty years or so.
Douglas Cotton B.Sc (physics), B.A. (economics), Dip.Bus.Admin
Sydney and Macquarie Universities (1963 to 1972 inclusive)
Awarded four academic scholarships including one by the Physics Dept of the University of Sydney
The correct physics which, in complete contrast, does explain temperatures and the required heat transfers in the atmospheres and sub-surface regions of planets and satellite moons first appeared in my "Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures" in 2013 and that document (on which this book is based) is being subjected to a full five (5) years of review in open media, with a reward of AU $50,000 (about US $35,000) offered at https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com for the first to prove the physics substantially wrong and to produce a counter study to mine that showed the greenhouse gas water vapor cooling, as my hypothesis predicts it should. Carbon dioxide cools for the same reasons, but by less than 0.1 degree.
For a brief summary read my six-page "Comprehensive Refutation of the Radiative Forcing Greenhouse Hypothesis" linked from my website http://whyitsnotco2.com. Any questions or attempted refutations will only be read and answered on my blog that, along with my videos, is also linked from http://climate-change-theory.com. See also my earlier website http://earth-climate.com and join over 100,000 others who have visited my websites or viewed my videos about the breakthrough science that the world will come to understand hopefully within the next twenty years or so.
Douglas Cotton B.Sc (physics), B.A. (economics), Dip.Bus.Admin
Sydney and Macquarie Universities (1963 to 1972 inclusive)
Awarded four academic scholarships including one by the Physics Dept of the University of Sydney
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
David A. Burton2 years agoIn reply toan earlier post
Peter Ridley2 years ago
It appears that what Doug means by his Sydney University scholarship is his attendance at one of its 1962 Summer Schools along with 150 other high school students.
Doubts have been raised about his claim to a BSc in Physics, just as doubts were raised over PSI blog "CEO and Legal Consultant" John O'Sullivan's claim to having a Law Degree from Surrey University/Hill University.
It's puzzling why Doug avoids responding to David Burton's reasonable request for further information. After all, people making false claims about their status is not unheard of, so it is always worthwhile doing some due diligence when important issues are involved.
Come on Doug. Put this one to rest by making available certification of your degree by Sydney University.
Doubts have been raised about his claim to a BSc in Physics, just as doubts were raised over PSI blog "CEO and Legal Consultant" John O'Sullivan's claim to having a Law Degree from Surrey University/Hill University.
It's puzzling why Doug avoids responding to David Burton's reasonable request for further information. After all, people making false claims about their status is not unheard of, so it is always worthwhile doing some due diligence when important issues are involved.
Come on Doug. Put this one to rest by making available certification of your degree by Sydney University.
Peter Ridley wrote, "Come on Doug. Put this one to rest by making available certification of your degree by Sydney University."
Has he claimed that his physics degree was awarded by Sydney University? All I've seen is this:
"Douglas Cotton B.Sc (physics), B.A. (economics), Dip.Bus.Admin / Sydney and Macquarie Universities (1963 to 1972 inclusive)"
That's two different universities, and a ten year range of dates.
They are both large institutions:
http://sydney.edu.au/ (~53,000 students)
https://www.mq.edu.au/ (~40,000 students)
I wonder if his Economics and Business Administration degrees are fake, too?
Has he claimed that his physics degree was awarded by Sydney University? All I've seen is this:
"Douglas Cotton B.Sc (physics), B.A. (economics), Dip.Bus.Admin / Sydney and Macquarie Universities (1963 to 1972 inclusive)"
That's two different universities, and a ten year range of dates.
They are both large institutions:
http://sydney.edu.au/ (~53,000 students)
https://www.mq.edu.au/ (~40,000 students)
I wonder if his Economics and Business Administration degrees are fake, too?
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
David A. Burton2 years ago (Edited)In reply toan earlier post
Peter Ridley2 years ago
Hi Doug,
During exchanges in December 2011 with members of the PSI blogging group (which you were proud to be a member of) its front man John O'Sullivan was challenged about his claims to having an accredited Law Degree. In retaliation he accused investigative journalist Andrew Skolnick of lying about having an MSc.
Both were challenged to provide evidence to support their claims. John O'Sullivan never did provide any evidence to refute that he had bought his degree from "Hill University", an on-line diploma mill. On the other hand, Andrew Skolnick quickly provided me with a certified copy of his MSc.
(See my Aug. 2012 comment following the revealing article "Affidavits in Michael Mann Libel Suit Reveal Astonishing Facts About Tim Ball Associate John O'Sullivan" at https://www.desmogblog.com/comment/727946#comment-727946).
Why don't you do what Andrew did and send me a certified copy of your degrees in Physics and Maths so that you can at least get David Burton off your back on this issue.
During exchanges in December 2011 with members of the PSI blogging group (which you were proud to be a member of) its front man John O'Sullivan was challenged about his claims to having an accredited Law Degree. In retaliation he accused investigative journalist Andrew Skolnick of lying about having an MSc.
Both were challenged to provide evidence to support their claims. John O'Sullivan never did provide any evidence to refute that he had bought his degree from "Hill University", an on-line diploma mill. On the other hand, Andrew Skolnick quickly provided me with a certified copy of his MSc.
(See my Aug. 2012 comment following the revealing article "Affidavits in Michael Mann Libel Suit Reveal Astonishing Facts About Tim Ball Associate John O'Sullivan" at https://www.desmogblog.com/comment/727946#comment-727946).
Why don't you do what Andrew did and send me a certified copy of your degrees in Physics and Maths so that you can at least get David Burton off your back on this issue.
That's very interesting, Peter!
I was aware of the fact John O'Sullivan cannot be trusted. In 2015 O'Sullivan & Pierre Latour blatantly lied on the PSI web site, and also in emails, about Dr. S. Fred Singer's views. The web site article was entitled, "Singer Concurs with Latour: CO2 Doesn't Cause Global Warming."
http://web.archive.org/web/20150117064319/http://www.principia-scientific.org/singer-concurs-with-latour-co2-doesn-t-cause-global-warming.html
In email O'Sullivan wrote, "Fred Singer has now come over to PSI's view that CO2 can only cool. I suggest you contact him."
I forwarded that to Prof. Singer, who was then 90 years old, and asked him:
"Dear Dr. Singer,
Please confirm or deny this allegation.
Warmest regards,
Dave"
Prof. Singer replied:
"denied SFS"
That's what I expected. I forwarded it to O'Sullivan & others, including Dr. Singer's friend, Lord Christopher Monckton, but O'Sullivan STILL refused to to remove the dishonest article from the PSI web site.
Prof. Singer elaborated in a subsequent email:
"Friends, There is a sure way to smoke out deniers like PS [Principia Scientific]
Just ask them if GH models violate the 2nd Law of Thermo ...
These people just won't accept the existence of DWR (downwelling IR from atm to sfc)
-- even if measured empirically
No point wasting more time -- as Jo said
Fred"
After Lord Monckton threatened legal action, PSI finally did edit and tone down the article, making it less flagrantly false. (It now says "Singer Converges on ZERO Climate Carbon Forcing.")
So I knew O'Sullivan was a liar, but I did not know that he also faked his degree. Thank you for educating me.
Strangely enough, Mr. Cotton apparently has that in common with his estranged comrade, Mr. O'Sullivan. As you can see, Mr. Cotton still refuses to reveal what college awarded his supposed physics degree, and still refuses to reveal the year it which it was supposedly awarded. The only possible reason for that which I can think of is that Mr. Cotton knows the information could be verified if true, or refuted if false.
I was aware of the fact John O'Sullivan cannot be trusted. In 2015 O'Sullivan & Pierre Latour blatantly lied on the PSI web site, and also in emails, about Dr. S. Fred Singer's views. The web site article was entitled, "Singer Concurs with Latour: CO2 Doesn't Cause Global Warming."
http://web.archive.org/web/20150117064319/http://www.principia-scientific.org/singer-concurs-with-latour-co2-doesn-t-cause-global-warming.html
In email O'Sullivan wrote, "Fred Singer has now come over to PSI's view that CO2 can only cool. I suggest you contact him."
I forwarded that to Prof. Singer, who was then 90 years old, and asked him:
"Dear Dr. Singer,
Please confirm or deny this allegation.
Warmest regards,
Dave"
Prof. Singer replied:
"denied SFS"
That's what I expected. I forwarded it to O'Sullivan & others, including Dr. Singer's friend, Lord Christopher Monckton, but O'Sullivan STILL refused to to remove the dishonest article from the PSI web site.
Prof. Singer elaborated in a subsequent email:
"Friends, There is a sure way to smoke out deniers like PS [Principia Scientific]
Just ask them if GH models violate the 2nd Law of Thermo ...
These people just won't accept the existence of DWR (downwelling IR from atm to sfc)
-- even if measured empirically
No point wasting more time -- as Jo said
Fred"
After Lord Monckton threatened legal action, PSI finally did edit and tone down the article, making it less flagrantly false. (It now says "Singer Converges on ZERO Climate Carbon Forcing.")
So I knew O'Sullivan was a liar, but I did not know that he also faked his degree. Thank you for educating me.
Strangely enough, Mr. Cotton apparently has that in common with his estranged comrade, Mr. O'Sullivan. As you can see, Mr. Cotton still refuses to reveal what college awarded his supposed physics degree, and still refuses to reveal the year it which it was supposedly awarded. The only possible reason for that which I can think of is that Mr. Cotton knows the information could be verified if true, or refuted if false.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
It appears that what Doug means by his Sydney University scholarship is his attendance at one of its 1962 Summer Schools along with 150 other high school students.
Doubts have been raised about his claim to a BSc in Physics, just as doubts were raised over PSI blog "CEO and Legal Consultant" John O'Sullivan's claim to having a Law Degree from Surrey University/Hill University.
It's puzzling why Doug avoids responding to David Burton's reasonable request for further information. After all, people making false claims about their status is not unheard of, so it is always worthwhile doing some due diligence when important issues are involved.
Come on Doug. Put this one to rest by making available certification of your degree by Sydney University.
Doubts have been raised about his claim to a BSc in Physics, just as doubts were raised over PSI blog "CEO and Legal Consultant" John O'Sullivan's claim to having a Law Degree from Surrey University/Hill University.
It's puzzling why Doug avoids responding to David Burton's reasonable request for further information. After all, people making false claims about their status is not unheard of, so it is always worthwhile doing some due diligence when important issues are involved.
Come on Doug. Put this one to rest by making available certification of your degree by Sydney University.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
As physicists learn and understand in degree-level university physics courses (such as I completed at the University of Sydney in 1966, with graduation ceremony early in 1967) we cannot use Stefan-Boltzmann calculations for an input of two or more sources of radiation because that Law is based on the integral of a single Planck function. Yet that is what climatologists do (with their self-taught one year course on atmospheric physics) because they could think of no other explanation as to how the necessary thermal energy gets into Earth's surface. In fact, as Dr Roy Spencer admitted, their figure of 324W/m^2 for atmospheric radiation is just a calculated value that gives 288K for the surface temperature as explained here: http://whyitsnotco2.com/PSI.html. It is an overstated and totally impossible flux for the atmosphere to emit, anyway, and virtually all atmospheric radiation impinging on the surface undergoes the process of resonant (or pseudo) scattering that Prof Johnson explained and I cited in my "Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics" in 2012.
The correct physics which, in complete contrast, does explain temperatures and the required heat transfers in the atmospheres and sub-surface regions of planets and satellite moons first appeared in my "Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures" in 2013 and that document (on which this book is based) is being subjected to a full five (5) years of review in open media, with a reward of AU $50,000 (about US $35,000) offered at https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com for the first to prove the physics substantially wrong and to produce a counter study to mine that showed the greenhouse gas water vapor cooling, as my hypothesis predicts it should. Carbon dioxide cools for the same reasons, but by less than 0.1 degree.
For a brief summary read my six-page "Comprehensive Refutation of the Radiative Forcing Greenhouse Hypothesis" linked from my website http://whyitsnotco2.com. Any questions or attempted refutations will only be read and answered on my blog that, along with my videos, is also linked from http://climate-change-theory.com. See also my earlier website http://earth-climate.com and join over 100,000 others who have visited my websites or viewed my videos about the breakthrough science that the world will come to understand hopefully within the next twenty years or so.
Douglas Cotton B.Sc (physics), B.A. (economics), Dip.Bus.Admin
Sydney and Macquarie Universities (1963 to 1972 inclusive)
Awarded four academic scholarships including one by the Physics Dept of the University of Sydney
The correct physics which, in complete contrast, does explain temperatures and the required heat transfers in the atmospheres and sub-surface regions of planets and satellite moons first appeared in my "Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures" in 2013 and that document (on which this book is based) is being subjected to a full five (5) years of review in open media, with a reward of AU $50,000 (about US $35,000) offered at https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com for the first to prove the physics substantially wrong and to produce a counter study to mine that showed the greenhouse gas water vapor cooling, as my hypothesis predicts it should. Carbon dioxide cools for the same reasons, but by less than 0.1 degree.
For a brief summary read my six-page "Comprehensive Refutation of the Radiative Forcing Greenhouse Hypothesis" linked from my website http://whyitsnotco2.com. Any questions or attempted refutations will only be read and answered on my blog that, along with my videos, is also linked from http://climate-change-theory.com. See also my earlier website http://earth-climate.com and join over 100,000 others who have visited my websites or viewed my videos about the breakthrough science that the world will come to understand hopefully within the next twenty years or so.
Douglas Cotton B.Sc (physics), B.A. (economics), Dip.Bus.Admin
Sydney and Macquarie Universities (1963 to 1972 inclusive)
Awarded four academic scholarships including one by the Physics Dept of the University of Sydney
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Peter Ridley2 years agoIn reply toan earlier post
David A. Burton2 years ago
Once again, Doug Cotton has declined to answer my simple question: When and where were you awarded a physics degree, Mr. Cotton? Which year and which university?
The answer, if there is one, is NOT a ten-year range of dates, and NOT a list of two schools. It is a single year, and a single university.
I don't expect an answer, because I doubt that there is one. But if I am wrong, Mr. Cotton, and you really DO have a physics degree, then answer the question: in which year was it awarded, and by which university?
The answer, if there is one, is NOT a ten-year range of dates, and NOT a list of two schools. It is a single year, and a single university.
I don't expect an answer, because I doubt that there is one. But if I am wrong, Mr. Cotton, and you really DO have a physics degree, then answer the question: in which year was it awarded, and by which university?
Hi Doug,
During exchanges in December 2011 with members of the PSI blogging group (which you were proud to be a member of) its front man John O'Sullivan was challenged about his claims to having an accredited Law Degree. In retaliation he accused investigative journalist Andrew Skolnick of lying about having an MSc.
Both were challenged to provide evidence to support their claims. John O'Sullivan never did provide any evidence to refute that he had bought his degree from "Hill University", an on-line diploma mill. On the other hand, Andrew Skolnick quickly provided me with a certified copy of his MSc.
(See my Aug. 2012 comment following the revealing article "Affidavits in Michael Mann Libel Suit Reveal Astonishing Facts About Tim Ball Associate John O'Sullivan" at https://www.desmogblog.com/comment/727946#comment-727946).
Why don't you do what Andrew did and send me a certified copy of your degrees in Physics and Maths so that you can at least get David Burton off your back on this issue.
During exchanges in December 2011 with members of the PSI blogging group (which you were proud to be a member of) its front man John O'Sullivan was challenged about his claims to having an accredited Law Degree. In retaliation he accused investigative journalist Andrew Skolnick of lying about having an MSc.
Both were challenged to provide evidence to support their claims. John O'Sullivan never did provide any evidence to refute that he had bought his degree from "Hill University", an on-line diploma mill. On the other hand, Andrew Skolnick quickly provided me with a certified copy of his MSc.
(See my Aug. 2012 comment following the revealing article "Affidavits in Michael Mann Libel Suit Reveal Astonishing Facts About Tim Ball Associate John O'Sullivan" at https://www.desmogblog.com/comment/727946#comment-727946).
Why don't you do what Andrew did and send me a certified copy of your degrees in Physics and Maths so that you can at least get David Burton off your back on this issue.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
David A. Burton2 years ago
Once again, Doug Cotton has declined to answer my simple question: When and where were you awarded a physics degree, Mr. Cotton? Which year and which university?
The answer, if there is one, is NOT a ten-year range of dates, and NOT a list of two schools. It is a single year, and a single university.
I don't expect an answer, because I doubt that there is one. But if I am wrong, Mr. Cotton, and you really DO have a physics degree, then answer the question: in which year was it awarded, and by which university?
The answer, if there is one, is NOT a ten-year range of dates, and NOT a list of two schools. It is a single year, and a single university.
I don't expect an answer, because I doubt that there is one. But if I am wrong, Mr. Cotton, and you really DO have a physics degree, then answer the question: in which year was it awarded, and by which university?
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
I explained how CO2 remains in thermal equilibrium with the rest of the atmosphere, even if it is absorbing large amounts of IR, but Mr. Cotton obviously didn't understand it. He wrote, "Burton thinks that carbon dioxide molecules hardly emit ANY radiation."
I replied, "I most certainly do NOT think that."
Still confused, Mr. Cotton replied, "In a comment below David Burton wrote 'In the troposphere >99.99999% of the LWIR photons which CO2 absorbs are not re-emitted.' Well what is it emitting? Does a carbon dioxide molecule 'know' that a certain portion of its thermal energy came from collisions? Can it distinguish that thermal energy from what it attained via absorption of radiation?"
I'll try to make this as simple as possible, for Mr. Cotton.
When a CO2 molecule absorbs 0.083 eV of energy, corresponding to a molecular bending-mode vibration, it may acquire the energy either by collision(s) with other air molecule(s) or by absorption of a 15,000 nm LWIR photon. It will remain in that excited state until it gives up the energy: again, either by collision with another air molecule, or by emission of a photon.
The relative likelihoods of those two ways of releasing that energy are determined probabilistically, according to the relative mean amounts of time before the energy is lost in the two different ways. So what are those lifetimes?
At one atmosphere air pressure and comfortable air temperatures, it will be only a few nanoseconds, on average, before the IR molecule gives up the energy by collision.
However, it takes, on average, about one second(!!!) for it to give up the energy by emission of an IR photon.
Compared to the time between collisions that is VERY long.
That means when a CO2 molecule is in that excited state, >99.99999% of the time it will give up the energy by collision with another air molecule, rather than by emission of a photon. (Aside: if you count the nines, you may think there aren't enough of them... that's intentional, because I wanted what I wrote to be true for the entire troposphere, not just at sea level.)
However, that does NOT mean "carbon dioxide molecules hardly emit any radiation," because although CO2 molecules are constantly giving up energy by collision with other air molecules, they are also constantly absorbing energy from other air molecules. That continual process of collisional energy transfer between air molecules keeps the constituent gases in the atmosphere in thermal equilibrium. So the amount of IR emitted by CO2 in the air is determined by just two factors: 1. the temperature of the air, and 2. the partial pressure of the CO2.
I replied, "I most certainly do NOT think that."
Still confused, Mr. Cotton replied, "In a comment below David Burton wrote 'In the troposphere >99.99999% of the LWIR photons which CO2 absorbs are not re-emitted.' Well what is it emitting? Does a carbon dioxide molecule 'know' that a certain portion of its thermal energy came from collisions? Can it distinguish that thermal energy from what it attained via absorption of radiation?"
I'll try to make this as simple as possible, for Mr. Cotton.
When a CO2 molecule absorbs 0.083 eV of energy, corresponding to a molecular bending-mode vibration, it may acquire the energy either by collision(s) with other air molecule(s) or by absorption of a 15,000 nm LWIR photon. It will remain in that excited state until it gives up the energy: again, either by collision with another air molecule, or by emission of a photon.
The relative likelihoods of those two ways of releasing that energy are determined probabilistically, according to the relative mean amounts of time before the energy is lost in the two different ways. So what are those lifetimes?
At one atmosphere air pressure and comfortable air temperatures, it will be only a few nanoseconds, on average, before the IR molecule gives up the energy by collision.
However, it takes, on average, about one second(!!!) for it to give up the energy by emission of an IR photon.
Compared to the time between collisions that is VERY long.
That means when a CO2 molecule is in that excited state, >99.99999% of the time it will give up the energy by collision with another air molecule, rather than by emission of a photon. (Aside: if you count the nines, you may think there aren't enough of them... that's intentional, because I wanted what I wrote to be true for the entire troposphere, not just at sea level.)
However, that does NOT mean "carbon dioxide molecules hardly emit any radiation," because although CO2 molecules are constantly giving up energy by collision with other air molecules, they are also constantly absorbing energy from other air molecules. That continual process of collisional energy transfer between air molecules keeps the constituent gases in the atmosphere in thermal equilibrium. So the amount of IR emitted by CO2 in the air is determined by just two factors: 1. the temperature of the air, and 2. the partial pressure of the CO2.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Hi Doug,
Are you talking about that Sydney University 1962 Summer School that you attended with 150 other high school students?
Also, is that John Murphy just another of your many many sock puppets?
Are you talking about that Sydney University 1962 Summer School that you attended with 150 other high school students?
Also, is that John Murphy just another of your many many sock puppets?
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Climate Physicist2 years ago
You don't have to take my word for it. I suggest you read the comment at https://www.quora.com/The-greenhouse-effect-has-never-been-demonstrated-Is-it-Fake-Science by ...
John Murphy, BSc (hons) Physics from London University a long time ago
Written yesterday
Fake Science is a good description because the Greenhouse Gas Effect (GHE) cannot exist.
Not only that – it is straightforward to prove it doesn’t exist.
How people have got away with this stuff for so long amazes me.
Below are a couple of proofs that the GHE can’t exist. ....
...
The key here is in the “Energy balance at the the Earth’s surface” box.
Here the Solar radiation flux is added to the flux from the Greenhouse gases (Infrared radiation from the atmosphere) to get a total flux – and from there using Boltzmann's (fourth power) relationship the Earth’s temperature is calculated.
Who said you can add fluxes together?
Just because measurements are the in the same units does not mean you can add or aggregate them .
Did anyone test it?
Where are the examples that you can add radiation flux to radiation flux
Who made that assumption – and why don’t students challenge it?
Nobody suggests adding temperatures together – why do they think of adding fluxes together? There is no precedent – it does not happen anywhere else in the known universe.
It would mean (amongst other impossible things) that heat from a source would be added to whatever was there in the first place; heat piling on top of heat.
Straight out of Alice in Wonderland which used to be Literature not Physics.
I like to think that in my day they’d never get away with because it’s completely wrong; you just can’t add fluxes together. It would mean that two or more sources of radiation aimed at the same target would create a higher temperature than either of the sources could acting alone.
And that’s an easily testable property of heat and heat transfer. It is not a property of Climate or Atmosphere – it is a heat-transfer property of heat. It may be necessary for the GHE theory to work – but it is a basic heat property.
It must work everywhere – basic properties are not selective.
Theoretical proof that two or more sources of radiation aimed at the same target do not create a temperature based on adding the individual fluxes together.
Take a high number of electric bar elements (1kw) and surround a block of iron.
Very quickly the block of iron will become much, much hotter than the wire in the elements.
The block of iron will radiate and begin to increase the temperature of the elements – which will then radiate more heat towards the iron block.
(Note that the block of iron can be made as hot as you wish – just add more elements.)
The block of iron will then get even hotter still – and so on ad-infinitum.
The positive feedback effect (actually unknown in nature) would progress at near the speed of light and as there is nothing to slow it down or stop it (convection being far too slow) it would consume the universe.
Not only that, it would do so without energy; no extra energy is needed at the elements for them to get hotter and hotter to infinity.
Completely impossible or Alice in Wonderland – take your pick.
Two or more sources of radiation aimed at the same target do not create a temperature based on adding the individual fluxes together.
Therefore the GHE which relies on the two sources of Solar radiation and GHE radiation to be summed cannot be true.
The Earth’s surface reaches the temperature achieved by either Solar or GHE acting alone – they cannot be added together. (See experimental results for the algebra / arithmetic)
To test it experimentally is fairly straightforward; either do this at home or get your university to do it better: (and you can read the rest with the above link)
John Murphy, BSc (hons) Physics from London University a long time ago
Written yesterday
Fake Science is a good description because the Greenhouse Gas Effect (GHE) cannot exist.
Not only that – it is straightforward to prove it doesn’t exist.
How people have got away with this stuff for so long amazes me.
Below are a couple of proofs that the GHE can’t exist. ....
...
The key here is in the “Energy balance at the the Earth’s surface” box.
Here the Solar radiation flux is added to the flux from the Greenhouse gases (Infrared radiation from the atmosphere) to get a total flux – and from there using Boltzmann's (fourth power) relationship the Earth’s temperature is calculated.
Who said you can add fluxes together?
Just because measurements are the in the same units does not mean you can add or aggregate them .
Did anyone test it?
Where are the examples that you can add radiation flux to radiation flux
Who made that assumption – and why don’t students challenge it?
Nobody suggests adding temperatures together – why do they think of adding fluxes together? There is no precedent – it does not happen anywhere else in the known universe.
It would mean (amongst other impossible things) that heat from a source would be added to whatever was there in the first place; heat piling on top of heat.
Straight out of Alice in Wonderland which used to be Literature not Physics.
I like to think that in my day they’d never get away with because it’s completely wrong; you just can’t add fluxes together. It would mean that two or more sources of radiation aimed at the same target would create a higher temperature than either of the sources could acting alone.
And that’s an easily testable property of heat and heat transfer. It is not a property of Climate or Atmosphere – it is a heat-transfer property of heat. It may be necessary for the GHE theory to work – but it is a basic heat property.
It must work everywhere – basic properties are not selective.
Theoretical proof that two or more sources of radiation aimed at the same target do not create a temperature based on adding the individual fluxes together.
Take a high number of electric bar elements (1kw) and surround a block of iron.
Very quickly the block of iron will become much, much hotter than the wire in the elements.
The block of iron will radiate and begin to increase the temperature of the elements – which will then radiate more heat towards the iron block.
(Note that the block of iron can be made as hot as you wish – just add more elements.)
The block of iron will then get even hotter still – and so on ad-infinitum.
The positive feedback effect (actually unknown in nature) would progress at near the speed of light and as there is nothing to slow it down or stop it (convection being far too slow) it would consume the universe.
Not only that, it would do so without energy; no extra energy is needed at the elements for them to get hotter and hotter to infinity.
Completely impossible or Alice in Wonderland – take your pick.
Two or more sources of radiation aimed at the same target do not create a temperature based on adding the individual fluxes together.
Therefore the GHE which relies on the two sources of Solar radiation and GHE radiation to be summed cannot be true.
The Earth’s surface reaches the temperature achieved by either Solar or GHE acting alone – they cannot be added together. (See experimental results for the algebra / arithmetic)
To test it experimentally is fairly straightforward; either do this at home or get your university to do it better: (and you can read the rest with the above link)
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
In a comment below David Burton wrote "In the troposphere >99.99999% of the LWIR photons which CO2 absorbs are not re-emitted." Well what is it emitting? Does a carbon dioxide molecule "know" that a certain portion of its thermal energy came from collisions? Can it distinguish that thermal energy from what it attained via absorption of radiation? What about water vapor? What does it emit? The facts are that over 98% of the thermal energy in Earth's atmosphere is in oxygen, nitrogen and argon molecules. It is the IR-active (so-called "greenhouse") molecules that are the only ones cooling the atmosphere by radiating energy back to space: they act like holes in a blanket. Whatever radiation strikes a warmer target below undergoes resonant (or "pseudo") scattering and so does not add any thermal energy to that target. If it did it would decrease entropy in an independent natural process, and physics tells us that cannot happen. Every one-way pencil of radiation is an independent process and entropy will not decrease in that process. There are no other dependent "interacting thermodynamic systems" as are referred to in the Second Law of Thermodynamics which reads: "In a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems increases." [Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics.] So-called "net" effects are irrelevant. This is all explained in my 2012 paper "Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics" at https://ssrn.com/author=2627605 where you may also read my "Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures" and my "Comprehensive Refutation of the Radiative Forcing Greenhouse Hypothesis."
The radiative forcing greenhouse conjecture is false because you cannot explain Earth's surface temperature with 168W/m^2 of solar radiation plus an overstated (and impossible) flux of 324W/m^2 of atmospheric radiation.
The Alarmists writing this review and the comments in this thread think physics is just formulas which they misapply because they have not studied physics to degree level and learned to UNDERSTAND it in a recognised university. There is copious empirical evidence proving them wrong, such as real-world data that confirm water vapor cools, as my hypothesis predicts it should.
In contrast to what has become the biggest deceptive scam in history, my hypothesis in my three papers and this book is developed directly from the laws of physics and, more importantly, supported by an abundance of empirical evidence both on Earth and throughout the Solar System. If you think you can fault it there is a reward of AU $50,000 (about US $35,000) offered at http://whyitsnotco2.com but all submissions must be on my blog which is linked and must show evidence of having read the hypothesis.
As for Burton's question, it is answered a third time here ....
Douglas Cotton B.Sc (physics), B.A. (economics), Dip.Bus.Admin
Sydney and Macquarie Universities (1963 to 1972 inclusive)
Awarded four academic scholarships including one by the Physics Dept of the University of Sydney
The radiative forcing greenhouse conjecture is false because you cannot explain Earth's surface temperature with 168W/m^2 of solar radiation plus an overstated (and impossible) flux of 324W/m^2 of atmospheric radiation.
The Alarmists writing this review and the comments in this thread think physics is just formulas which they misapply because they have not studied physics to degree level and learned to UNDERSTAND it in a recognised university. There is copious empirical evidence proving them wrong, such as real-world data that confirm water vapor cools, as my hypothesis predicts it should.
In contrast to what has become the biggest deceptive scam in history, my hypothesis in my three papers and this book is developed directly from the laws of physics and, more importantly, supported by an abundance of empirical evidence both on Earth and throughout the Solar System. If you think you can fault it there is a reward of AU $50,000 (about US $35,000) offered at http://whyitsnotco2.com but all submissions must be on my blog which is linked and must show evidence of having read the hypothesis.
As for Burton's question, it is answered a third time here ....
Douglas Cotton B.Sc (physics), B.A. (economics), Dip.Bus.Admin
Sydney and Macquarie Universities (1963 to 1972 inclusive)
Awarded four academic scholarships including one by the Physics Dept of the University of Sydney
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Wow, another collection of scientifically illiterate gibberish by Doug Cotton. E.g., "black body absorption in an atom" -- good grief!
But tucked away right in the middle of it Mr. Cotton snuck in a bald-faced lie about me: "Burton thinks that carbon dioxide molecules hardly emit ANY radiation."
For the record, I most certainly do NOT think that.
I also notice that Mr. Cotton wrote nearly 1000 words WITHOUT answering my question: When and where, Mr. Cotton, do you claim to have been awarded a physics degree? Which year and which university?
It doesn't surprise me that he didn't answer. I didn't expect an answer, because I doubt that there is one.
But tucked away right in the middle of it Mr. Cotton snuck in a bald-faced lie about me: "Burton thinks that carbon dioxide molecules hardly emit ANY radiation."
For the record, I most certainly do NOT think that.
I also notice that Mr. Cotton wrote nearly 1000 words WITHOUT answering my question: When and where, Mr. Cotton, do you claim to have been awarded a physics degree? Which year and which university?
It doesn't surprise me that he didn't answer. I didn't expect an answer, because I doubt that there is one.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Doug Cotton wrote, "In other words, the temperature which black body radiation achieves in a black body target is proportional to the peak frequency."
That is such complete nonsense that I think you are lying about having a BS in physics. Nobody with a BS in physics could possibly say something so obviously wrong. When and where do you claim to have been awarded a physics degree? Which year and which university?
Wien's displacement law predicts black body EMISSIONS, not absorption. The TEMPERATURE which a black body reaches has NOTHING at all to do with the peak frequency of the radiation which heats it.
In fact, that is what makes it a black body: the fact that it absorbs ALL incoming radiation, without preference.
Which do you think will heat a black body (or your dinner) to a higher temperature? A 5 mW green laser pointer at 532 nm (563,000 GHz), or an 1100 W microwave oven at 12.5 cm (2.4 GHz)?
Each green photon contains 235,000 times as much energy as each microwave photon! But that doesn't matter at all. What matters is the total amount & rate of energy transferred.
A black body would absorb either photon (green visible or microwave) without preference, so you could heat it equally effectively with green photons or microwave photons. But the microwave oven puts out 220 million times as much energy as the green laser pointer, so the microwave oven would heat a black body 220 million times faster than the green laser pointer (assuming that all the emitted energy reaches the target).
This is VERY elementary. You should not be able to pass a high school physics course without understanding it. I do not believe that either Sydney University or Macquarie University awarded a physics degree to someone who does not understand this.
That is such complete nonsense that I think you are lying about having a BS in physics. Nobody with a BS in physics could possibly say something so obviously wrong. When and where do you claim to have been awarded a physics degree? Which year and which university?
Wien's displacement law predicts black body EMISSIONS, not absorption. The TEMPERATURE which a black body reaches has NOTHING at all to do with the peak frequency of the radiation which heats it.
In fact, that is what makes it a black body: the fact that it absorbs ALL incoming radiation, without preference.
Which do you think will heat a black body (or your dinner) to a higher temperature? A 5 mW green laser pointer at 532 nm (563,000 GHz), or an 1100 W microwave oven at 12.5 cm (2.4 GHz)?
Each green photon contains 235,000 times as much energy as each microwave photon! But that doesn't matter at all. What matters is the total amount & rate of energy transferred.
A black body would absorb either photon (green visible or microwave) without preference, so you could heat it equally effectively with green photons or microwave photons. But the microwave oven puts out 220 million times as much energy as the green laser pointer, so the microwave oven would heat a black body 220 million times faster than the green laser pointer (assuming that all the emitted energy reaches the target).
This is VERY elementary. You should not be able to pass a high school physics course without understanding it. I do not believe that either Sydney University or Macquarie University awarded a physics degree to someone who does not understand this.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
David A. Burton2 years ago
Doug Cotton wrote, "temperature attained by radiation is proportional to the peak (modal) frequency"
That's complete gibberish. Radiation doesn't attain "temperature." Radiation has power, wavelength/frequency, direction, polarization, but NOT temperature.
Mr. Cotton continued, "I referred you to Wien's Displacement Law."
That's more proof of your confusion. Wien's Displacement Law has nothing to do with any of this. It describes black body emission spectra, and GHGs do not even slightly resemble black bodies.
Perhaps you are confused because your light bulbs are specified with a "color temperature." That doesn't mean the light from the light bulb is any temperature, it is just a rough indication of the spectral distribution of the light which that bulb produces. It means that the light is supposed to LOOK similar to the human eye to light which WOULD be emitted by a black body of that temperature. Here's a pretty good article:
http://www.soundandvision.com/content/led-vs-cfl-bulbs-color-temp-light-spectrum-and-more
Doug Cotton continued, "Electron (potential) energy is increased when electrons move up through one or more quantum states, you clot!"
Well, of course, but that's not what we were talking about.
IR photons do not "move electrons up through one or more quantum states." The energy associated with electrons making atomic orbital transitions is much higher than the thermal and infrared photon energies we've been talking about. CO2's LWIR is centered around 15,000 nm wavelength, which means that each photon has less than one-twentieth of the energy of a photon in the visible spectrum, and not anywhere near enough energy to elevate electrons to higher orbitals.
Perhaps you've noticed that the atmosphere is transparent in the visible spectrum. That's because the molecules which make up the atmosphere (mainly N2, O2, Ar, CO2, H2O), and the atoms which make up those molecules, do NOT absorb photons in the visible spectrum. When gas does not absorb at a particular wavelength, it means that none of the transitions of which it is capable correspond to the energy of photons at that wavelength.
Most atmospheric gases do not absorb LWIR, either, but CO2 and H2O do. But they do NOT do so via electron transitions to higher atomic orbitals; there's not nearly enough energy in a LWIR photon for that. CO2's 15,000 nm absorption band is due to a molecular bending-mode transition, as illustrated in this diagram:
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/earth/climate/images/carbon.gif
(Note: that diagram is wrong in one respect. It should not show the absorbed IR photon being re-emitted by the same molecule. While that can happen, it's not the usual case. In the troposphere >99.99999% of the LWIR photons which CO2 absorbs are not re-emitted. Instead, the absorbed energy is transferred by collisions with other air molecules, so it just heats the air. That's why the CO2 stays in thermal equilibrium with the rest of the air, even while absorbing very intense IR. It is also why the amount of 15,000 nm IR emitted by atmospheric CO2 depends only on the atmosphere's temperature (and CO2 partial pressure), not on how the air got to that temperature. Whether the ground is very cold and emits little IR, or very warm and emits lots of IR, will not affect the amount of IR emitted by the CO2 in the adjacent atmosphere, except by affecting the temperature of that air.)
Mr. Cotton also wrote, "you have not studied physics to third year Distinction Level in any recognized university, as I have."
Is that supposed to be impressive? I don't even know what a "distinction level" is -- it must be some sort of Australian thing.
I don't find any CV for you on your web sites, either; e.g. there's no mention of your qualifications here:
http://ageslowly.homestead.com/
So, exactly what degree(s) did you earn, and where?
Did you write a dissertation or thesis? Is it published anywhere?
That's complete gibberish. Radiation doesn't attain "temperature." Radiation has power, wavelength/frequency, direction, polarization, but NOT temperature.
Mr. Cotton continued, "I referred you to Wien's Displacement Law."
That's more proof of your confusion. Wien's Displacement Law has nothing to do with any of this. It describes black body emission spectra, and GHGs do not even slightly resemble black bodies.
Perhaps you are confused because your light bulbs are specified with a "color temperature." That doesn't mean the light from the light bulb is any temperature, it is just a rough indication of the spectral distribution of the light which that bulb produces. It means that the light is supposed to LOOK similar to the human eye to light which WOULD be emitted by a black body of that temperature. Here's a pretty good article:
http://www.soundandvision.com/content/led-vs-cfl-bulbs-color-temp-light-spectrum-and-more
Doug Cotton continued, "Electron (potential) energy is increased when electrons move up through one or more quantum states, you clot!"
Well, of course, but that's not what we were talking about.
IR photons do not "move electrons up through one or more quantum states." The energy associated with electrons making atomic orbital transitions is much higher than the thermal and infrared photon energies we've been talking about. CO2's LWIR is centered around 15,000 nm wavelength, which means that each photon has less than one-twentieth of the energy of a photon in the visible spectrum, and not anywhere near enough energy to elevate electrons to higher orbitals.
Perhaps you've noticed that the atmosphere is transparent in the visible spectrum. That's because the molecules which make up the atmosphere (mainly N2, O2, Ar, CO2, H2O), and the atoms which make up those molecules, do NOT absorb photons in the visible spectrum. When gas does not absorb at a particular wavelength, it means that none of the transitions of which it is capable correspond to the energy of photons at that wavelength.
Most atmospheric gases do not absorb LWIR, either, but CO2 and H2O do. But they do NOT do so via electron transitions to higher atomic orbitals; there's not nearly enough energy in a LWIR photon for that. CO2's 15,000 nm absorption band is due to a molecular bending-mode transition, as illustrated in this diagram:
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/earth/climate/images/carbon.gif
(Note: that diagram is wrong in one respect. It should not show the absorbed IR photon being re-emitted by the same molecule. While that can happen, it's not the usual case. In the troposphere >99.99999% of the LWIR photons which CO2 absorbs are not re-emitted. Instead, the absorbed energy is transferred by collisions with other air molecules, so it just heats the air. That's why the CO2 stays in thermal equilibrium with the rest of the air, even while absorbing very intense IR. It is also why the amount of 15,000 nm IR emitted by atmospheric CO2 depends only on the atmosphere's temperature (and CO2 partial pressure), not on how the air got to that temperature. Whether the ground is very cold and emits little IR, or very warm and emits lots of IR, will not affect the amount of IR emitted by the CO2 in the adjacent atmosphere, except by affecting the temperature of that air.)
Mr. Cotton also wrote, "you have not studied physics to third year Distinction Level in any recognized university, as I have."
Is that supposed to be impressive? I don't even know what a "distinction level" is -- it must be some sort of Australian thing.
I don't find any CV for you on your web sites, either; e.g. there's no mention of your qualifications here:
http://ageslowly.homestead.com/
So, exactly what degree(s) did you earn, and where?
Did you write a dissertation or thesis? Is it published anywhere?
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Doug Cotton wrote, "Sixteen radiators would do no such thing in Space because the sum of 16 Planck functions cannot possibly have a greater peak frequency than any one of them."
"Frequency?" Nobody said anything about frequency. Mr. Cotton, do you really not understand the difference between power and frequency??
Mr. Cotton continued, "...resonating processes wherein some of the incident energy is sometimes converted only to electron energy, not kinetic (thermal) energy..."
That is complete gibberish.
There's no such thing as "electron energy" (in the sense that you're using the term), and the distribution of energy in a warm object among the constituent molecules' various translational, vibrational & rotational modes is no different if the object is heated by one electric heater or sixteen. (Unless the matter undergoes a phase change, of course.)
"Frequency?" Nobody said anything about frequency. Mr. Cotton, do you really not understand the difference between power and frequency??
Mr. Cotton continued, "...resonating processes wherein some of the incident energy is sometimes converted only to electron energy, not kinetic (thermal) energy..."
That is complete gibberish.
There's no such thing as "electron energy" (in the sense that you're using the term), and the distribution of energy in a warm object among the constituent molecules' various translational, vibrational & rotational modes is no different if the object is heated by one electric heater or sixteen. (Unless the matter undergoes a phase change, of course.)
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
David A. Burton2 years ago
Doug Cotton wrote, "If radiative fluxes... add then, if an electric bar radiator at a certain distance warms your cheek to 42°C (which is 315K) then 16 such radiators would cook you at double the absolute temperature according to your conjecture (and NASA's and the IPCC's) namely 630K. They don't..."
Good grief, Mr. Cotton. Why do you keep posting this nonsense, over and over, AFTER AHistory&BiographyLover has already explained it to you with such clarity, just one week ago (3/28/2017):
"Actually, Mr. Cotton, if your cheek were a blackbody in empty space (no other radiation source including no back radiation), and one radiator raised its temperature to 42 degree C, 16 radiators would double the absolute temperature of that cheek to 357 degree C. The power the radiators deliver to the cheek are additive. 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?"
Mr. Cotton, are you really incapable of understanding that very simple explanation? Or are you simply unwilling to ADMIT that you understand it, because your PRIDE won't let you ADMIT that you were wrong?
Ref #1:
https://www.amazon.com/review/R3L4RWMLCPUD1O/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?ie=UTF8&asin=1478729228&cdForum=FxGKOKBYP090RE&cdMsgID=Mx3RLKTDBV8B4E4&cdMsgNo=118&cdPage=12&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx1P6O3C1OQHC5J&store=books#Mx3RLKTDBV8B4E4
Ref #2:
“Everyone with a proud heart is detestable to the Lord; be assured, he will not go unpunished.”
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+16:5
Good grief, Mr. Cotton. Why do you keep posting this nonsense, over and over, AFTER AHistory&BiographyLover has already explained it to you with such clarity, just one week ago (3/28/2017):
"Actually, Mr. Cotton, if your cheek were a blackbody in empty space (no other radiation source including no back radiation), and one radiator raised its temperature to 42 degree C, 16 radiators would double the absolute temperature of that cheek to 357 degree C. The power the radiators deliver to the cheek are additive. 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?"
Mr. Cotton, are you really incapable of understanding that very simple explanation? Or are you simply unwilling to ADMIT that you understand it, because your PRIDE won't let you ADMIT that you were wrong?
Ref #1:
https://www.amazon.com/review/R3L4RWMLCPUD1O/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?ie=UTF8&asin=1478729228&cdForum=FxGKOKBYP090RE&cdMsgID=Mx3RLKTDBV8B4E4&cdMsgNo=118&cdPage=12&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx1P6O3C1OQHC5J&store=books#Mx3RLKTDBV8B4E4
Ref #2:
“Everyone with a proud heart is detestable to the Lord; be assured, he will not go unpunished.”
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+16:5
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Peter Ridley2 years ago
Doug had me in stitches once again, this time with his 2nd April comment " .. my "Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics" .. was reviewed by Dr Hans Schreuder and acclaimed by John O'Sullivan at PSI .. ".
Regarding opinions on the very complicated scientific issue of the processes and drivers of the different global climates, acclaim from ex-high school art teacher, wannabe lawyer/journalist and PSI founding member/CEO John O'Sullivan (see 3.2 below) appears to me to be WORTHLESS.
As for John O'Sullivan's buddy, analytical chemist and PSI founding member/CFO Johannes Cornelis Schreuder (Hans), he may be many things but I have found no evidence that he is a "Dr" in any discipline (see 3.3 below).
My blog article "SpotlightON Principia Scientific International" (https://web.archive.org/web/20130602081200/http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/spotlighton-principia-scientific.html) provides detailed background information about many of the PSI members, including founding members Messrs O'Sullivan and Schreuder, e.g:
- QUOTE: ..
3.2 Co-Founder "CEO and Legal Consultant" John O'Sullivan ..
.. John O'Sullivan claims to have studied at Leicester University, UK from 1995-2000 for a Doctoral Degree in Education Management and Leadership and at State University of New York (SUNY) from 2004-2007 for a Bachelor’s Degree in International and Comparative Law. His wife (who lives in New York State) .. advised that .. they married there on 1st Jan, 1998, John stayed for barely a year, returned to the UK and has not been back to the USA in all those years ..
In his New York County Lawyers Association .. profile John O'Sullivan stated “Law School – University of Surrey/Hill .. Date Graduated - 01/2010 .. ”. There is an Internet-based .. “Hill University” which .. is one of 26 “ .. fake college websites .. ” listed as a “Diploma Mill” (http://www.diplomamillscam.com/fraud/hill-university-reviews) .. John’s wife advised that she had also come across a certificate from Hill University and " .. that is where he obtained a so called Law Degree .. ” ..
Why would someone who had earned a Bachelor’s Degree in International and Comparative Law from SUNY after completing studies there in 2007 claim in his NYCLA profile to have studied Law at University of Surrey/Hill and have qualified in Jan. 2010? ..
.. Not everyone swallowed John O'Sullivan's claims about .. litigating on both sides of the Atlantic as meaning he was a qualified and successful lawyer ..
.. at almost 50 years old John O'Sullivan had no track record of successfully managing any business venture at all. .. his WEBANGLIA.COM Ltd. business had been struck off after 4 years in existence making loss after annual loss ..
.. he said " .. Its indeed a strange world where folk with genuine scientific qualifications and credibility like Postma, Peirs Corbyn and Claes Johnson seem to need a front man without any formal scientific training and who requires name changing from time to time .. " ".
3.3 Co-Founder and "CFO" Johannes Cornelis Schreuder
.. Apart from Hans's numerous blog articles and his chapters in "Slaying the sky dragon" there appears to be no evidence of any peer-reviewed papers or significant scientific research of any sort by him ..
.. THE LONDON GAZETTE MONDAY 5 JULY 1999 announced that " .. SCHREUDER, Johannes Cornells, also known as Hans Schreuder, a Marine Technician .. Date of Bankruptcy Order— 28th June 1999 ..
.. None of these refer to Johannes Cornelis Schreuder as a scientist but simply as a "technician" ..
.. UNQUOTE.
As I have repeatedly opined, Doug's blog articles (or "papers" as he likes to call them) have not been subjected to competent peer review prior to publication in any respected scientific learned society journal.
Just because Doug decrees " .. that it is valid to use S-B to determine the MAXIMUM temperature of ANY body that is warmed only by a SINGLE source of radiation (whether or not that body is a black or grey body) because NOTHING GETS HOTTER THAN A BLACKBODY for any given flux .. " does not make it TRUTH.
As respected CACC-sceptic scientist (real) Dr. Roy Spencer said in March 2012 " ..
Temperature is determined by rates of energy gain and energy loss. It does not matter whether we are talking about the human body, a car engine, a pot of water on the stove, or the climate system. The temperature (and whether it is rising or falling) is determined by the rates of energy gain and energy loss. In the case of the climate system, the Earth receives energy from the sun (primarily at visible wavelengths of light), and loses energy to outer space (primarily at infrared wavelengths). A temperature rise can occur either from (1) increasing the rate of energy gain, or (2) decreasing the rate of energy loss. The greenhouse effect has to do with the 2nd of these possibilities.
.. Infrared absorbing gases reduce the rate at which the Earth loses infrared energy to space. Satellite measurements of the rate at which the Earth loses infrared energy to space have been made as early as the 1970’s, from the NASA Nimbus 4 spacecraft. The following plot (*) shows the IR intensity (vertical axis) as a function of IR wavelength (horizontal axis). The area under the jagged curve is proportional to the rate of energy loss to space. Note that at the wavelengths where water vapor, carbon dioxide, and ozone absorb and emit IR energy, the rate of energy loss by the Earth is reduced .. " (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/03/slaying-the-slayers-with-the-alabama-two-step/).
* Dr. Spencer provided a copy of the Guam spectral plot to which I keep trying to get Doug to pay proper attention.
One thing that I do agree with is Doug's statement that he has " .. wasted enough .. time teaching .. the gravito-thermal effect and correcting .. misapprehensions about radiation .. ". In my opinion, rather than promoting his distorted version of physics Doug would be better spending his time learning about atmospheric radiation, an excellent starting point being "A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation .. For meteorology and climatology students who require an introduction to the principles and practical consequences of atmospheric radiation .. By Grant W. Petty .. Professor of Atmospheric Science in the Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences department at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, where he teaches atmospheric physics and remote sensing to both undergraduate meteorology majors and graduate students. His research specialties include satellite microwave remote sensing of rainfall and other atmospheric variables, as well as radiative transfer modeling in three-dimensional clouds .. (http://www.sundogpublishing.com/shop/a-first-course-in-atmospheric-radiation-2nd-ed/).
At $36 Grant's book is in my opinion excellent value, unlike Doug's "Why It's Not Carbon Dioxide After All" at $20.48.
Regarding opinions on the very complicated scientific issue of the processes and drivers of the different global climates, acclaim from ex-high school art teacher, wannabe lawyer/journalist and PSI founding member/CEO John O'Sullivan (see 3.2 below) appears to me to be WORTHLESS.
As for John O'Sullivan's buddy, analytical chemist and PSI founding member/CFO Johannes Cornelis Schreuder (Hans), he may be many things but I have found no evidence that he is a "Dr" in any discipline (see 3.3 below).
My blog article "SpotlightON Principia Scientific International" (https://web.archive.org/web/20130602081200/http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/spotlighton-principia-scientific.html) provides detailed background information about many of the PSI members, including founding members Messrs O'Sullivan and Schreuder, e.g:
- QUOTE: ..
3.2 Co-Founder "CEO and Legal Consultant" John O'Sullivan ..
.. John O'Sullivan claims to have studied at Leicester University, UK from 1995-2000 for a Doctoral Degree in Education Management and Leadership and at State University of New York (SUNY) from 2004-2007 for a Bachelor’s Degree in International and Comparative Law. His wife (who lives in New York State) .. advised that .. they married there on 1st Jan, 1998, John stayed for barely a year, returned to the UK and has not been back to the USA in all those years ..
In his New York County Lawyers Association .. profile John O'Sullivan stated “Law School – University of Surrey/Hill .. Date Graduated - 01/2010 .. ”. There is an Internet-based .. “Hill University” which .. is one of 26 “ .. fake college websites .. ” listed as a “Diploma Mill” (http://www.diplomamillscam.com/fraud/hill-university-reviews) .. John’s wife advised that she had also come across a certificate from Hill University and " .. that is where he obtained a so called Law Degree .. ” ..
Why would someone who had earned a Bachelor’s Degree in International and Comparative Law from SUNY after completing studies there in 2007 claim in his NYCLA profile to have studied Law at University of Surrey/Hill and have qualified in Jan. 2010? ..
.. Not everyone swallowed John O'Sullivan's claims about .. litigating on both sides of the Atlantic as meaning he was a qualified and successful lawyer ..
.. at almost 50 years old John O'Sullivan had no track record of successfully managing any business venture at all. .. his WEBANGLIA.COM Ltd. business had been struck off after 4 years in existence making loss after annual loss ..
.. he said " .. Its indeed a strange world where folk with genuine scientific qualifications and credibility like Postma, Peirs Corbyn and Claes Johnson seem to need a front man without any formal scientific training and who requires name changing from time to time .. " ".
3.3 Co-Founder and "CFO" Johannes Cornelis Schreuder
.. Apart from Hans's numerous blog articles and his chapters in "Slaying the sky dragon" there appears to be no evidence of any peer-reviewed papers or significant scientific research of any sort by him ..
.. THE LONDON GAZETTE MONDAY 5 JULY 1999 announced that " .. SCHREUDER, Johannes Cornells, also known as Hans Schreuder, a Marine Technician .. Date of Bankruptcy Order— 28th June 1999 ..
.. None of these refer to Johannes Cornelis Schreuder as a scientist but simply as a "technician" ..
.. UNQUOTE.
As I have repeatedly opined, Doug's blog articles (or "papers" as he likes to call them) have not been subjected to competent peer review prior to publication in any respected scientific learned society journal.
Just because Doug decrees " .. that it is valid to use S-B to determine the MAXIMUM temperature of ANY body that is warmed only by a SINGLE source of radiation (whether or not that body is a black or grey body) because NOTHING GETS HOTTER THAN A BLACKBODY for any given flux .. " does not make it TRUTH.
As respected CACC-sceptic scientist (real) Dr. Roy Spencer said in March 2012 " ..
Temperature is determined by rates of energy gain and energy loss. It does not matter whether we are talking about the human body, a car engine, a pot of water on the stove, or the climate system. The temperature (and whether it is rising or falling) is determined by the rates of energy gain and energy loss. In the case of the climate system, the Earth receives energy from the sun (primarily at visible wavelengths of light), and loses energy to outer space (primarily at infrared wavelengths). A temperature rise can occur either from (1) increasing the rate of energy gain, or (2) decreasing the rate of energy loss. The greenhouse effect has to do with the 2nd of these possibilities.
.. Infrared absorbing gases reduce the rate at which the Earth loses infrared energy to space. Satellite measurements of the rate at which the Earth loses infrared energy to space have been made as early as the 1970’s, from the NASA Nimbus 4 spacecraft. The following plot (*) shows the IR intensity (vertical axis) as a function of IR wavelength (horizontal axis). The area under the jagged curve is proportional to the rate of energy loss to space. Note that at the wavelengths where water vapor, carbon dioxide, and ozone absorb and emit IR energy, the rate of energy loss by the Earth is reduced .. " (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/03/slaying-the-slayers-with-the-alabama-two-step/).
* Dr. Spencer provided a copy of the Guam spectral plot to which I keep trying to get Doug to pay proper attention.
One thing that I do agree with is Doug's statement that he has " .. wasted enough .. time teaching .. the gravito-thermal effect and correcting .. misapprehensions about radiation .. ". In my opinion, rather than promoting his distorted version of physics Doug would be better spending his time learning about atmospheric radiation, an excellent starting point being "A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation .. For meteorology and climatology students who require an introduction to the principles and practical consequences of atmospheric radiation .. By Grant W. Petty .. Professor of Atmospheric Science in the Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences department at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, where he teaches atmospheric physics and remote sensing to both undergraduate meteorology majors and graduate students. His research specialties include satellite microwave remote sensing of rainfall and other atmospheric variables, as well as radiative transfer modeling in three-dimensional clouds .. (http://www.sundogpublishing.com/shop/a-first-course-in-atmospheric-radiation-2nd-ed/).
At $36 Grant's book is in my opinion excellent value, unlike Doug's "Why It's Not Carbon Dioxide After All" at $20.48.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Mr. Cotton, no one that I know of has argued that the temperature profile of the troposphere, for example, is not controlled by the (wet or dry, depending on the state of the air) adiabatic lapse rate – which controls and is controlled by vertical circulation. The tropospheric atmosphere is heated from below. The argument is not about the profile, but the starting temperature at the surface of the earth – which the article apparently takes for granted. Your "victory" excitement only validates Mr. Bo’s assessment of your unethical "Avatar" spamming of the article:
“Go away Doug! There’s a reason you’re banned from every site, because you pollute every thread with your nonsense. Citing your self in the third person is incredibly bad form.
YOU HAVEN’T DISCOVERED ANY NEW PHYSICS — YOU JUST NEVER REALLY GRASPED HIGH SCHOOL PHYSICS IN THE FIRST PLACE [my emphasis]!"
To reiterate: Loschmidt was talking (incorrectly) about a STATIC equilibrium in a column of gas. The tropospheric lapse rate occurs in a DYNAMIC system (the troposphere). You don’t even try to get the basics right.
PS: No, Loschmidt's conjecture is not a corollary of the second law, it is a violation of it. And, yes, radiative powers do add.
“Go away Doug! There’s a reason you’re banned from every site, because you pollute every thread with your nonsense. Citing your self in the third person is incredibly bad form.
YOU HAVEN’T DISCOVERED ANY NEW PHYSICS — YOU JUST NEVER REALLY GRASPED HIGH SCHOOL PHYSICS IN THE FIRST PLACE [my emphasis]!"
To reiterate: Loschmidt was talking (incorrectly) about a STATIC equilibrium in a column of gas. The tropospheric lapse rate occurs in a DYNAMIC system (the troposphere). You don’t even try to get the basics right.
PS: No, Loschmidt's conjecture is not a corollary of the second law, it is a violation of it. And, yes, radiative powers do add.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
David A. Burton2 years ago
Doug Cotton wrote, "my 2013 paper "Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures" is being subjected to peer-review in open media for five (5) full years with a reward of AU $50,000 offered"
Mr. Cotton, there's no such thing as "peer-review in open media." That's not peer-review, that's obfuscation.
Your site says, "REWARD now AU $50,000 for the first to prove me wrong" -- which is impossible, not because you can't be proved wrong, but because no one can be FIRST to prove you wrong, because you've ALREADY been proved wrong over and over. Moreover, since you're made yourself the judge of of your contest to prove yourself wrong, and you never admit to being wrong about anything at all, no matter how elementary your error, nor how conclusively it is proven, your "contest" is a sham, just like your fake physics.
Doug Cotton also wrote, "Over 1,000 peer-reviewed papers find fault in the radiative forcing greenhouse conjecture which violates the laws of physics."
More nonsense. Plenty of scientists have published papers in peer-reviewed journals, which dispute various aspects of climate alarmism. (In fact, I'm one of them.) But there certainly are NOT 1000 papers which claim that the warming effect of GHGs "violates the laws of physics."
That delusion is your own special niche, shared with your former colleagues at PSI, who can't get their rot published in peer-reviewed journals, either.
Mr. Cotton, there's no such thing as "peer-review in open media." That's not peer-review, that's obfuscation.
Your site says, "REWARD now AU $50,000 for the first to prove me wrong" -- which is impossible, not because you can't be proved wrong, but because no one can be FIRST to prove you wrong, because you've ALREADY been proved wrong over and over. Moreover, since you're made yourself the judge of of your contest to prove yourself wrong, and you never admit to being wrong about anything at all, no matter how elementary your error, nor how conclusively it is proven, your "contest" is a sham, just like your fake physics.
Doug Cotton also wrote, "Over 1,000 peer-reviewed papers find fault in the radiative forcing greenhouse conjecture which violates the laws of physics."
More nonsense. Plenty of scientists have published papers in peer-reviewed journals, which dispute various aspects of climate alarmism. (In fact, I'm one of them.) But there certainly are NOT 1000 papers which claim that the warming effect of GHGs "violates the laws of physics."
That delusion is your own special niche, shared with your former colleagues at PSI, who can't get their rot published in peer-reviewed journals, either.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Climate Physicist2 years ago
NASA scientists published about the effect gravity around 1950.
When someone proves what Josef Loschmidt published about it in 1876 and what Dr Hans Jelbring (PhD in climatology) published in Energy and Environment in 2003 to be wrong, then there may be a need to publish a counter argument.
When the CSIRO in Australia (or anyone else) can find evidence of the greenhouse gas water vapor actually warming the surface, then maybe my study that showed it cooled may be worth checking or repeating on a larger scale. Do you find any fault with that study?
Meanwhile, as I have said many times, my 2013 paper "Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures" is being subjected to peer-review in open media for five (5) full years with a reward of AU $50,000 offered at https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com where the rest of my response to you may be read.
Over 1,000 peer-reviewed papers find fault in the radiative forcing greenhouse conjecture which violates the laws of physics.
In other words, established physics in reputable journals may be used to prove climatologists like Roy Spencer wrong. Read the latest posts on the effect of gravity at Principia Scientific Internation.
Cheers for the victory of gravity!
When someone proves what Josef Loschmidt published about it in 1876 and what Dr Hans Jelbring (PhD in climatology) published in Energy and Environment in 2003 to be wrong, then there may be a need to publish a counter argument.
When the CSIRO in Australia (or anyone else) can find evidence of the greenhouse gas water vapor actually warming the surface, then maybe my study that showed it cooled may be worth checking or repeating on a larger scale. Do you find any fault with that study?
Meanwhile, as I have said many times, my 2013 paper "Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures" is being subjected to peer-review in open media for five (5) full years with a reward of AU $50,000 offered at https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com where the rest of my response to you may be read.
Over 1,000 peer-reviewed papers find fault in the radiative forcing greenhouse conjecture which violates the laws of physics.
In other words, established physics in reputable journals may be used to prove climatologists like Roy Spencer wrong. Read the latest posts on the effect of gravity at Principia Scientific Internation.
Cheers for the victory of gravity!
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Ironically, just now (April 2nd, 2017) Principia Scientific International has at last published a good article about the effect of gravity on temperature: http://principia-scientific.org/shock-news-nasas-massgravity-equations-contradict-greenhouse-gas-theory/ ... referring to an article in the "Hockey Schtick" from back in December 2014 - nearly two years after what I wrote in February 2013 here: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2876905 (LOL)
"The calculation of not only the entire troposphere temperature profile by the greenhouse equation, but also the calculation of the temperature profiles of all remaining levels of the entire atmosphere all the way to space at ~100,000 meters, by bootstrapping onto this seminal gravito-thermal model of the 1976 US Standard Atmosphere above the troposphere, will be the topic of the next post in this series.
"Thus, these hundreds of scientists were in effect “deniers” of the man-made CO2 global warming hypothesis that would come much later, and didn’t recognize any “radiative forcing” from any “greenhouse gases” at the time they provided an accurate physically derived & straightforward model of the atmosphere. Hansen’s (falsified) climate models and the CAGW hypothesis scare didn’t arrive until ~30 years later. These atmospheric scientists never once used any radiative calculations of “back-radiation” or “radiative forcing” from IR-active greenhouse gases or clouds, or any absorption/emission spectra from greenhouse gases, all of which are the absolutely essential and critical underpinnings of the entire 33C Arrhenius radiative greenhouse theory a.k.a. the catastrophic man-made CO2 global warming theory. Why not?"
And so, Peter Ridley, "History and Biography Lover" and others who have been brainwashed by climatologists, I suggest you now go and argue on the PSI thread for the above-linked post, for I have wasted enough of my time teaching you about the gravito-thermal effect and correcting your misapprehensions about radiation. You can have it all to yourself because I am banned there at PSI.
"The calculation of not only the entire troposphere temperature profile by the greenhouse equation, but also the calculation of the temperature profiles of all remaining levels of the entire atmosphere all the way to space at ~100,000 meters, by bootstrapping onto this seminal gravito-thermal model of the 1976 US Standard Atmosphere above the troposphere, will be the topic of the next post in this series.
"Thus, these hundreds of scientists were in effect “deniers” of the man-made CO2 global warming hypothesis that would come much later, and didn’t recognize any “radiative forcing” from any “greenhouse gases” at the time they provided an accurate physically derived & straightforward model of the atmosphere. Hansen’s (falsified) climate models and the CAGW hypothesis scare didn’t arrive until ~30 years later. These atmospheric scientists never once used any radiative calculations of “back-radiation” or “radiative forcing” from IR-active greenhouse gases or clouds, or any absorption/emission spectra from greenhouse gases, all of which are the absolutely essential and critical underpinnings of the entire 33C Arrhenius radiative greenhouse theory a.k.a. the catastrophic man-made CO2 global warming theory. Why not?"
And so, Peter Ridley, "History and Biography Lover" and others who have been brainwashed by climatologists, I suggest you now go and argue on the PSI thread for the above-linked post, for I have wasted enough of my time teaching you about the gravito-thermal effect and correcting your misapprehensions about radiation. You can have it all to yourself because I am banned there at PSI.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Doug says that " .. What a joke it is that Peter Ridley denies that Stefan-Boltzmann (S-B) calculations can be used to get the blackbody temperature from that single flux .. ".
The really sad joke is that Doug regards the geosphere (i.e. the global system of atmos-/aqua-/litho-/bio-/cryo-spheres) to be a black body. Because it is anything but a black body (neither absorbing all incoming e/m radiation nor emitting a continuous spectrum in accordance with Planck's Law) it is a misuse of the S-B Law to assume that its dependent and independent variables can be transposed in order to derive the Earth's temperature from the insolation.
In the FOOTNOTES of my recent April Fool's day comment I mentioned Doug's one-time proud membership of John O'Sullivan's PSI blog. Looking through the archives of my "SpotlightOn Principia Scientific International" blog article reminded me of the entry I had about Doug Cotton back in June 2013, when he had become persona non grata at PSI (and numerous other CACC-Sceptic blogs). Readers may find the article of interest (https://web.archive.org/web/20130602081200/http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/spotlighton-principia-scientific.html).
Here are a few extracts from QUOTE: ..
3.14 Member Douglas Jeffrey Cotton
Doug Cotton does not appear to be listed among PSI’s “ .. selection of our valued members .. ” (http://principia-scientific.org/about/why-psi-is-a-private-assoc.html) however last March he declared to meteorologist Dr. Roy Spencer .. that he is " .. proud to be a member of PSI and an author of one of only six selected publications on their site – publications which talk real science, Roy .. ” ..
For many months Doug has been posting comments on the Internet promoting what he refers to as his “papers” and linking to one of his numerous blogs. His arguments are repeatedly rejected by respected scientists such as Dr. Spencer and other bloggers, this comment being representative “ .. I’m not sure what poor Dr Spencer has done in a past life, but he attracts an extraordinary number of cranks to his blog. I suspect Cotton is the crank of all cranks. He must be working his way through every climate blog on the internet until he finally gets banned from them all, just for the nuisance factor alone .. ” ..
On 27th Jan. 2013 Doug warned that the “Slayers” have a ground-breaking, greenhouse SMASHING document coming out soon. I speculate that this new "ground-breaking .. document" will equally soon be emphatically rejected just like Doug's "Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics" article was on Roger Tattersall's "Tallbloke" blog and elsewhere. As David M Hoffer said " .. I HAVE read enough of your paper to know that it is based on so many fallacies that the criticisms would run longer than the paper itself. As gallopingcamel said upthread, it contains many half truths, the debunking of which is often more complex than dealing with an outright lie. But conclusions based on a collection of half truths are, nonetheless, wrong .. " ..
Despite his claims to expertise in Physics and maths there is no evidence of Doug Cotton having had any of his articles peer reviewed and published in any recognised scientific journals but he frequently directs readers to one of his numerous blogs. The more revealing of those are not his "Earth Climate - What Physics says about about CLIMATE CHANGE" but his:
- "Acclaim Dental Software" blog ..
- "OzViews" blog from which " ..
- "TasmaniaHoliday" blog .. or
- "UKEuropeViews" blog ..
If photo's aren't of interest then there are plenty other blogs to visit such as:
- "Slower-Aging" ...
If all of that has been too boring there are always Doug's other sidelines such as:
- "Saved by the Lamb" one part of which might be worth posting to his climate science blog, i.e. " ..FOR THOSE WHO HAVE DOUBTS - I know there will be many reading this site who have doubts about the truth of all this .. " ..
.. UNQUOTE.
4 years on and Doug is still struggling for recognition of his "21st Century New Paradigm Shift in Climate Change Science” (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyB4d9gw4CpI1csZxNFZTEg).
Responding to my comment that " .. Doug refuses to give any consideration whatsoever to the evidence of those measured OLR absorption spectra" Doug said " .. my papers .. explain that the energy merely escapes to Space via another "gate" that being mostly radiation by water vapor .. ". What I would now say is that Doug refuses to give PROPER consideration to the evidence of those measured OLR absorption spectra .. ".
The Guam spectral plot to which I linked (Fig. C at https://skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=76&&n=200#14568) demonstrates quite clearly the "greenhouse effect" of atmospheric water vapour (and carbon dioxide, methane and ozone). Guam is a small island in the Western Pacific which enjoys a warm, wet tropical marine climate. The spectral plot shows the significant absorption of OLR by water between wavenumbers 400 and 550 and from 1350 up (H2O absorbs significantly from about 700 wavenumbers down and 1350 up - see https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/atmospheric_spectral_absorption.png for the combined effect of H2O, CO2 and O3.
Rather than acknowledging that atmospheric water vapour prevents significant surface OLR from returning to space, Doug makes the unscientific claim that " .. the energy merely escapes to Space via another "gate" .. ".
I eagerly await Doug's attempt to define this "gate" and describe how it is opened.
The really sad joke is that Doug regards the geosphere (i.e. the global system of atmos-/aqua-/litho-/bio-/cryo-spheres) to be a black body. Because it is anything but a black body (neither absorbing all incoming e/m radiation nor emitting a continuous spectrum in accordance with Planck's Law) it is a misuse of the S-B Law to assume that its dependent and independent variables can be transposed in order to derive the Earth's temperature from the insolation.
In the FOOTNOTES of my recent April Fool's day comment I mentioned Doug's one-time proud membership of John O'Sullivan's PSI blog. Looking through the archives of my "SpotlightOn Principia Scientific International" blog article reminded me of the entry I had about Doug Cotton back in June 2013, when he had become persona non grata at PSI (and numerous other CACC-Sceptic blogs). Readers may find the article of interest (https://web.archive.org/web/20130602081200/http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/spotlighton-principia-scientific.html).
Here are a few extracts from QUOTE: ..
3.14 Member Douglas Jeffrey Cotton
Doug Cotton does not appear to be listed among PSI’s “ .. selection of our valued members .. ” (http://principia-scientific.org/about/why-psi-is-a-private-assoc.html) however last March he declared to meteorologist Dr. Roy Spencer .. that he is " .. proud to be a member of PSI and an author of one of only six selected publications on their site – publications which talk real science, Roy .. ” ..
For many months Doug has been posting comments on the Internet promoting what he refers to as his “papers” and linking to one of his numerous blogs. His arguments are repeatedly rejected by respected scientists such as Dr. Spencer and other bloggers, this comment being representative “ .. I’m not sure what poor Dr Spencer has done in a past life, but he attracts an extraordinary number of cranks to his blog. I suspect Cotton is the crank of all cranks. He must be working his way through every climate blog on the internet until he finally gets banned from them all, just for the nuisance factor alone .. ” ..
On 27th Jan. 2013 Doug warned that the “Slayers” have a ground-breaking, greenhouse SMASHING document coming out soon. I speculate that this new "ground-breaking .. document" will equally soon be emphatically rejected just like Doug's "Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics" article was on Roger Tattersall's "Tallbloke" blog and elsewhere. As David M Hoffer said " .. I HAVE read enough of your paper to know that it is based on so many fallacies that the criticisms would run longer than the paper itself. As gallopingcamel said upthread, it contains many half truths, the debunking of which is often more complex than dealing with an outright lie. But conclusions based on a collection of half truths are, nonetheless, wrong .. " ..
Despite his claims to expertise in Physics and maths there is no evidence of Doug Cotton having had any of his articles peer reviewed and published in any recognised scientific journals but he frequently directs readers to one of his numerous blogs. The more revealing of those are not his "Earth Climate - What Physics says about about CLIMATE CHANGE" but his:
- "Acclaim Dental Software" blog ..
- "OzViews" blog from which " ..
- "TasmaniaHoliday" blog .. or
- "UKEuropeViews" blog ..
If photo's aren't of interest then there are plenty other blogs to visit such as:
- "Slower-Aging" ...
If all of that has been too boring there are always Doug's other sidelines such as:
- "Saved by the Lamb" one part of which might be worth posting to his climate science blog, i.e. " ..FOR THOSE WHO HAVE DOUBTS - I know there will be many reading this site who have doubts about the truth of all this .. " ..
.. UNQUOTE.
4 years on and Doug is still struggling for recognition of his "21st Century New Paradigm Shift in Climate Change Science” (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyB4d9gw4CpI1csZxNFZTEg).
Responding to my comment that " .. Doug refuses to give any consideration whatsoever to the evidence of those measured OLR absorption spectra" Doug said " .. my papers .. explain that the energy merely escapes to Space via another "gate" that being mostly radiation by water vapor .. ". What I would now say is that Doug refuses to give PROPER consideration to the evidence of those measured OLR absorption spectra .. ".
The Guam spectral plot to which I linked (Fig. C at https://skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=76&&n=200#14568) demonstrates quite clearly the "greenhouse effect" of atmospheric water vapour (and carbon dioxide, methane and ozone). Guam is a small island in the Western Pacific which enjoys a warm, wet tropical marine climate. The spectral plot shows the significant absorption of OLR by water between wavenumbers 400 and 550 and from 1350 up (H2O absorbs significantly from about 700 wavenumbers down and 1350 up - see https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/atmospheric_spectral_absorption.png for the combined effect of H2O, CO2 and O3.
Rather than acknowledging that atmospheric water vapour prevents significant surface OLR from returning to space, Doug makes the unscientific claim that " .. the energy merely escapes to Space via another "gate" .. ".
I eagerly await Doug's attempt to define this "gate" and describe how it is opened.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Here we go again - Doug's same old rant seen over and over and over again here and throughout the blogosphere.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Doug demonstrates just how closed-minded he is with his " .. . I am not here to discuss matters that are irrelevant to my hypothesis .. ". It appears that Doug refuses to give any consideration whatsoever to the evidence of those measured OLR absorption spectra that prove the existence of a "greenhouse effect". I keep trying to get him to study them and use the MODTRAN tool but NO, his mind appears sealed against any evidence that challenges his "heat creep hypothesis".
Doug boasted " .. Senator Malcolm Roberts .. knows me well .. " then linked to the a/v of the Q&A session of Malcolm's 29th March meeting in Parliament House, Canberra (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wq13YvwPzEo).
It looks as though it was not only Malcolm Roberts (see FOOTNOTE) who knows Doug well. When it was Doug's turn to ask a question the request was pointedly made " .. Doug (and just for everybody) no statements please, just a quick question .. ". So what did Doug do? You guessed it. He asked no question, instead making statements to promote his web-site, his 2013 blog article (or "paper" as he likes to call it), his "heat creep hypothesis" and his $50,000 offer to anyone who can prove him wrong. He then advised the panel and audience of the different data sets that he thought should be considered. Malcolm Roberts cut Doug's rant short after only 2 minutes, so yes, it does seem that Doug is known only too well by Malcolm (and others at that meeting).
After promoting here his relationship with Malcolm Roberts, egocentric Doug repeated the three points that he raised at the meeting, one being " .. nor can you explain wet regions being cooler than dry .. ". If by a "wet region" he means a location where there is lots of rain then perhaps the source of that rain has an impact. On this 1st April it is opportune to invite Doug to ponder from whence that rain cometh and what impact that might have on the amount of insolation reaching the Earth's surface. Those April showers that we are experiencing here in the UK today provide an appropriate natural experiment giving a hint to one explanation of " .. wet regions being cooler than dry .. ". They also demonstrate that " .. Radiation reaching a planet's surface IS .. the primary determinant of the temperature .. ", contrary to what Doug would have the world's population believe.
One "Dr. Strangelove" had this to say about one of Doug's articles published on the PSI blog (http://principia-scientific.org/publications/psi_radiated_energy.pdf) " .. cotton Your arrogance is annoying. You’re quoting your own paper as if it’s a revolutionary scientific paper. You must be a legend in your own mind. Your paper is wrong. If you have trouble accepting this, try to publish it in a reputable physics journal. I assure you it will be rejected.
I read your paper. It’s not science. No equations. No computations. No mathematical modeling of physical processes. No description of real experiments and their results. No statistical analyses of actual data. It’s just a narrative of your own opinion about the climate, radiation and heat flow. Worse, your opinion is wrong .. " (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/03/global-warming-as-cargo-cult-science/#comment-40018).
FOOTNOTE:
Malcolm Roberts is listed as a key member of John O'Sullivan's CACC-sceptic blog PSI (https://www.desmogblog.com/principia-scientific-international - see also the Desmogblog article on Malcolm, linked in that list). He has enjoyed an element of prominence on the PSI blog (http://principia-scientific.org/tag/malcolm-roberts/)". Malcolm's close relationship with John O'Sullivan goes back at least to early 2010 (https://www.sott.net/article/203222-Climate-debate-heats-up-in-Australian-politics-new-Skeptic-Party-created).
Doug Cotton was at one time " .. proud to be an active member of Principia Scientific International .. " (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/03/global-warming-as-cargo-cult-science/#comment-43391) but even commenters on respected CACC-sceptic blog's have rejected that group, e.g. in:
- March 2012 " .. Isn’t this “paper” in Principia Scientific? Are you suggesting this is a “peer reviewed” scientific journal? .. What a prestigious honor to be published there! .. " (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/03/global-warming-as-cargo-cult-science/#comment-39128),
- August 2012 " .. Neither Mr O’Sullivan nor “his” PSI front has any credibility .. " (http://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2012/08/with-friends-like-these-we-need-no-enemies/#comment-109694),
- Sept. 2014 " .. John O’Sullivan is not what most around here would consider a reliable source .. " (about 11 comments after https://climateaudit.org/2014/09/10/another-porky-from-mann-williams-and-fontaine/#comment-729976).
Now, even PSI has disowned Doug " .. 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 boasted " .. Senator Malcolm Roberts .. knows me well .. " then linked to the a/v of the Q&A session of Malcolm's 29th March meeting in Parliament House, Canberra (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wq13YvwPzEo).
It looks as though it was not only Malcolm Roberts (see FOOTNOTE) who knows Doug well. When it was Doug's turn to ask a question the request was pointedly made " .. Doug (and just for everybody) no statements please, just a quick question .. ". So what did Doug do? You guessed it. He asked no question, instead making statements to promote his web-site, his 2013 blog article (or "paper" as he likes to call it), his "heat creep hypothesis" and his $50,000 offer to anyone who can prove him wrong. He then advised the panel and audience of the different data sets that he thought should be considered. Malcolm Roberts cut Doug's rant short after only 2 minutes, so yes, it does seem that Doug is known only too well by Malcolm (and others at that meeting).
After promoting here his relationship with Malcolm Roberts, egocentric Doug repeated the three points that he raised at the meeting, one being " .. nor can you explain wet regions being cooler than dry .. ". If by a "wet region" he means a location where there is lots of rain then perhaps the source of that rain has an impact. On this 1st April it is opportune to invite Doug to ponder from whence that rain cometh and what impact that might have on the amount of insolation reaching the Earth's surface. Those April showers that we are experiencing here in the UK today provide an appropriate natural experiment giving a hint to one explanation of " .. wet regions being cooler than dry .. ". They also demonstrate that " .. Radiation reaching a planet's surface IS .. the primary determinant of the temperature .. ", contrary to what Doug would have the world's population believe.
One "Dr. Strangelove" had this to say about one of Doug's articles published on the PSI blog (http://principia-scientific.org/publications/psi_radiated_energy.pdf) " .. cotton Your arrogance is annoying. You’re quoting your own paper as if it’s a revolutionary scientific paper. You must be a legend in your own mind. Your paper is wrong. If you have trouble accepting this, try to publish it in a reputable physics journal. I assure you it will be rejected.
I read your paper. It’s not science. No equations. No computations. No mathematical modeling of physical processes. No description of real experiments and their results. No statistical analyses of actual data. It’s just a narrative of your own opinion about the climate, radiation and heat flow. Worse, your opinion is wrong .. " (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/03/global-warming-as-cargo-cult-science/#comment-40018).
FOOTNOTE:
Malcolm Roberts is listed as a key member of John O'Sullivan's CACC-sceptic blog PSI (https://www.desmogblog.com/principia-scientific-international - see also the Desmogblog article on Malcolm, linked in that list). He has enjoyed an element of prominence on the PSI blog (http://principia-scientific.org/tag/malcolm-roberts/)". Malcolm's close relationship with John O'Sullivan goes back at least to early 2010 (https://www.sott.net/article/203222-Climate-debate-heats-up-in-Australian-politics-new-Skeptic-Party-created).
Doug Cotton was at one time " .. proud to be an active member of Principia Scientific International .. " (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/03/global-warming-as-cargo-cult-science/#comment-43391) but even commenters on respected CACC-sceptic blog's have rejected that group, e.g. in:
- March 2012 " .. Isn’t this “paper” in Principia Scientific? Are you suggesting this is a “peer reviewed” scientific journal? .. What a prestigious honor to be published there! .. " (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/03/global-warming-as-cargo-cult-science/#comment-39128),
- August 2012 " .. Neither Mr O’Sullivan nor “his” PSI front has any credibility .. " (http://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2012/08/with-friends-like-these-we-need-no-enemies/#comment-109694),
- Sept. 2014 " .. John O’Sullivan is not what most around here would consider a reliable source .. " (about 11 comments after https://climateaudit.org/2014/09/10/another-porky-from-mann-williams-and-fontaine/#comment-729976).
Now, even PSI has disowned Doug " .. 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/).
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
As has already been mentioned here, Doug "Heat-creep" Cotton's spamming of his "20th century paradigm shift" hypothesis has resulted in him being banned from numerous blogs. In Feb. 2014 Doug decided to spam the blog of CACC-supporter William Connolly (Stoat) using several of his many identities. One commenter advised that blog that " .. Lucia (“The Blackboard”), Roy Spencer, and WUWTs have all banned Doug Cotton (and his sockpuppets as quickly as they uncover them) because his notions are too bizarre for them (very few anti-science notions are too bizarre for Watts) .. " (http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2014/02/16/the-idealised-greenhouse-effect-model-and-its-enemies/).
Throughout this year Doug has been spamming his hypothesis through E-mails to all and sundry (I have received over 300 during the past two months alone. Today I have had three in less than one hour, all on the same old rant.
If Doug could bear to tear off his SLoT(ted) blinkers for once he might find it educational to study the measured OLR spectra for several different geographic locations (copied at https://skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=76&&n=200#14568) provided in the excellent book "A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation" by Professor Grant Petty. For starters he could consider carefully what is revealed by those for Southern Iraq (Fig. d) and the small tropical Pacific island of Guam (Fig c - see FOOTNOTE).
Those spectra and a play with the MODTRAN model freely available at the University of Chicago's web-site should be enough to persuade any reasonably open-minded individual that there really is a "greenhouse effect" due to the properties of the atmospheric gasses H2O, CO2, CH4, NOxs, etc. Unfortunately, it appears that Doug is determined to wallow in his ignorance.
Being a supreme optimist' I try again and suggest that Doug takes a break from spamming his "heat creep hypothesis" to consider what happens between wavenumbers 800 to 1000 and 1100 to 1250 for the different atmospheric conditions to be expected over the Guam and Southern Iraq locations.
FOOTNOTE:
The Guam spectra were also made available by sadly departed Australian CACC sceptic John Daly in his interesting 2001 "Smoking Peashooter" article (https://www.john-daly.com/smoking.htm). Readers may recall the disgusting "Climategate" E-mail comment forwarded to Dr. Michael "Hockey-stick" Mann by the scaremongering Chief Scientist at CRU, Dr. Phil Jones, on learning of John Daly's death in Jan.b2004 “… in an odd way this is cheering news .. ” (http://www.burtonsys.com/FOIA/1075403821.txt).
There's a moving tribute to John Daly at http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2009/11/john-l-daly/ .
Throughout this year Doug has been spamming his hypothesis through E-mails to all and sundry (I have received over 300 during the past two months alone. Today I have had three in less than one hour, all on the same old rant.
If Doug could bear to tear off his SLoT(ted) blinkers for once he might find it educational to study the measured OLR spectra for several different geographic locations (copied at https://skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=76&&n=200#14568) provided in the excellent book "A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation" by Professor Grant Petty. For starters he could consider carefully what is revealed by those for Southern Iraq (Fig. d) and the small tropical Pacific island of Guam (Fig c - see FOOTNOTE).
Those spectra and a play with the MODTRAN model freely available at the University of Chicago's web-site should be enough to persuade any reasonably open-minded individual that there really is a "greenhouse effect" due to the properties of the atmospheric gasses H2O, CO2, CH4, NOxs, etc. Unfortunately, it appears that Doug is determined to wallow in his ignorance.
Being a supreme optimist' I try again and suggest that Doug takes a break from spamming his "heat creep hypothesis" to consider what happens between wavenumbers 800 to 1000 and 1100 to 1250 for the different atmospheric conditions to be expected over the Guam and Southern Iraq locations.
FOOTNOTE:
The Guam spectra were also made available by sadly departed Australian CACC sceptic John Daly in his interesting 2001 "Smoking Peashooter" article (https://www.john-daly.com/smoking.htm). Readers may recall the disgusting "Climategate" E-mail comment forwarded to Dr. Michael "Hockey-stick" Mann by the scaremongering Chief Scientist at CRU, Dr. Phil Jones, on learning of John Daly's death in Jan.b2004 “… in an odd way this is cheering news .. ” (http://www.burtonsys.com/FOIA/1075403821.txt).
There's a moving tribute to John Daly at http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2009/11/john-l-daly/ .
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Peter Ridley2 years ago (Edited)In reply toan earlier post
David A. Burton2 years ago
I asked Doug Cotton, "what's the DOI of that 'paper' which presciently responded to my childish ideas?"
Doug Cotton did not give the DOI of his paper. Instead, he replied with a non sequitur: "my papers... have been reviewed and accepted by SSRN..."
In the first place, that's obviously nonsense. The Social Science Research Network (SSRN) does not review papers. It just archives them.
What's more, SSRN is for social science. ArXiv is the appropriate archive for geophysics. So why is your paper, which you claim presciently responded to my "childish ideas," archived on SSRN, instead of arXiv? (I can imagine a possible reason, but you might think it uncharitable.)
What's more, you didn't answer the question. For the 2nd time: what is your paper's DOI? Every published paper has a DOI, these days. What is your paper's DOI?
Doug Cotton did not give the DOI of his paper. Instead, he replied with a non sequitur: "my papers... have been reviewed and accepted by SSRN..."
In the first place, that's obviously nonsense. The Social Science Research Network (SSRN) does not review papers. It just archives them.
What's more, SSRN is for social science. ArXiv is the appropriate archive for geophysics. So why is your paper, which you claim presciently responded to my "childish ideas," archived on SSRN, instead of arXiv? (I can imagine a possible reason, but you might think it uncharitable.)
What's more, you didn't answer the question. For the 2nd time: what is your paper's DOI? Every published paper has a DOI, these days. What is your paper's DOI?
Hi David,
I had a similar discussion about Doug's blog articles (or "papers" as he calls them) here on 16th January (see Page 4). Here's a relevant extract " .. 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/) .. ".
I had a similar discussion about Doug's blog articles (or "papers" as he calls them) here on 16th January (see Page 4). Here's a relevant extract " .. 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/) .. ".
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
I asked Doug Cotton, "what's the DOI of that 'paper' which presciently responded to my childish ideas?"
Doug Cotton did not give the DOI of his paper. Instead, he replied with a non sequitur: "my papers... have been reviewed and accepted by SSRN..."
In the first place, that's obviously nonsense. The Social Science Research Network (SSRN) does not review papers. It just archives them.
What's more, SSRN is for social science. ArXiv is the appropriate archive for geophysics. So why is your paper, which you claim presciently responded to my "childish ideas," archived on SSRN, instead of arXiv? (I can imagine a possible reason, but you might think it uncharitable.)
What's more, you didn't answer the question. For the 2nd time: what is your paper's DOI? Every published paper has a DOI, these days. What is your paper's DOI?
Doug Cotton did not give the DOI of his paper. Instead, he replied with a non sequitur: "my papers... have been reviewed and accepted by SSRN..."
In the first place, that's obviously nonsense. The Social Science Research Network (SSRN) does not review papers. It just archives them.
What's more, SSRN is for social science. ArXiv is the appropriate archive for geophysics. So why is your paper, which you claim presciently responded to my "childish ideas," archived on SSRN, instead of arXiv? (I can imagine a possible reason, but you might think it uncharitable.)
What's more, you didn't answer the question. For the 2nd time: what is your paper's DOI? Every published paper has a DOI, these days. What is your paper's DOI?
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Doug asks ".. Does any reader support our friend David Burton? .. ".
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.
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.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
I wrote, "The surface does not and cannot tell what temperature the molecule was which radiated the photon which strikes that surface.... 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."
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?
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?
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
In July 2015 Doug was ranting his version of "fiziks" (and promoting his blog articles, booklet and video) on Dr. Roy Spencer's blog (from which he had previously been banned for spamming) using a variety of user names. In one of his rants he proclaimed " .. You can’t use Stefan Boltzmann calculations to determine the surface temperature because the surface does not act remotely like a black body. Only the whole Earth+atmosphere system acts like a black body .. (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/07/new-pause-busting-temperature-dataset-implies-only-1-5-c-climate-sensitivity/#comment-195787).
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/).
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/).
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Actually, Mr. Cotton, if your cheek were a blackbody in empty space (no other radiation source including no back radiation), and one radiator raised its temperature to 42 degree C, 16 radiators would double the absolute temperature of that cheek to 357 degree C. The power the radiators deliver to the cheek are additive.
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?
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?
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
AHistory&BiographyLover2 years agoIn reply toan earlier post
David A. Burton2 years ago
Doug Cotton wrote, "temperature would depend on height in a gas in vertical equilibrium in a uniform gravitational field... This has never been proven wrong... This means carbon dioxide cannot warm us because gravity has already set up the temperature gradient that leads to the surface temperature being warmer than that at the radiating altitude."
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.
It does seem that "determined delusion" would be a better title than "confused nonsense"
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
David A. Burton2 years ago
Doug Cotton wrote, "temperature would depend on height in a gas in vertical equilibrium in a uniform gravitational field... This has never been proven wrong... This means carbon dioxide cannot warm us because gravity has already set up the temperature gradient that leads to the surface temperature being warmer than that at the radiating altitude."
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.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Excuse me Mr. Cotton. But, if I can discover with a simple experiment what better minds like Boltzmann, Maxwell, Gibbs, and others have proved; I am not out of my depth. I suggest that shoe is on your foot.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
AHistory&BiographyLover2 years ago
"The temperature within a system in thermodynamic equilibrium is uniform in space as well as in time. In a system in its own state of internal thermodynamic equilibrium, there are no net internal macroscopic flows. In particular, this means that all local parts of the system are in mutual radiative exchange equilibrium. This means that the temperature of the system is spatially uniform. THIS IS SO IN ALL CASES, INCLUDING THOSE OF NON-UNIFORM EXTERNAL FORCE FIELDS. For an externally imposed gravitational field, this may be proved in macroscopic thermodynamic terms, by the calculus of variations, using the method of Langrangian multipliers."
Thermodynamic equilibrium
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_equilibrium
Thermodynamic equilibrium
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_equilibrium
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
AHistory&BiographyLover2 years ago
"Gibbs, using entropy method, proved that the temperature distribution of an object in an external gravitational field is uniform. The Boltzmann equation produces the same result for a dilute gas."
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
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
AHistory&BiographyLover2 years ago
"According to Maxwell distribution, the temperature is determined by the shape of the velocity distribution function. A molecule going up against the gravitational fi eld indeed loses energy. But this does not change the shape of velocity distribution function. So the temperature does not change."
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
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Once again:
"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
"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
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
AHistory&BiographyLover2 years ago
"This is known as Loschmidt's gravitothermal 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 gravitationalfield
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 gravitationalfield
Kai Zhang and Yong-Jun Zhang
Science College, Liaoning Technical University, Fuxin, Liaoning 123000, China
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1607.06692
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
AHistory&BiographyLover2 years ago (Edited)In reply toan earlier post
Peter Ridley2 years ago
For Dougy's benefit I repeat the paragraph from my previous comment (with emphasis) which should help him to understand where he is misleading himself.
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.
Mr. Cotton, when one sets out to find or prove a principle (e.g. Loschmitt's conjecture) he seeks a controlled situation where variables are known or constrained. The atmosphere is a lousy lab since many variables are acting simultaneously and randomly – time & lack of equilibrium, phase changes, circulation, radiation, albedo, and everything else under the sun. Your atmospheric arguments are as clouded as your objectivity and thinking.
Loschmitt's conjecture cannot pass even the simplest smell test.
Loschmitt's conjecture cannot pass even the simplest smell test.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Peter Ridley2 years ago
For Dougy's benefit I repeat the paragraph from my previous comment (with emphasis) which should help him to understand where he is misleading himself.
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.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
So far this month I have received 99 E-mails from Doug, ranting on and on about his blog articles (he insists on calling them "papers") and his "heat creep hypothesis".
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 .. ".
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 .. ".
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Let's not overlook another area of research that has attracted Doug Cotton's attention.
" .. 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.
" .. 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.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Doug Jeffrey Cotton "B.Sc (physics), B.A.(economics), Dip.Bus.Admin (author)" was at one time a proud member of John O'Sullivan's Principia Scientific International blog but appears to be no longer welcome there as a member or even as a commenter (http://principia-scientific.org/tag/douglas-cotton/).
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/).
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/).
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
That excerpt from Hans's E-mail claims that Hans's .. E&E article still holds. What is truly amazing is that skilled academics cannot understand it. Only a handful have really understood it and you are one of them .. ".
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
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
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
On 12th Feb. mighty Doug Cotton decreed that I would go to Hell when I die and produced a quote, without linking to the source. Presumably it was from his own uniquely inspired Bible, because a Google gave me - No results found for "God's wrath is poured out like fire in hell".
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.
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.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Doug the Oracle declares " .. There is no valid physics which says we can add the fluxes from solar radiation and atmospheric radiation and use the sum to explain Earth's surface temperature .. ".
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.
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.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Dougy decrees that I WILL be condemned to Hell, Fire and Torment. I've news for Dougy " .. He who has repented of his sins, the same is forgiven, and I, the Lord, remember them no more .. " (https://www.mormon.org/blog/how-to-forgive-yourself-4-steps).
There's still hope for me!!
There's still hope for me!!
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
I was brought up as a Christian and had experience of various sects, such as CoE, Baptist, Weslian, Jehovah's Witnesses and finally the Salvation Army. I am now an agnostic bordering on atheist, rejecting the notion of a concerned omnipotent being, however I am generally tolerant of those who choose to believe otherwise. I look forward to exchanges with visiting Jehovah's Witnesses as we try to convert each other to accept our beliefs.
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.
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.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
AHistory&BiographyLover2 years ago (Edited)In reply toan earlier post
Peter Ridley2 years ago
The author of this book posted another revealing comment on Dr. Roy Spencer's blog and I think that it is worth reading carefully the entire rant to better understand what motivates him
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 .. ".
Of course, I cannot comment on Mr. Cotton's understanding of his relation to God. Such things are very personal. I am free however to comment on my own.
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.
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.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
The author of this book posted another revealing comment on Dr. Roy Spencer's blog and I think that it is worth reading carefully the entire rant to better understand what motivates him
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 .. ".
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
AHistory&BiographyLover2 years ago (Edited)In reply toan earlier post
Peter Ridley2 years ago
David, if you are referring that question to me, then I can assure you that I do not think that the view as expressed on Dr. Spencer's blog is a NORMAL Christian view. On the other hand, although that view may be abnormal it is not unique (e.g. see http://www.precious-testimonies.com/PrisonerDocs/AlexanderChris.htm and https://www.amazon.com/When-God-Spoke-Me-Inspiring/dp/1601631065).
Samuel Johnson once suggested that "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel". My corollary: "Divine sanction is the last refuge of the confused." :)
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Peter Ridley2 years ago (Edited)In reply toan earlier post
David A. Burton2 years ago
I am a follower of Christ, and that embarrasses me. I sure hope you don't think that's a typical or normal Christian view.
David, if you are referring that question to me, then I can assure you that I do not think that the view as expressed on Dr. Spencer's blog is a NORMAL Christian view. On the other hand, although that view may be abnormal it is not unique (e.g. see http://www.precious-testimonies.com/PrisonerDocs/AlexanderChris.htm and https://www.amazon.com/When-God-Spoke-Me-Inspiring/dp/1601631065).
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
David A. Burton2 years agoIn reply toan earlier post
Peter Ridley2 years ago
On 4th Feb. I referred to a comment of mine 5 years ago on the "Climate, etc." blog of Dr. Judith Curry, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Tech. " .. I may now have a better understanding of from where Doug gets his inspiration. There may be some who would suggest a divine element .. " (https://judithcurry.com/2012/02/09/aq/#comment-177003).
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.
I am a follower of Christ, and that embarrasses me. I sure hope you don't think that's a typical or normal Christian view.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
On 4th Feb. I referred to a comment of mine 5 years ago on the "Climate, etc." blog of Dr. Judith Curry, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Tech. " .. I may now have a better understanding of from where Doug gets his inspiration. There may be some who would suggest a divine element .. " (https://judithcurry.com/2012/02/09/aq/#comment-177003).
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.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Dougy keeps ranting on about his "papers" when referring to his blog articles, none of which appear to have been reviewed by a single internationally respected high-profile physicist or climatologist. None appear to accept his "21st Century paradigm shift" revelations.
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.
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.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Hi "Lily",
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
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
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
David A. Burton2 years ago (Edited)In reply toan earlier post
lily bloom2 years ago
To no one in particular:
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
lily bloom wrote, "...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.'"
"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/
"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/
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
lily bloom2 years agoIn reply toan earlier post
Peter Ridley2 years ago
In his now deleted comment, reviewer Historyandbiograohylover said " .. Mr. Cotton, I find it difficult to have a useful exchange with you. You seem to know a lot of scientific jargon without knowing the principles we use that jargon to describe .. " then went on
" .. 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).
To no one in particular:
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
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
In his now deleted comment, reviewer Historyandbiograohylover said " .. Mr. Cotton, I find it difficult to have a useful exchange with you. You seem to know a lot of scientific jargon without knowing the principles we use that jargon to describe .. " then went on
" .. 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).
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
On 8th Feb. I had the dubious pleasure of 6 E-mails from Doug sent over a period of 6 hours, all ranting on in the same vein as he had been doing recently on this thread.
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.
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.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
AHistory&BiographyLover2 years ago (Edited)In reply toan earlier post
David A. Burton2 years ago
Doug Cotton wrote, "the Second Law of Thermodynamics..." [requires that] "Every one-way independent pencil (ray) of radiation must obey the Second Law and thus does not cause entropy to decrease, as it would if radiation from the cold atmosphere caused heat transfer into an already-warmer region of the Earth's surface. "
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.
(deleted)
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Doug Cotton wrote, "the Second Law of Thermodynamics..." [requires that] "Every one-way independent pencil (ray) of radiation must obey the Second Law and thus does not cause entropy to decrease, as it would if radiation from the cold atmosphere caused heat transfer into an already-warmer region of the Earth's surface. "
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.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Doug Cotton wrote, "Many physicists have not specialised in the study of maximum entropy production as I have."
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.
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.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
David A. Burton2 years ago
Doug Cotton wrote, "...none of the climatology literature appears to have been reviewed by physicists..."
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.
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.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Hi David,
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).
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).
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Retired, multitalented ex-businessman (see FOOTNOTE), ex-IT Manager, ex-salesman of herbal medicines, amateur scientist and wannabe Nobel Prize winner Doug Cotton has made frequent reference to the analysis by Swedish maths Professor Claes Johnson of what happens inside a black body. It is an analysis that Doug Cotton appears to fully support and is highly dependent upon.
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.
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.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Peter Ridley2 years agoIn reply toan earlier post
AHistory&BiographyLover2 years ago
I consider myself scientifically semi-literate/illiterate having only taken engineering core courses in physics, themo, etc. Yet I have no problem satisfying myself that both legs of Mr. Cotton's theory (heat creep, selective IR absorption) are ridiculous on their face. I marvel that he has not done the same.
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.
In my E-mail yesterday to Doug I asked " .. Please Dougy, would you name just one internationally respected scientist who accepts your hypothesis .. ".
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.
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.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
AHistory&BiographyLover2 years ago (Edited)In reply toan earlier post
Peter Ridley2 years ago
The more comments that Doug Cotton posts the more he make himself look foolish. His latest E-mail to Australia's Prime Minster Malcolm Turnbull is a hoot, beginning " .. I have written to President Trump supporting his action on climate change and presenting him with the correct physics in my paper 'Comprehensive Refutation of the Radiative Forcing Greenhouse Hypothesis' .. The Australian Government will (in 2018) face a class action for which evidence is now being gathered for taking action based on false physics for which there is no empirical evidence .. ".
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.)
I consider myself scientifically semi-literate/illiterate having only taken engineering core courses in physics, themo, etc. Yet I have no problem satisfying myself that both legs of Mr. Cotton's theory (heat creep, selective IR absorption) are ridiculous on their face. I marvel that he has not done the same.
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.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
The more comments that Doug Cotton posts the more he make himself look foolish. His latest E-mail to Australia's Prime Minster Malcolm Turnbull is a hoot, beginning " .. I have written to President Trump supporting his action on climate change and presenting him with the correct physics in my paper 'Comprehensive Refutation of the Radiative Forcing Greenhouse Hypothesis' .. The Australian Government will (in 2018) face a class action for which evidence is now being gathered for taking action based on false physics for which there is no empirical evidence .. ".
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.)
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
As I commented earlier, the John Turner (see FOOTNOTE), who confirmed for me that he had sent this book review to Doug Cotton, also confirmed that he did NOT award it 5 stars out of 5. That was all Doug's doing. John advised recently that he did not know HOW to grade the book. He had assumed the target audience for the book would include the average person trying to improve his/her understanding of the role of CO2 in climate. That's far different from how Doug appears to regard his book - the first-ever disclosure of an earth-shattering scientific hypothesis forming the basis of class actions in Australian courts that would have reverberations around the globe and prove that greenhouse gasses do not warm the Earth.
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.
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.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Peter Ridley2 years ago (Edited)In reply toan earlier post
Peter Ridley2 years ago
Author of this book Doug Cotton has responded to my repeated requests for the qualifications and affiliations of the reviewers of his three blog articles with " .. See positive reviews of this book by those sufficiently competent in physics ..See my latest paper which was peer-reviewed at SSRN .. ". When I pointed out the deficiencies surrounding self-publication via SSRN he simply repeated that his three blog articles " .. HAVE been reviewed by SSRN reviewers, as well as by others suitably qualified in physics. (See also the 5-star reviews of this book) .. ".
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.
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.
With characteristic modesty, on 2nd June 2016 Doug declared here that his "heat creep" hypothesis " .. turns all thinking on its head, but it is correct .. "heat creep" process which you will not learn about anywhere else in world literature .. ".
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 ?
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 ?
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Author of this book Doug Cotton has responded to my repeated requests for the qualifications and affiliations of the reviewers of his three blog articles with " .. See positive reviews of this book by those sufficiently competent in physics ..See my latest paper which was peer-reviewed at SSRN .. ". When I pointed out the deficiencies surrounding self-publication via SSRN he simply repeated that his three blog articles " .. HAVE been reviewed by SSRN reviewers, as well as by others suitably qualified in physics. (See also the 5-star reviews of this book) .. ".
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.
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.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Peter Ridley2 years ago (Edited)In reply toan earlier post
AHistory&BiographyLover2 years ago
Mr. Cotton, a simple experiment and 'school-kid physics' is all it takes.
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
Dougy persists with his claim that his three blog articles have been subjected to review by competent physicists " .. My three papers HAVE been reviewed by SSRN reviewers, as well as by others suitably qualified in physics .. ". MAYBE they have but he steadfastly refuses to name those reviewers and their affiliations so that others can find out what are their competencies and what were their conclusions.
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!!
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!!
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Mr. Cotton, a simple experiment and 'school-kid physics' is all it takes.
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
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
On 6th Nov. 2014, in his first response Dougy said of the reviewer " .. He claims I have provided no evidence of scattering of radiation from cooler sources, whereas in fact I have cited in the book my peer-reviewed paper "Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics" .. ".
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/).
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/).
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Hi Dougy,
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/).
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/).
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Climate Physicist3 years ago
AHistory&BiographyLover writes of myself "He does not say how the earth knows the temperature of the source of the IR photons." It is quite clear in my 2013 paper that I cite my 2012 paper "Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics" which explains how every one-way pencil of radiation is an independent process which must, therefore, obey the Second Law of Thermodynamics and only cause an effective transfer of thermal energy from effectively warmer sources to cooler targets. If the target is warmer there is resonance and the radiated energy is not thermalised. It undergoes resonant (or pseudo) scattering. We know this happens when back radiation strikes a water surface and does not penetrate more than a few nanometers. What happens is explained in the greatest of detail of several pages in that 2012 paper which is linked from the 'Evidence' page at http://whyitsnotco2.com and so I have no intention of explaining it here without the necessary diagrams. Likewise, I will not explain the heat creep process without the diagrams. Readers would do well to remember that the 2013 paper (and this book) not only explain the physics as to why the greenhouse gas water vapor cools the surface, but also provides a study of real world data that supports the theoretical proof that greenhouse gases lower the temperature gradient and cool the surface because of their radiating properties.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Climate Physicist3 years agoIn reply toan earlier post
E. Lewis3 years ago
I enjoyed reading your posts History & Biography lover. You made good arguments, sound and sensible. Mr. Cotton is a litigator. He deals in obscuring the truth, not pursuing it. The scientific method does not take sides, but weighs evidence. Mr. Cotton has picked a side and argued it to the point of absurdity.
No, our friend "History and Biography" does not make good arguments. Read my refutation of what he/she wrote.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
E. Lewis3 years agoIn reply toan earlier post
AHistory&BiographyLover3 years ago
Mr. Cotton, all your obscuration and self-aggrandizing cannot rescue your hypothesis from one simple, easily understood experiment.
I enjoyed reading your posts History & Biography lover. You made good arguments, sound and sensible. Mr. Cotton is a litigator. He deals in obscuring the truth, not pursuing it. The scientific method does not take sides, but weighs evidence. Mr. Cotton has picked a side and argued it to the point of absurdity.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Mr. Cotton, all your obscuration and self-aggrandizing cannot rescue your hypothesis from one simple, easily understood experiment.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Mr. Cotton, there are many "equivalent" ways to formulate the 2nd law - Carnot' efficiency, Clausius', Kelvin's, Boltzmann's, Planck's, and probably many more. My fictitious system is perfectly realizable, except Loschmitt's (and your) hypothesis make it perform an absurdity. It is absorbing no work, yet is delivering work to the "rest of the universe" (ROTU). How can it possibly do this? The only way is that it is absorbing heat energy (1st law) from the ROTU and converting it to work - it has to be getting cooler - heat flows from higher to lower temperature (0th and 2nd law). So it is simultaneously getting cooler (lower entropy) and producing work. I can repeatedly perform the swap until all the heat energy in the universe is converted to work - and the universe reaches absolute zero. A violation of the 3rd law. Your silly hypothesis has got my perfectly valid experiment violating everything.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Climate Physicist3 years ago
The brilliant 19th Century physicist Josef Loschmidt has now been PROVEN correct with numerous experiments in the 21st century - see http://climate-change-theory.com and correct physics explaining why is in my book. The writer of this "review" obviously does not understand the physics in the book pertaining to the Second Law process of maximum entropy production. The Second Law is NOT about "hot to cold" as that is only always true in a horizontal plane because entropy is affected by changes in gravitational potential energy.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
AHistory&BiographyLover4 years ago (Edited)In reply toan earlier post
Stickler4 years ago
This review dismisses Joseph Loschmidt's argument about the source of the temperature lapse rate in the atmosphere. Now since William Thompson and Paul Ehrenfest shared Loschmidt's analysis but expressed it differently (without even referring to Loschmidt) does he reject these also? All three of these 'skeptics' based their argument on the effect gravitational energy. Were they wrong?
Stickler, I go after Loschmidt's hypothesis from an angle that is easier for me to grasp without getting buried in statistical mechanics. If I assume it is true, does it lead to an absurdity? First, I assume it holds for all matter - solid, liquid, and gas (see more below). My understanding is that he originally assumed a gas and later extended it to solid and liquid. The following is the experiment I propose assuming it is true:
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 :).
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 :).
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Stickler4 years ago
This review dismisses Joseph Loschmidt's argument about the source of the temperature lapse rate in the atmosphere. Now since William Thompson and Paul Ehrenfest shared Loschmidt's analysis but expressed it differently (without even referring to Loschmidt) does he reject these also? All three of these 'skeptics' based their argument on the effect gravitational energy. Were they wrong?
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
AHistory&BiographyLover4 years ago
Science is not something you make up as you go along to fit the result you want. I stand by my comment.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
AHistory&BiographyLover5 years agoIn reply toan earlier post
Werner Munter5 years ago
"Energy absorption does not depend on the source temperature". Brand new physics to save the hypothesis of th IPCC? heat always flows from warmer to cooler, never in the opposite direction. If the cooler upper atmosphere would warm up the warmer lower atmosphere at our feet (temperature is measured 2m above the ground) we would be burned to death for a long time. Nature cannot work if cold flows to warm! Creator was more intelligent than the warmists...
Werner, I don't have the time or inclination, and this is not the place to debate physics. Peace.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Werner Munter5 years agoIn reply toan earlier post
AHistory&BiographyLover5 years ago
Werner, IR radiation has a spectral distribution dependent on the source temperature. The spectra of sources of different temperatures overlap. Energy absorption does not depend on the source temperature.
"Energy absorption does not depend on the source temperature". Brand new physics to save the hypothesis of th IPCC? heat always flows from warmer to cooler, never in the opposite direction. If the cooler upper atmosphere would warm up the warmer lower atmosphere at our feet (temperature is measured 2m above the ground) we would be burned to death for a long time. Nature cannot work if cold flows to warm! Creator was more intelligent than the warmists...
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
AHistory&BiographyLover5 years agoIn reply toan earlier post
Werner Munter5 years ago
"He does not say how the earth knows the temperature of the source of the IR photons". We have a wave-particle-duality. There are no free floating photons in the air. Photons are transported by waves and waves have a frequency depending on the temperature of the emitter. So the earth know the emitter, the much colder atmosphere!
Werner, IR radiation has a spectral distribution dependent on the source temperature. The spectra of sources of different temperatures overlap. Energy absorption does not depend on the source temperature.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Werner Munter5 years ago
"He does not say how the earth knows the temperature of the source of the IR photons". We have a wave-particle-duality. There are no free floating photons in the air. Photons are transported by waves and waves have a frequency depending on the temperature of the emitter. So the earth know the emitter, the much colder atmosphere!
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
AHistory&BiographyLover5 years ago
I'm a commenter (I doubt if it was adequately reviewed); and of the four of them I see here, I appear to be the only one who bought the book (from Amazon anyway) and tried to read it. Admittedly, I gave up after a while. I appreciate your passion in resisting what many consider the IPCC's employ of politically biased science and hyperbole, but this is not the way to counter it. In fact, the climate itself (present tense) is doing a pretty good job of that.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
AHistory&BiographyLover5 years ago
I'm a commenter (I doubt if it was adequately reviewed); and of the four of them I see here, I appear to be the only one who bought the book (from Amazon anyway) and tried to read it. Admittedly, I gave up after a while. I appreciate your passion in resisting what many consider the IPCC's employ of politically biased science and hyperbole, but this is not the way to counter it. In fact, the climate itself (present tense) is doing a pretty good job of that.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Werner Munter5 years ago
"He does not say how the earth knows the temperature of the source of the IR photons". We have a wave-particle-duality. There are no free floating photons in the air. Photons are transported by waves and waves have a frequency depending on the temperature of the emitter. So the earth know the emitter, the much colder atmosphere!
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
AHistory&BiographyLover5 years agoIn reply toan earlier post
Werner Munter5 years ago
"He does not say how the earth knows the temperature of the source of the IR photons". We have a wave-particle-duality. There are no free floating photons in the air. Photons are transported by waves and waves have a frequency depending on the temperature of the emitter. So the earth know the emitter, the much colder atmosphere!
Werner, IR radiation has a spectral distribution dependent on the source temperature. The spectra of sources of different temperatures overlap. Energy absorption does not depend on the source temperature.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Werner Munter5 years agoIn reply toan earlier post
AHistory&BiographyLover5 years ago
Werner, IR radiation has a spectral distribution dependent on the source temperature. The spectra of sources of different temperatures overlap. Energy absorption does not depend on the source temperature.
"Energy absorption does not depend on the source temperature". Brand new physics to save the hypothesis of th IPCC? heat always flows from warmer to cooler, never in the opposite direction. If the cooler upper atmosphere would warm up the warmer lower atmosphere at our feet (temperature is measured 2m above the ground) we would be burned to death for a long time. Nature cannot work if cold flows to warm! Creator was more intelligent than the warmists...
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
AHistory&BiographyLover5 years agoIn reply toan earlier post
Werner Munter5 years ago
"Energy absorption does not depend on the source temperature". Brand new physics to save the hypothesis of th IPCC? heat always flows from warmer to cooler, never in the opposite direction. If the cooler upper atmosphere would warm up the warmer lower atmosphere at our feet (temperature is measured 2m above the ground) we would be burned to death for a long time. Nature cannot work if cold flows to warm! Creator was more intelligent than the warmists...
Werner, I don't have the time or inclination, and this is not the place to debate physics. Peace.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
AHistory&BiographyLover4 years ago
Science is not something you make up as you go along to fit the result you want. I stand by my comment.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Stickler4 years ago
This review dismisses Joseph Loschmidt's argument about the source of the temperature lapse rate in the atmosphere. Now since William Thompson and Paul Ehrenfest shared Loschmidt's analysis but expressed it differently (without even referring to Loschmidt) does he reject these also? All three of these 'skeptics' based their argument on the effect gravitational energy. Were they wrong?
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
AHistory&BiographyLover4 years ago (Edited)In reply toan earlier post
Stickler4 years ago
This review dismisses Joseph Loschmidt's argument about the source of the temperature lapse rate in the atmosphere. Now since William Thompson and Paul Ehrenfest shared Loschmidt's analysis but expressed it differently (without even referring to Loschmidt) does he reject these also? All three of these 'skeptics' based their argument on the effect gravitational energy. Were they wrong?
Stickler, I go after Loschmidt's hypothesis from an angle that is easier for me to grasp without getting buried in statistical mechanics. If I assume it is true, does it lead to an absurdity? First, I assume it holds for all matter - solid, liquid, and gas (see more below). My understanding is that he originally assumed a gas and later extended it to solid and liquid. The following is the experiment I propose assuming it is true:
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 :).
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 :).
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Climate Physicist3 years ago
The brilliant 19th Century physicist Josef Loschmidt has now been PROVEN correct with numerous experiments in the 21st century - see http://climate-change-theory.com and correct physics explaining why is in my book. The writer of this "review" obviously does not understand the physics in the book pertaining to the Second Law process of maximum entropy production. The Second Law is NOT about "hot to cold" as that is only always true in a horizontal plane because entropy is affected by changes in gravitational potential energy.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Mr. Cotton, there are many "equivalent" ways to formulate the 2nd law - Carnot' efficiency, Clausius', Kelvin's, Boltzmann's, Planck's, and probably many more. My fictitious system is perfectly realizable, except Loschmitt's (and your) hypothesis make it perform an absurdity. It is absorbing no work, yet is delivering work to the "rest of the universe" (ROTU). How can it possibly do this? The only way is that it is absorbing heat energy (1st law) from the ROTU and converting it to work - it has to be getting cooler - heat flows from higher to lower temperature (0th and 2nd law). So it is simultaneously getting cooler (lower entropy) and producing work. I can repeatedly perform the swap until all the heat energy in the universe is converted to work - and the universe reaches absolute zero. A violation of the 3rd law. Your silly hypothesis has got my perfectly valid experiment violating everything.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Mr. Cotton, all your obscuration and self-aggrandizing cannot rescue your hypothesis from one simple, easily understood experiment.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
E. Lewis3 years agoIn reply toan earlier post
AHistory&BiographyLover3 years ago
Mr. Cotton, all your obscuration and self-aggrandizing cannot rescue your hypothesis from one simple, easily understood experiment.
I enjoyed reading your posts History & Biography lover. You made good arguments, sound and sensible. Mr. Cotton is a litigator. He deals in obscuring the truth, not pursuing it. The scientific method does not take sides, but weighs evidence. Mr. Cotton has picked a side and argued it to the point of absurdity.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Climate Physicist3 years agoIn reply toan earlier post
E. Lewis3 years ago
I enjoyed reading your posts History & Biography lover. You made good arguments, sound and sensible. Mr. Cotton is a litigator. He deals in obscuring the truth, not pursuing it. The scientific method does not take sides, but weighs evidence. Mr. Cotton has picked a side and argued it to the point of absurdity.
No, our friend "History and Biography" does not make good arguments. Read my refutation of what he/she wrote.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Climate Physicist3 years ago
AHistory&BiographyLover writes of myself "He does not say how the earth knows the temperature of the source of the IR photons." It is quite clear in my 2013 paper that I cite my 2012 paper "Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics" which explains how every one-way pencil of radiation is an independent process which must, therefore, obey the Second Law of Thermodynamics and only cause an effective transfer of thermal energy from effectively warmer sources to cooler targets. If the target is warmer there is resonance and the radiated energy is not thermalised. It undergoes resonant (or pseudo) scattering. We know this happens when back radiation strikes a water surface and does not penetrate more than a few nanometers. What happens is explained in the greatest of detail of several pages in that 2012 paper which is linked from the 'Evidence' page at http://whyitsnotco2.com and so I have no intention of explaining it here without the necessary diagrams. Likewise, I will not explain the heat creep process without the diagrams. Readers would do well to remember that the 2013 paper (and this book) not only explain the physics as to why the greenhouse gas water vapor cools the surface, but also provides a study of real world data that supports the theoretical proof that greenhouse gases lower the temperature gradient and cool the surface because of their radiating properties.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Hi Dougy,
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/).
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/).
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
On 6th Nov. 2014, in his first response Dougy said of the reviewer " .. He claims I have provided no evidence of scattering of radiation from cooler sources, whereas in fact I have cited in the book my peer-reviewed paper "Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics" .. ".
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/).
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/).
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Mr. Cotton, a simple experiment and 'school-kid physics' is all it takes.
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
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Peter Ridley2 years ago (Edited)In reply toan earlier post
AHistory&BiographyLover2 years ago
Mr. Cotton, a simple experiment and 'school-kid physics' is all it takes.
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
Dougy persists with his claim that his three blog articles have been subjected to review by competent physicists " .. My three papers HAVE been reviewed by SSRN reviewers, as well as by others suitably qualified in physics .. ". MAYBE they have but he steadfastly refuses to name those reviewers and their affiliations so that others can find out what are their competencies and what were their conclusions.
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!!
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!!
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Author of this book Doug Cotton has responded to my repeated requests for the qualifications and affiliations of the reviewers of his three blog articles with " .. See positive reviews of this book by those sufficiently competent in physics ..See my latest paper which was peer-reviewed at SSRN .. ". When I pointed out the deficiencies surrounding self-publication via SSRN he simply repeated that his three blog articles " .. HAVE been reviewed by SSRN reviewers, as well as by others suitably qualified in physics. (See also the 5-star reviews of this book) .. ".
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.
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.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Peter Ridley2 years ago (Edited)In reply toan earlier post
Peter Ridley2 years ago
Author of this book Doug Cotton has responded to my repeated requests for the qualifications and affiliations of the reviewers of his three blog articles with " .. See positive reviews of this book by those sufficiently competent in physics ..See my latest paper which was peer-reviewed at SSRN .. ". When I pointed out the deficiencies surrounding self-publication via SSRN he simply repeated that his three blog articles " .. HAVE been reviewed by SSRN reviewers, as well as by others suitably qualified in physics. (See also the 5-star reviews of this book) .. ".
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.
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.
With characteristic modesty, on 2nd June 2016 Doug declared here that his "heat creep" hypothesis " .. turns all thinking on its head, but it is correct .. "heat creep" process which you will not learn about anywhere else in world literature .. ".
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 ?
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 ?
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
As I commented earlier, the John Turner (see FOOTNOTE), who confirmed for me that he had sent this book review to Doug Cotton, also confirmed that he did NOT award it 5 stars out of 5. That was all Doug's doing. John advised recently that he did not know HOW to grade the book. He had assumed the target audience for the book would include the average person trying to improve his/her understanding of the role of CO2 in climate. That's far different from how Doug appears to regard his book - the first-ever disclosure of an earth-shattering scientific hypothesis forming the basis of class actions in Australian courts that would have reverberations around the globe and prove that greenhouse gasses do not warm the Earth.
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.
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.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
The more comments that Doug Cotton posts the more he make himself look foolish. His latest E-mail to Australia's Prime Minster Malcolm Turnbull is a hoot, beginning " .. I have written to President Trump supporting his action on climate change and presenting him with the correct physics in my paper 'Comprehensive Refutation of the Radiative Forcing Greenhouse Hypothesis' .. The Australian Government will (in 2018) face a class action for which evidence is now being gathered for taking action based on false physics for which there is no empirical evidence .. ".
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.)
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
AHistory&BiographyLover2 years ago (Edited)In reply toan earlier post
Peter Ridley2 years ago
The more comments that Doug Cotton posts the more he make himself look foolish. His latest E-mail to Australia's Prime Minster Malcolm Turnbull is a hoot, beginning " .. I have written to President Trump supporting his action on climate change and presenting him with the correct physics in my paper 'Comprehensive Refutation of the Radiative Forcing Greenhouse Hypothesis' .. The Australian Government will (in 2018) face a class action for which evidence is now being gathered for taking action based on false physics for which there is no empirical evidence .. ".
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.)
I consider myself scientifically semi-literate/illiterate having only taken engineering core courses in physics, themo, etc. Yet I have no problem satisfying myself that both legs of Mr. Cotton's theory (heat creep, selective IR absorption) are ridiculous on their face. I marvel that he has not done the same.
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.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Peter Ridley2 years agoIn reply toan earlier post
AHistory&BiographyLover2 years ago
I consider myself scientifically semi-literate/illiterate having only taken engineering core courses in physics, themo, etc. Yet I have no problem satisfying myself that both legs of Mr. Cotton's theory (heat creep, selective IR absorption) are ridiculous on their face. I marvel that he has not done the same.
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.
In my E-mail yesterday to Doug I asked " .. Please Dougy, would you name just one internationally respected scientist who accepts your hypothesis .. ".
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.
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.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Retired, multitalented ex-businessman (see FOOTNOTE), ex-IT Manager, ex-salesman of herbal medicines, amateur scientist and wannabe Nobel Prize winner Doug Cotton has made frequent reference to the analysis by Swedish maths Professor Claes Johnson of what happens inside a black body. It is an analysis that Doug Cotton appears to fully support and is highly dependent upon.
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.
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.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Hi David,
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).
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).
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
David A. Burton2 years ago
Doug Cotton wrote, "...none of the climatology literature appears to have been reviewed by physicists..."
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.
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.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Doug Cotton wrote, "Many physicists have not specialised in the study of maximum entropy production as I have."
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.
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.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Doug Cotton wrote, "the Second Law of Thermodynamics..." [requires that] "Every one-way independent pencil (ray) of radiation must obey the Second Law and thus does not cause entropy to decrease, as it would if radiation from the cold atmosphere caused heat transfer into an already-warmer region of the Earth's surface. "
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.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
AHistory&BiographyLover2 years ago (Edited)In reply toan earlier post
David A. Burton2 years ago
Doug Cotton wrote, "the Second Law of Thermodynamics..." [requires that] "Every one-way independent pencil (ray) of radiation must obey the Second Law and thus does not cause entropy to decrease, as it would if radiation from the cold atmosphere caused heat transfer into an already-warmer region of the Earth's surface. "
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.
(deleted)
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
On 8th Feb. I had the dubious pleasure of 6 E-mails from Doug sent over a period of 6 hours, all ranting on in the same vein as he had been doing recently on this thread.
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.
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.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
In his now deleted comment, reviewer Historyandbiograohylover said " .. Mr. Cotton, I find it difficult to have a useful exchange with you. You seem to know a lot of scientific jargon without knowing the principles we use that jargon to describe .. " then went on
" .. 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).
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
lily bloom2 years agoIn reply toan earlier post
Peter Ridley2 years ago
In his now deleted comment, reviewer Historyandbiograohylover said " .. Mr. Cotton, I find it difficult to have a useful exchange with you. You seem to know a lot of scientific jargon without knowing the principles we use that jargon to describe .. " then went on
" .. 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).
To no one in particular:
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
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
David A. Burton2 years ago (Edited)In reply toan earlier post
lily bloom2 years ago
To no one in particular:
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
lily bloom wrote, "...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.'"
"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/
"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/
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Hi "Lily",
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
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
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Dougy keeps ranting on about his "papers" when referring to his blog articles, none of which appear to have been reviewed by a single internationally respected high-profile physicist or climatologist. None appear to accept his "21st Century paradigm shift" revelations.
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.
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.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
On 4th Feb. I referred to a comment of mine 5 years ago on the "Climate, etc." blog of Dr. Judith Curry, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Tech. " .. I may now have a better understanding of from where Doug gets his inspiration. There may be some who would suggest a divine element .. " (https://judithcurry.com/2012/02/09/aq/#comment-177003).
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.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
David A. Burton2 years agoIn reply toan earlier post
Peter Ridley2 years ago
On 4th Feb. I referred to a comment of mine 5 years ago on the "Climate, etc." blog of Dr. Judith Curry, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Tech. " .. I may now have a better understanding of from where Doug gets his inspiration. There may be some who would suggest a divine element .. " (https://judithcurry.com/2012/02/09/aq/#comment-177003).
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.
I am a follower of Christ, and that embarrasses me. I sure hope you don't think that's a typical or normal Christian view.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Peter Ridley2 years ago (Edited)In reply toan earlier post
David A. Burton2 years ago
I am a follower of Christ, and that embarrasses me. I sure hope you don't think that's a typical or normal Christian view.
David, if you are referring that question to me, then I can assure you that I do not think that the view as expressed on Dr. Spencer's blog is a NORMAL Christian view. On the other hand, although that view may be abnormal it is not unique (e.g. see http://www.precious-testimonies.com/PrisonerDocs/AlexanderChris.htm and https://www.amazon.com/When-God-Spoke-Me-Inspiring/dp/1601631065).
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
AHistory&BiographyLover2 years ago (Edited)In reply toan earlier post
Peter Ridley2 years ago
David, if you are referring that question to me, then I can assure you that I do not think that the view as expressed on Dr. Spencer's blog is a NORMAL Christian view. On the other hand, although that view may be abnormal it is not unique (e.g. see http://www.precious-testimonies.com/PrisonerDocs/AlexanderChris.htm and https://www.amazon.com/When-God-Spoke-Me-Inspiring/dp/1601631065).
Samuel Johnson once suggested that "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel". My corollary: "Divine sanction is the last refuge of the confused." :)
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
The author of this book posted another revealing comment on Dr. Roy Spencer's blog and I think that it is worth reading carefully the entire rant to better understand what motivates him
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 .. ".
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
AHistory&BiographyLover2 years ago (Edited)In reply toan earlier post
Peter Ridley2 years ago
The author of this book posted another revealing comment on Dr. Roy Spencer's blog and I think that it is worth reading carefully the entire rant to better understand what motivates him
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 .. ".
Of course, I cannot comment on Mr. Cotton's understanding of his relation to God. Such things are very personal. I am free however to comment on my own.
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.
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.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
I was brought up as a Christian and had experience of various sects, such as CoE, Baptist, Weslian, Jehovah's Witnesses and finally the Salvation Army. I am now an agnostic bordering on atheist, rejecting the notion of a concerned omnipotent being, however I am generally tolerant of those who choose to believe otherwise. I look forward to exchanges with visiting Jehovah's Witnesses as we try to convert each other to accept our beliefs.
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.
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.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Dougy decrees that I WILL be condemned to Hell, Fire and Torment. I've news for Dougy " .. He who has repented of his sins, the same is forgiven, and I, the Lord, remember them no more .. " (https://www.mormon.org/blog/how-to-forgive-yourself-4-steps).
There's still hope for me!!
There's still hope for me!!
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Doug the Oracle declares " .. There is no valid physics which says we can add the fluxes from solar radiation and atmospheric radiation and use the sum to explain Earth's surface temperature .. ".
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.
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.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
On 12th Feb. mighty Doug Cotton decreed that I would go to Hell when I die and produced a quote, without linking to the source. Presumably it was from his own uniquely inspired Bible, because a Google gave me - No results found for "God's wrath is poured out like fire in hell".
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.
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.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
That excerpt from Hans's E-mail claims that Hans's .. E&E article still holds. What is truly amazing is that skilled academics cannot understand it. Only a handful have really understood it and you are one of them .. ".
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
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
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Doug Jeffrey Cotton "B.Sc (physics), B.A.(economics), Dip.Bus.Admin (author)" was at one time a proud member of John O'Sullivan's Principia Scientific International blog but appears to be no longer welcome there as a member or even as a commenter (http://principia-scientific.org/tag/douglas-cotton/).
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/).
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/).
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Let's not overlook another area of research that has attracted Doug Cotton's attention.
" .. 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.
" .. 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.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
So far this month I have received 99 E-mails from Doug, ranting on and on about his blog articles (he insists on calling them "papers") and his "heat creep hypothesis".
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 .. ".
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 .. ".
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Peter Ridley2 years ago
For Dougy's benefit I repeat the paragraph from my previous comment (with emphasis) which should help him to understand where he is misleading himself.
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.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
AHistory&BiographyLover2 years ago (Edited)In reply toan earlier post
Peter Ridley2 years ago
For Dougy's benefit I repeat the paragraph from my previous comment (with emphasis) which should help him to understand where he is misleading himself.
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.
Mr. Cotton, when one sets out to find or prove a principle (e.g. Loschmitt's conjecture) he seeks a controlled situation where variables are known or constrained. The atmosphere is a lousy lab since many variables are acting simultaneously and randomly – time & lack of equilibrium, phase changes, circulation, radiation, albedo, and everything else under the sun. Your atmospheric arguments are as clouded as your objectivity and thinking.
Loschmitt's conjecture cannot pass even the simplest smell test.
Loschmitt's conjecture cannot pass even the simplest smell test.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
AHistory&BiographyLover2 years ago
"This is known as Loschmidt's gravitothermal 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 gravitationalfield
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 gravitationalfield
Kai Zhang and Yong-Jun Zhang
Science College, Liaoning Technical University, Fuxin, Liaoning 123000, China
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1607.06692
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Once again:
"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
"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
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
AHistory&BiographyLover2 years ago
"According to Maxwell distribution, the temperature is determined by the shape of the velocity distribution function. A molecule going up against the gravitational fi eld indeed loses energy. But this does not change the shape of velocity distribution function. So the temperature does not change."
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
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
AHistory&BiographyLover2 years ago
"Gibbs, using entropy method, proved that the temperature distribution of an object in an external gravitational field is uniform. The Boltzmann equation produces the same result for a dilute gas."
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
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
AHistory&BiographyLover2 years ago
"The temperature within a system in thermodynamic equilibrium is uniform in space as well as in time. In a system in its own state of internal thermodynamic equilibrium, there are no net internal macroscopic flows. In particular, this means that all local parts of the system are in mutual radiative exchange equilibrium. This means that the temperature of the system is spatially uniform. THIS IS SO IN ALL CASES, INCLUDING THOSE OF NON-UNIFORM EXTERNAL FORCE FIELDS. For an externally imposed gravitational field, this may be proved in macroscopic thermodynamic terms, by the calculus of variations, using the method of Langrangian multipliers."
Thermodynamic equilibrium
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_equilibrium
Thermodynamic equilibrium
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_equilibrium
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Excuse me Mr. Cotton. But, if I can discover with a simple experiment what better minds like Boltzmann, Maxwell, Gibbs, and others have proved; I am not out of my depth. I suggest that shoe is on your foot.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
David A. Burton2 years ago
Doug Cotton wrote, "temperature would depend on height in a gas in vertical equilibrium in a uniform gravitational field... This has never been proven wrong... This means carbon dioxide cannot warm us because gravity has already set up the temperature gradient that leads to the surface temperature being warmer than that at the radiating altitude."
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.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
AHistory&BiographyLover2 years agoIn reply toan earlier post
David A. Burton2 years ago
Doug Cotton wrote, "temperature would depend on height in a gas in vertical equilibrium in a uniform gravitational field... This has never been proven wrong... This means carbon dioxide cannot warm us because gravity has already set up the temperature gradient that leads to the surface temperature being warmer than that at the radiating altitude."
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.
It does seem that "determined delusion" would be a better title than "confused nonsense"
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Actually, Mr. Cotton, if your cheek were a blackbody in empty space (no other radiation source including no back radiation), and one radiator raised its temperature to 42 degree C, 16 radiators would double the absolute temperature of that cheek to 357 degree C. The power the radiators deliver to the cheek are additive.
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?
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?
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
In July 2015 Doug was ranting his version of "fiziks" (and promoting his blog articles, booklet and video) on Dr. Roy Spencer's blog (from which he had previously been banned for spamming) using a variety of user names. In one of his rants he proclaimed " .. You can’t use Stefan Boltzmann calculations to determine the surface temperature because the surface does not act remotely like a black body. Only the whole Earth+atmosphere system acts like a black body .. (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/07/new-pause-busting-temperature-dataset-implies-only-1-5-c-climate-sensitivity/#comment-195787).
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/).
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/).
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
I wrote, "The surface does not and cannot tell what temperature the molecule was which radiated the photon which strikes that surface.... 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."
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?
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?
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Doug asks ".. Does any reader support our friend David Burton? .. ".
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.
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.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
I asked Doug Cotton, "what's the DOI of that 'paper' which presciently responded to my childish ideas?"
Doug Cotton did not give the DOI of his paper. Instead, he replied with a non sequitur: "my papers... have been reviewed and accepted by SSRN..."
In the first place, that's obviously nonsense. The Social Science Research Network (SSRN) does not review papers. It just archives them.
What's more, SSRN is for social science. ArXiv is the appropriate archive for geophysics. So why is your paper, which you claim presciently responded to my "childish ideas," archived on SSRN, instead of arXiv? (I can imagine a possible reason, but you might think it uncharitable.)
What's more, you didn't answer the question. For the 2nd time: what is your paper's DOI? Every published paper has a DOI, these days. What is your paper's DOI?
Doug Cotton did not give the DOI of his paper. Instead, he replied with a non sequitur: "my papers... have been reviewed and accepted by SSRN..."
In the first place, that's obviously nonsense. The Social Science Research Network (SSRN) does not review papers. It just archives them.
What's more, SSRN is for social science. ArXiv is the appropriate archive for geophysics. So why is your paper, which you claim presciently responded to my "childish ideas," archived on SSRN, instead of arXiv? (I can imagine a possible reason, but you might think it uncharitable.)
What's more, you didn't answer the question. For the 2nd time: what is your paper's DOI? Every published paper has a DOI, these days. What is your paper's DOI?
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Peter Ridley2 years ago (Edited)In reply toan earlier post
David A. Burton2 years ago
I asked Doug Cotton, "what's the DOI of that 'paper' which presciently responded to my childish ideas?"
Doug Cotton did not give the DOI of his paper. Instead, he replied with a non sequitur: "my papers... have been reviewed and accepted by SSRN..."
In the first place, that's obviously nonsense. The Social Science Research Network (SSRN) does not review papers. It just archives them.
What's more, SSRN is for social science. ArXiv is the appropriate archive for geophysics. So why is your paper, which you claim presciently responded to my "childish ideas," archived on SSRN, instead of arXiv? (I can imagine a possible reason, but you might think it uncharitable.)
What's more, you didn't answer the question. For the 2nd time: what is your paper's DOI? Every published paper has a DOI, these days. What is your paper's DOI?
Doug Cotton did not give the DOI of his paper. Instead, he replied with a non sequitur: "my papers... have been reviewed and accepted by SSRN..."
In the first place, that's obviously nonsense. The Social Science Research Network (SSRN) does not review papers. It just archives them.
What's more, SSRN is for social science. ArXiv is the appropriate archive for geophysics. So why is your paper, which you claim presciently responded to my "childish ideas," archived on SSRN, instead of arXiv? (I can imagine a possible reason, but you might think it uncharitable.)
What's more, you didn't answer the question. For the 2nd time: what is your paper's DOI? Every published paper has a DOI, these days. What is your paper's DOI?
Hi David,
I had a similar discussion about Doug's blog articles (or "papers" as he calls them) here on 16th January (see Page 4). Here's a relevant extract " .. 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/) .. ".
I had a similar discussion about Doug's blog articles (or "papers" as he calls them) here on 16th January (see Page 4). Here's a relevant extract " .. 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/) .. ".
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
As has already been mentioned here, Doug "Heat-creep" Cotton's spamming of his "20th century paradigm shift" hypothesis has resulted in him being banned from numerous blogs. In Feb. 2014 Doug decided to spam the blog of CACC-supporter William Connolly (Stoat) using several of his many identities. One commenter advised that blog that " .. Lucia (“The Blackboard”), Roy Spencer, and WUWTs have all banned Doug Cotton (and his sockpuppets as quickly as they uncover them) because his notions are too bizarre for them (very few anti-science notions are too bizarre for Watts) .. " (http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2014/02/16/the-idealised-greenhouse-effect-model-and-its-enemies/).
Throughout this year Doug has been spamming his hypothesis through E-mails to all and sundry (I have received over 300 during the past two months alone. Today I have had three in less than one hour, all on the same old rant.
If Doug could bear to tear off his SLoT(ted) blinkers for once he might find it educational to study the measured OLR spectra for several different geographic locations (copied at https://skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=76&&n=200#14568) provided in the excellent book "A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation" by Professor Grant Petty. For starters he could consider carefully what is revealed by those for Southern Iraq (Fig. d) and the small tropical Pacific island of Guam (Fig c - see FOOTNOTE).
Those spectra and a play with the MODTRAN model freely available at the University of Chicago's web-site should be enough to persuade any reasonably open-minded individual that there really is a "greenhouse effect" due to the properties of the atmospheric gasses H2O, CO2, CH4, NOxs, etc. Unfortunately, it appears that Doug is determined to wallow in his ignorance.
Being a supreme optimist' I try again and suggest that Doug takes a break from spamming his "heat creep hypothesis" to consider what happens between wavenumbers 800 to 1000 and 1100 to 1250 for the different atmospheric conditions to be expected over the Guam and Southern Iraq locations.
FOOTNOTE:
The Guam spectra were also made available by sadly departed Australian CACC sceptic John Daly in his interesting 2001 "Smoking Peashooter" article (https://www.john-daly.com/smoking.htm). Readers may recall the disgusting "Climategate" E-mail comment forwarded to Dr. Michael "Hockey-stick" Mann by the scaremongering Chief Scientist at CRU, Dr. Phil Jones, on learning of John Daly's death in Jan.b2004 “… in an odd way this is cheering news .. ” (http://www.burtonsys.com/FOIA/1075403821.txt).
There's a moving tribute to John Daly at http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2009/11/john-l-daly/ .
Throughout this year Doug has been spamming his hypothesis through E-mails to all and sundry (I have received over 300 during the past two months alone. Today I have had three in less than one hour, all on the same old rant.
If Doug could bear to tear off his SLoT(ted) blinkers for once he might find it educational to study the measured OLR spectra for several different geographic locations (copied at https://skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=76&&n=200#14568) provided in the excellent book "A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation" by Professor Grant Petty. For starters he could consider carefully what is revealed by those for Southern Iraq (Fig. d) and the small tropical Pacific island of Guam (Fig c - see FOOTNOTE).
Those spectra and a play with the MODTRAN model freely available at the University of Chicago's web-site should be enough to persuade any reasonably open-minded individual that there really is a "greenhouse effect" due to the properties of the atmospheric gasses H2O, CO2, CH4, NOxs, etc. Unfortunately, it appears that Doug is determined to wallow in his ignorance.
Being a supreme optimist' I try again and suggest that Doug takes a break from spamming his "heat creep hypothesis" to consider what happens between wavenumbers 800 to 1000 and 1100 to 1250 for the different atmospheric conditions to be expected over the Guam and Southern Iraq locations.
FOOTNOTE:
The Guam spectra were also made available by sadly departed Australian CACC sceptic John Daly in his interesting 2001 "Smoking Peashooter" article (https://www.john-daly.com/smoking.htm). Readers may recall the disgusting "Climategate" E-mail comment forwarded to Dr. Michael "Hockey-stick" Mann by the scaremongering Chief Scientist at CRU, Dr. Phil Jones, on learning of John Daly's death in Jan.b2004 “… in an odd way this is cheering news .. ” (http://www.burtonsys.com/FOIA/1075403821.txt).
There's a moving tribute to John Daly at http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2009/11/john-l-daly/ .
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Doug demonstrates just how closed-minded he is with his " .. . I am not here to discuss matters that are irrelevant to my hypothesis .. ". It appears that Doug refuses to give any consideration whatsoever to the evidence of those measured OLR absorption spectra that prove the existence of a "greenhouse effect". I keep trying to get him to study them and use the MODTRAN tool but NO, his mind appears sealed against any evidence that challenges his "heat creep hypothesis".
Doug boasted " .. Senator Malcolm Roberts .. knows me well .. " then linked to the a/v of the Q&A session of Malcolm's 29th March meeting in Parliament House, Canberra (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wq13YvwPzEo).
It looks as though it was not only Malcolm Roberts (see FOOTNOTE) who knows Doug well. When it was Doug's turn to ask a question the request was pointedly made " .. Doug (and just for everybody) no statements please, just a quick question .. ". So what did Doug do? You guessed it. He asked no question, instead making statements to promote his web-site, his 2013 blog article (or "paper" as he likes to call it), his "heat creep hypothesis" and his $50,000 offer to anyone who can prove him wrong. He then advised the panel and audience of the different data sets that he thought should be considered. Malcolm Roberts cut Doug's rant short after only 2 minutes, so yes, it does seem that Doug is known only too well by Malcolm (and others at that meeting).
After promoting here his relationship with Malcolm Roberts, egocentric Doug repeated the three points that he raised at the meeting, one being " .. nor can you explain wet regions being cooler than dry .. ". If by a "wet region" he means a location where there is lots of rain then perhaps the source of that rain has an impact. On this 1st April it is opportune to invite Doug to ponder from whence that rain cometh and what impact that might have on the amount of insolation reaching the Earth's surface. Those April showers that we are experiencing here in the UK today provide an appropriate natural experiment giving a hint to one explanation of " .. wet regions being cooler than dry .. ". They also demonstrate that " .. Radiation reaching a planet's surface IS .. the primary determinant of the temperature .. ", contrary to what Doug would have the world's population believe.
One "Dr. Strangelove" had this to say about one of Doug's articles published on the PSI blog (http://principia-scientific.org/publications/psi_radiated_energy.pdf) " .. cotton Your arrogance is annoying. You’re quoting your own paper as if it’s a revolutionary scientific paper. You must be a legend in your own mind. Your paper is wrong. If you have trouble accepting this, try to publish it in a reputable physics journal. I assure you it will be rejected.
I read your paper. It’s not science. No equations. No computations. No mathematical modeling of physical processes. No description of real experiments and their results. No statistical analyses of actual data. It’s just a narrative of your own opinion about the climate, radiation and heat flow. Worse, your opinion is wrong .. " (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/03/global-warming-as-cargo-cult-science/#comment-40018).
FOOTNOTE:
Malcolm Roberts is listed as a key member of John O'Sullivan's CACC-sceptic blog PSI (https://www.desmogblog.com/principia-scientific-international - see also the Desmogblog article on Malcolm, linked in that list). He has enjoyed an element of prominence on the PSI blog (http://principia-scientific.org/tag/malcolm-roberts/)". Malcolm's close relationship with John O'Sullivan goes back at least to early 2010 (https://www.sott.net/article/203222-Climate-debate-heats-up-in-Australian-politics-new-Skeptic-Party-created).
Doug Cotton was at one time " .. proud to be an active member of Principia Scientific International .. " (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/03/global-warming-as-cargo-cult-science/#comment-43391) but even commenters on respected CACC-sceptic blog's have rejected that group, e.g. in:
- March 2012 " .. Isn’t this “paper” in Principia Scientific? Are you suggesting this is a “peer reviewed” scientific journal? .. What a prestigious honor to be published there! .. " (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/03/global-warming-as-cargo-cult-science/#comment-39128),
- August 2012 " .. Neither Mr O’Sullivan nor “his” PSI front has any credibility .. " (http://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2012/08/with-friends-like-these-we-need-no-enemies/#comment-109694),
- Sept. 2014 " .. John O’Sullivan is not what most around here would consider a reliable source .. " (about 11 comments after https://climateaudit.org/2014/09/10/another-porky-from-mann-williams-and-fontaine/#comment-729976).
Now, even PSI has disowned Doug " .. 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 boasted " .. Senator Malcolm Roberts .. knows me well .. " then linked to the a/v of the Q&A session of Malcolm's 29th March meeting in Parliament House, Canberra (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wq13YvwPzEo).
It looks as though it was not only Malcolm Roberts (see FOOTNOTE) who knows Doug well. When it was Doug's turn to ask a question the request was pointedly made " .. Doug (and just for everybody) no statements please, just a quick question .. ". So what did Doug do? You guessed it. He asked no question, instead making statements to promote his web-site, his 2013 blog article (or "paper" as he likes to call it), his "heat creep hypothesis" and his $50,000 offer to anyone who can prove him wrong. He then advised the panel and audience of the different data sets that he thought should be considered. Malcolm Roberts cut Doug's rant short after only 2 minutes, so yes, it does seem that Doug is known only too well by Malcolm (and others at that meeting).
After promoting here his relationship with Malcolm Roberts, egocentric Doug repeated the three points that he raised at the meeting, one being " .. nor can you explain wet regions being cooler than dry .. ". If by a "wet region" he means a location where there is lots of rain then perhaps the source of that rain has an impact. On this 1st April it is opportune to invite Doug to ponder from whence that rain cometh and what impact that might have on the amount of insolation reaching the Earth's surface. Those April showers that we are experiencing here in the UK today provide an appropriate natural experiment giving a hint to one explanation of " .. wet regions being cooler than dry .. ". They also demonstrate that " .. Radiation reaching a planet's surface IS .. the primary determinant of the temperature .. ", contrary to what Doug would have the world's population believe.
One "Dr. Strangelove" had this to say about one of Doug's articles published on the PSI blog (http://principia-scientific.org/publications/psi_radiated_energy.pdf) " .. cotton Your arrogance is annoying. You’re quoting your own paper as if it’s a revolutionary scientific paper. You must be a legend in your own mind. Your paper is wrong. If you have trouble accepting this, try to publish it in a reputable physics journal. I assure you it will be rejected.
I read your paper. It’s not science. No equations. No computations. No mathematical modeling of physical processes. No description of real experiments and their results. No statistical analyses of actual data. It’s just a narrative of your own opinion about the climate, radiation and heat flow. Worse, your opinion is wrong .. " (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/03/global-warming-as-cargo-cult-science/#comment-40018).
FOOTNOTE:
Malcolm Roberts is listed as a key member of John O'Sullivan's CACC-sceptic blog PSI (https://www.desmogblog.com/principia-scientific-international - see also the Desmogblog article on Malcolm, linked in that list). He has enjoyed an element of prominence on the PSI blog (http://principia-scientific.org/tag/malcolm-roberts/)". Malcolm's close relationship with John O'Sullivan goes back at least to early 2010 (https://www.sott.net/article/203222-Climate-debate-heats-up-in-Australian-politics-new-Skeptic-Party-created).
Doug Cotton was at one time " .. proud to be an active member of Principia Scientific International .. " (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/03/global-warming-as-cargo-cult-science/#comment-43391) but even commenters on respected CACC-sceptic blog's have rejected that group, e.g. in:
- March 2012 " .. Isn’t this “paper” in Principia Scientific? Are you suggesting this is a “peer reviewed” scientific journal? .. What a prestigious honor to be published there! .. " (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/03/global-warming-as-cargo-cult-science/#comment-39128),
- August 2012 " .. Neither Mr O’Sullivan nor “his” PSI front has any credibility .. " (http://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2012/08/with-friends-like-these-we-need-no-enemies/#comment-109694),
- Sept. 2014 " .. John O’Sullivan is not what most around here would consider a reliable source .. " (about 11 comments after https://climateaudit.org/2014/09/10/another-porky-from-mann-williams-and-fontaine/#comment-729976).
Now, even PSI has disowned Doug " .. 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/).
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Here we go again - Doug's same old rant seen over and over and over again here and throughout the blogosphere.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Doug says that " .. What a joke it is that Peter Ridley denies that Stefan-Boltzmann (S-B) calculations can be used to get the blackbody temperature from that single flux .. ".
The really sad joke is that Doug regards the geosphere (i.e. the global system of atmos-/aqua-/litho-/bio-/cryo-spheres) to be a black body. Because it is anything but a black body (neither absorbing all incoming e/m radiation nor emitting a continuous spectrum in accordance with Planck's Law) it is a misuse of the S-B Law to assume that its dependent and independent variables can be transposed in order to derive the Earth's temperature from the insolation.
In the FOOTNOTES of my recent April Fool's day comment I mentioned Doug's one-time proud membership of John O'Sullivan's PSI blog. Looking through the archives of my "SpotlightOn Principia Scientific International" blog article reminded me of the entry I had about Doug Cotton back in June 2013, when he had become persona non grata at PSI (and numerous other CACC-Sceptic blogs). Readers may find the article of interest (https://web.archive.org/web/20130602081200/http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/spotlighton-principia-scientific.html).
Here are a few extracts from QUOTE: ..
3.14 Member Douglas Jeffrey Cotton
Doug Cotton does not appear to be listed among PSI’s “ .. selection of our valued members .. ” (http://principia-scientific.org/about/why-psi-is-a-private-assoc.html) however last March he declared to meteorologist Dr. Roy Spencer .. that he is " .. proud to be a member of PSI and an author of one of only six selected publications on their site – publications which talk real science, Roy .. ” ..
For many months Doug has been posting comments on the Internet promoting what he refers to as his “papers” and linking to one of his numerous blogs. His arguments are repeatedly rejected by respected scientists such as Dr. Spencer and other bloggers, this comment being representative “ .. I’m not sure what poor Dr Spencer has done in a past life, but he attracts an extraordinary number of cranks to his blog. I suspect Cotton is the crank of all cranks. He must be working his way through every climate blog on the internet until he finally gets banned from them all, just for the nuisance factor alone .. ” ..
On 27th Jan. 2013 Doug warned that the “Slayers” have a ground-breaking, greenhouse SMASHING document coming out soon. I speculate that this new "ground-breaking .. document" will equally soon be emphatically rejected just like Doug's "Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics" article was on Roger Tattersall's "Tallbloke" blog and elsewhere. As David M Hoffer said " .. I HAVE read enough of your paper to know that it is based on so many fallacies that the criticisms would run longer than the paper itself. As gallopingcamel said upthread, it contains many half truths, the debunking of which is often more complex than dealing with an outright lie. But conclusions based on a collection of half truths are, nonetheless, wrong .. " ..
Despite his claims to expertise in Physics and maths there is no evidence of Doug Cotton having had any of his articles peer reviewed and published in any recognised scientific journals but he frequently directs readers to one of his numerous blogs. The more revealing of those are not his "Earth Climate - What Physics says about about CLIMATE CHANGE" but his:
- "Acclaim Dental Software" blog ..
- "OzViews" blog from which " ..
- "TasmaniaHoliday" blog .. or
- "UKEuropeViews" blog ..
If photo's aren't of interest then there are plenty other blogs to visit such as:
- "Slower-Aging" ...
If all of that has been too boring there are always Doug's other sidelines such as:
- "Saved by the Lamb" one part of which might be worth posting to his climate science blog, i.e. " ..FOR THOSE WHO HAVE DOUBTS - I know there will be many reading this site who have doubts about the truth of all this .. " ..
.. UNQUOTE.
4 years on and Doug is still struggling for recognition of his "21st Century New Paradigm Shift in Climate Change Science” (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyB4d9gw4CpI1csZxNFZTEg).
Responding to my comment that " .. Doug refuses to give any consideration whatsoever to the evidence of those measured OLR absorption spectra" Doug said " .. my papers .. explain that the energy merely escapes to Space via another "gate" that being mostly radiation by water vapor .. ". What I would now say is that Doug refuses to give PROPER consideration to the evidence of those measured OLR absorption spectra .. ".
The Guam spectral plot to which I linked (Fig. C at https://skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=76&&n=200#14568) demonstrates quite clearly the "greenhouse effect" of atmospheric water vapour (and carbon dioxide, methane and ozone). Guam is a small island in the Western Pacific which enjoys a warm, wet tropical marine climate. The spectral plot shows the significant absorption of OLR by water between wavenumbers 400 and 550 and from 1350 up (H2O absorbs significantly from about 700 wavenumbers down and 1350 up - see https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/atmospheric_spectral_absorption.png for the combined effect of H2O, CO2 and O3.
Rather than acknowledging that atmospheric water vapour prevents significant surface OLR from returning to space, Doug makes the unscientific claim that " .. the energy merely escapes to Space via another "gate" .. ".
I eagerly await Doug's attempt to define this "gate" and describe how it is opened.
The really sad joke is that Doug regards the geosphere (i.e. the global system of atmos-/aqua-/litho-/bio-/cryo-spheres) to be a black body. Because it is anything but a black body (neither absorbing all incoming e/m radiation nor emitting a continuous spectrum in accordance with Planck's Law) it is a misuse of the S-B Law to assume that its dependent and independent variables can be transposed in order to derive the Earth's temperature from the insolation.
In the FOOTNOTES of my recent April Fool's day comment I mentioned Doug's one-time proud membership of John O'Sullivan's PSI blog. Looking through the archives of my "SpotlightOn Principia Scientific International" blog article reminded me of the entry I had about Doug Cotton back in June 2013, when he had become persona non grata at PSI (and numerous other CACC-Sceptic blogs). Readers may find the article of interest (https://web.archive.org/web/20130602081200/http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/spotlighton-principia-scientific.html).
Here are a few extracts from QUOTE: ..
3.14 Member Douglas Jeffrey Cotton
Doug Cotton does not appear to be listed among PSI’s “ .. selection of our valued members .. ” (http://principia-scientific.org/about/why-psi-is-a-private-assoc.html) however last March he declared to meteorologist Dr. Roy Spencer .. that he is " .. proud to be a member of PSI and an author of one of only six selected publications on their site – publications which talk real science, Roy .. ” ..
For many months Doug has been posting comments on the Internet promoting what he refers to as his “papers” and linking to one of his numerous blogs. His arguments are repeatedly rejected by respected scientists such as Dr. Spencer and other bloggers, this comment being representative “ .. I’m not sure what poor Dr Spencer has done in a past life, but he attracts an extraordinary number of cranks to his blog. I suspect Cotton is the crank of all cranks. He must be working his way through every climate blog on the internet until he finally gets banned from them all, just for the nuisance factor alone .. ” ..
On 27th Jan. 2013 Doug warned that the “Slayers” have a ground-breaking, greenhouse SMASHING document coming out soon. I speculate that this new "ground-breaking .. document" will equally soon be emphatically rejected just like Doug's "Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics" article was on Roger Tattersall's "Tallbloke" blog and elsewhere. As David M Hoffer said " .. I HAVE read enough of your paper to know that it is based on so many fallacies that the criticisms would run longer than the paper itself. As gallopingcamel said upthread, it contains many half truths, the debunking of which is often more complex than dealing with an outright lie. But conclusions based on a collection of half truths are, nonetheless, wrong .. " ..
Despite his claims to expertise in Physics and maths there is no evidence of Doug Cotton having had any of his articles peer reviewed and published in any recognised scientific journals but he frequently directs readers to one of his numerous blogs. The more revealing of those are not his "Earth Climate - What Physics says about about CLIMATE CHANGE" but his:
- "Acclaim Dental Software" blog ..
- "OzViews" blog from which " ..
- "TasmaniaHoliday" blog .. or
- "UKEuropeViews" blog ..
If photo's aren't of interest then there are plenty other blogs to visit such as:
- "Slower-Aging" ...
If all of that has been too boring there are always Doug's other sidelines such as:
- "Saved by the Lamb" one part of which might be worth posting to his climate science blog, i.e. " ..FOR THOSE WHO HAVE DOUBTS - I know there will be many reading this site who have doubts about the truth of all this .. " ..
.. UNQUOTE.
4 years on and Doug is still struggling for recognition of his "21st Century New Paradigm Shift in Climate Change Science” (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyB4d9gw4CpI1csZxNFZTEg).
Responding to my comment that " .. Doug refuses to give any consideration whatsoever to the evidence of those measured OLR absorption spectra" Doug said " .. my papers .. explain that the energy merely escapes to Space via another "gate" that being mostly radiation by water vapor .. ". What I would now say is that Doug refuses to give PROPER consideration to the evidence of those measured OLR absorption spectra .. ".
The Guam spectral plot to which I linked (Fig. C at https://skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=76&&n=200#14568) demonstrates quite clearly the "greenhouse effect" of atmospheric water vapour (and carbon dioxide, methane and ozone). Guam is a small island in the Western Pacific which enjoys a warm, wet tropical marine climate. The spectral plot shows the significant absorption of OLR by water between wavenumbers 400 and 550 and from 1350 up (H2O absorbs significantly from about 700 wavenumbers down and 1350 up - see https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/atmospheric_spectral_absorption.png for the combined effect of H2O, CO2 and O3.
Rather than acknowledging that atmospheric water vapour prevents significant surface OLR from returning to space, Doug makes the unscientific claim that " .. the energy merely escapes to Space via another "gate" .. ".
I eagerly await Doug's attempt to define this "gate" and describe how it is opened.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Ironically, just now (April 2nd, 2017) Principia Scientific International has at last published a good article about the effect of gravity on temperature: http://principia-scientific.org/shock-news-nasas-massgravity-equations-contradict-greenhouse-gas-theory/ ... referring to an article in the "Hockey Schtick" from back in December 2014 - nearly two years after what I wrote in February 2013 here: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2876905 (LOL)
"The calculation of not only the entire troposphere temperature profile by the greenhouse equation, but also the calculation of the temperature profiles of all remaining levels of the entire atmosphere all the way to space at ~100,000 meters, by bootstrapping onto this seminal gravito-thermal model of the 1976 US Standard Atmosphere above the troposphere, will be the topic of the next post in this series.
"Thus, these hundreds of scientists were in effect “deniers” of the man-made CO2 global warming hypothesis that would come much later, and didn’t recognize any “radiative forcing” from any “greenhouse gases” at the time they provided an accurate physically derived & straightforward model of the atmosphere. Hansen’s (falsified) climate models and the CAGW hypothesis scare didn’t arrive until ~30 years later. These atmospheric scientists never once used any radiative calculations of “back-radiation” or “radiative forcing” from IR-active greenhouse gases or clouds, or any absorption/emission spectra from greenhouse gases, all of which are the absolutely essential and critical underpinnings of the entire 33C Arrhenius radiative greenhouse theory a.k.a. the catastrophic man-made CO2 global warming theory. Why not?"
And so, Peter Ridley, "History and Biography Lover" and others who have been brainwashed by climatologists, I suggest you now go and argue on the PSI thread for the above-linked post, for I have wasted enough of my time teaching you about the gravito-thermal effect and correcting your misapprehensions about radiation. You can have it all to yourself because I am banned there at PSI.
"The calculation of not only the entire troposphere temperature profile by the greenhouse equation, but also the calculation of the temperature profiles of all remaining levels of the entire atmosphere all the way to space at ~100,000 meters, by bootstrapping onto this seminal gravito-thermal model of the 1976 US Standard Atmosphere above the troposphere, will be the topic of the next post in this series.
"Thus, these hundreds of scientists were in effect “deniers” of the man-made CO2 global warming hypothesis that would come much later, and didn’t recognize any “radiative forcing” from any “greenhouse gases” at the time they provided an accurate physically derived & straightforward model of the atmosphere. Hansen’s (falsified) climate models and the CAGW hypothesis scare didn’t arrive until ~30 years later. These atmospheric scientists never once used any radiative calculations of “back-radiation” or “radiative forcing” from IR-active greenhouse gases or clouds, or any absorption/emission spectra from greenhouse gases, all of which are the absolutely essential and critical underpinnings of the entire 33C Arrhenius radiative greenhouse theory a.k.a. the catastrophic man-made CO2 global warming theory. Why not?"
And so, Peter Ridley, "History and Biography Lover" and others who have been brainwashed by climatologists, I suggest you now go and argue on the PSI thread for the above-linked post, for I have wasted enough of my time teaching you about the gravito-thermal effect and correcting your misapprehensions about radiation. You can have it all to yourself because I am banned there at PSI.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Climate Physicist2 years ago
NASA scientists published about the effect gravity around 1950.
When someone proves what Josef Loschmidt published about it in 1876 and what Dr Hans Jelbring (PhD in climatology) published in Energy and Environment in 2003 to be wrong, then there may be a need to publish a counter argument.
When the CSIRO in Australia (or anyone else) can find evidence of the greenhouse gas water vapor actually warming the surface, then maybe my study that showed it cooled may be worth checking or repeating on a larger scale. Do you find any fault with that study?
Meanwhile, as I have said many times, my 2013 paper "Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures" is being subjected to peer-review in open media for five (5) full years with a reward of AU $50,000 offered at https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com where the rest of my response to you may be read.
Over 1,000 peer-reviewed papers find fault in the radiative forcing greenhouse conjecture which violates the laws of physics.
In other words, established physics in reputable journals may be used to prove climatologists like Roy Spencer wrong. Read the latest posts on the effect of gravity at Principia Scientific Internation.
Cheers for the victory of gravity!
When someone proves what Josef Loschmidt published about it in 1876 and what Dr Hans Jelbring (PhD in climatology) published in Energy and Environment in 2003 to be wrong, then there may be a need to publish a counter argument.
When the CSIRO in Australia (or anyone else) can find evidence of the greenhouse gas water vapor actually warming the surface, then maybe my study that showed it cooled may be worth checking or repeating on a larger scale. Do you find any fault with that study?
Meanwhile, as I have said many times, my 2013 paper "Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures" is being subjected to peer-review in open media for five (5) full years with a reward of AU $50,000 offered at https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com where the rest of my response to you may be read.
Over 1,000 peer-reviewed papers find fault in the radiative forcing greenhouse conjecture which violates the laws of physics.
In other words, established physics in reputable journals may be used to prove climatologists like Roy Spencer wrong. Read the latest posts on the effect of gravity at Principia Scientific Internation.
Cheers for the victory of gravity!
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
David A. Burton2 years ago
Doug Cotton wrote, "my 2013 paper "Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures" is being subjected to peer-review in open media for five (5) full years with a reward of AU $50,000 offered"
Mr. Cotton, there's no such thing as "peer-review in open media." That's not peer-review, that's obfuscation.
Your site says, "REWARD now AU $50,000 for the first to prove me wrong" -- which is impossible, not because you can't be proved wrong, but because no one can be FIRST to prove you wrong, because you've ALREADY been proved wrong over and over. Moreover, since you're made yourself the judge of of your contest to prove yourself wrong, and you never admit to being wrong about anything at all, no matter how elementary your error, nor how conclusively it is proven, your "contest" is a sham, just like your fake physics.
Doug Cotton also wrote, "Over 1,000 peer-reviewed papers find fault in the radiative forcing greenhouse conjecture which violates the laws of physics."
More nonsense. Plenty of scientists have published papers in peer-reviewed journals, which dispute various aspects of climate alarmism. (In fact, I'm one of them.) But there certainly are NOT 1000 papers which claim that the warming effect of GHGs "violates the laws of physics."
That delusion is your own special niche, shared with your former colleagues at PSI, who can't get their rot published in peer-reviewed journals, either.
Mr. Cotton, there's no such thing as "peer-review in open media." That's not peer-review, that's obfuscation.
Your site says, "REWARD now AU $50,000 for the first to prove me wrong" -- which is impossible, not because you can't be proved wrong, but because no one can be FIRST to prove you wrong, because you've ALREADY been proved wrong over and over. Moreover, since you're made yourself the judge of of your contest to prove yourself wrong, and you never admit to being wrong about anything at all, no matter how elementary your error, nor how conclusively it is proven, your "contest" is a sham, just like your fake physics.
Doug Cotton also wrote, "Over 1,000 peer-reviewed papers find fault in the radiative forcing greenhouse conjecture which violates the laws of physics."
More nonsense. Plenty of scientists have published papers in peer-reviewed journals, which dispute various aspects of climate alarmism. (In fact, I'm one of them.) But there certainly are NOT 1000 papers which claim that the warming effect of GHGs "violates the laws of physics."
That delusion is your own special niche, shared with your former colleagues at PSI, who can't get their rot published in peer-reviewed journals, either.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Mr. Cotton, no one that I know of has argued that the temperature profile of the troposphere, for example, is not controlled by the (wet or dry, depending on the state of the air) adiabatic lapse rate – which controls and is controlled by vertical circulation. The tropospheric atmosphere is heated from below. The argument is not about the profile, but the starting temperature at the surface of the earth – which the article apparently takes for granted. Your "victory" excitement only validates Mr. Bo’s assessment of your unethical "Avatar" spamming of the article:
“Go away Doug! There’s a reason you’re banned from every site, because you pollute every thread with your nonsense. Citing your self in the third person is incredibly bad form.
YOU HAVEN’T DISCOVERED ANY NEW PHYSICS — YOU JUST NEVER REALLY GRASPED HIGH SCHOOL PHYSICS IN THE FIRST PLACE [my emphasis]!"
To reiterate: Loschmidt was talking (incorrectly) about a STATIC equilibrium in a column of gas. The tropospheric lapse rate occurs in a DYNAMIC system (the troposphere). You don’t even try to get the basics right.
PS: No, Loschmidt's conjecture is not a corollary of the second law, it is a violation of it. And, yes, radiative powers do add.
“Go away Doug! There’s a reason you’re banned from every site, because you pollute every thread with your nonsense. Citing your self in the third person is incredibly bad form.
YOU HAVEN’T DISCOVERED ANY NEW PHYSICS — YOU JUST NEVER REALLY GRASPED HIGH SCHOOL PHYSICS IN THE FIRST PLACE [my emphasis]!"
To reiterate: Loschmidt was talking (incorrectly) about a STATIC equilibrium in a column of gas. The tropospheric lapse rate occurs in a DYNAMIC system (the troposphere). You don’t even try to get the basics right.
PS: No, Loschmidt's conjecture is not a corollary of the second law, it is a violation of it. And, yes, radiative powers do add.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Peter Ridley2 years ago
Doug had me in stitches once again, this time with his 2nd April comment " .. my "Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics" .. was reviewed by Dr Hans Schreuder and acclaimed by John O'Sullivan at PSI .. ".
Regarding opinions on the very complicated scientific issue of the processes and drivers of the different global climates, acclaim from ex-high school art teacher, wannabe lawyer/journalist and PSI founding member/CEO John O'Sullivan (see 3.2 below) appears to me to be WORTHLESS.
As for John O'Sullivan's buddy, analytical chemist and PSI founding member/CFO Johannes Cornelis Schreuder (Hans), he may be many things but I have found no evidence that he is a "Dr" in any discipline (see 3.3 below).
My blog article "SpotlightON Principia Scientific International" (https://web.archive.org/web/20130602081200/http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/spotlighton-principia-scientific.html) provides detailed background information about many of the PSI members, including founding members Messrs O'Sullivan and Schreuder, e.g:
- QUOTE: ..
3.2 Co-Founder "CEO and Legal Consultant" John O'Sullivan ..
.. John O'Sullivan claims to have studied at Leicester University, UK from 1995-2000 for a Doctoral Degree in Education Management and Leadership and at State University of New York (SUNY) from 2004-2007 for a Bachelor’s Degree in International and Comparative Law. His wife (who lives in New York State) .. advised that .. they married there on 1st Jan, 1998, John stayed for barely a year, returned to the UK and has not been back to the USA in all those years ..
In his New York County Lawyers Association .. profile John O'Sullivan stated “Law School – University of Surrey/Hill .. Date Graduated - 01/2010 .. ”. There is an Internet-based .. “Hill University” which .. is one of 26 “ .. fake college websites .. ” listed as a “Diploma Mill” (http://www.diplomamillscam.com/fraud/hill-university-reviews) .. John’s wife advised that she had also come across a certificate from Hill University and " .. that is where he obtained a so called Law Degree .. ” ..
Why would someone who had earned a Bachelor’s Degree in International and Comparative Law from SUNY after completing studies there in 2007 claim in his NYCLA profile to have studied Law at University of Surrey/Hill and have qualified in Jan. 2010? ..
.. Not everyone swallowed John O'Sullivan's claims about .. litigating on both sides of the Atlantic as meaning he was a qualified and successful lawyer ..
.. at almost 50 years old John O'Sullivan had no track record of successfully managing any business venture at all. .. his WEBANGLIA.COM Ltd. business had been struck off after 4 years in existence making loss after annual loss ..
.. he said " .. Its indeed a strange world where folk with genuine scientific qualifications and credibility like Postma, Peirs Corbyn and Claes Johnson seem to need a front man without any formal scientific training and who requires name changing from time to time .. " ".
3.3 Co-Founder and "CFO" Johannes Cornelis Schreuder
.. Apart from Hans's numerous blog articles and his chapters in "Slaying the sky dragon" there appears to be no evidence of any peer-reviewed papers or significant scientific research of any sort by him ..
.. THE LONDON GAZETTE MONDAY 5 JULY 1999 announced that " .. SCHREUDER, Johannes Cornells, also known as Hans Schreuder, a Marine Technician .. Date of Bankruptcy Order— 28th June 1999 ..
.. None of these refer to Johannes Cornelis Schreuder as a scientist but simply as a "technician" ..
.. UNQUOTE.
As I have repeatedly opined, Doug's blog articles (or "papers" as he likes to call them) have not been subjected to competent peer review prior to publication in any respected scientific learned society journal.
Just because Doug decrees " .. that it is valid to use S-B to determine the MAXIMUM temperature of ANY body that is warmed only by a SINGLE source of radiation (whether or not that body is a black or grey body) because NOTHING GETS HOTTER THAN A BLACKBODY for any given flux .. " does not make it TRUTH.
As respected CACC-sceptic scientist (real) Dr. Roy Spencer said in March 2012 " ..
Temperature is determined by rates of energy gain and energy loss. It does not matter whether we are talking about the human body, a car engine, a pot of water on the stove, or the climate system. The temperature (and whether it is rising or falling) is determined by the rates of energy gain and energy loss. In the case of the climate system, the Earth receives energy from the sun (primarily at visible wavelengths of light), and loses energy to outer space (primarily at infrared wavelengths). A temperature rise can occur either from (1) increasing the rate of energy gain, or (2) decreasing the rate of energy loss. The greenhouse effect has to do with the 2nd of these possibilities.
.. Infrared absorbing gases reduce the rate at which the Earth loses infrared energy to space. Satellite measurements of the rate at which the Earth loses infrared energy to space have been made as early as the 1970’s, from the NASA Nimbus 4 spacecraft. The following plot (*) shows the IR intensity (vertical axis) as a function of IR wavelength (horizontal axis). The area under the jagged curve is proportional to the rate of energy loss to space. Note that at the wavelengths where water vapor, carbon dioxide, and ozone absorb and emit IR energy, the rate of energy loss by the Earth is reduced .. " (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/03/slaying-the-slayers-with-the-alabama-two-step/).
* Dr. Spencer provided a copy of the Guam spectral plot to which I keep trying to get Doug to pay proper attention.
One thing that I do agree with is Doug's statement that he has " .. wasted enough .. time teaching .. the gravito-thermal effect and correcting .. misapprehensions about radiation .. ". In my opinion, rather than promoting his distorted version of physics Doug would be better spending his time learning about atmospheric radiation, an excellent starting point being "A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation .. For meteorology and climatology students who require an introduction to the principles and practical consequences of atmospheric radiation .. By Grant W. Petty .. Professor of Atmospheric Science in the Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences department at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, where he teaches atmospheric physics and remote sensing to both undergraduate meteorology majors and graduate students. His research specialties include satellite microwave remote sensing of rainfall and other atmospheric variables, as well as radiative transfer modeling in three-dimensional clouds .. (http://www.sundogpublishing.com/shop/a-first-course-in-atmospheric-radiation-2nd-ed/).
At $36 Grant's book is in my opinion excellent value, unlike Doug's "Why It's Not Carbon Dioxide After All" at $20.48.
Regarding opinions on the very complicated scientific issue of the processes and drivers of the different global climates, acclaim from ex-high school art teacher, wannabe lawyer/journalist and PSI founding member/CEO John O'Sullivan (see 3.2 below) appears to me to be WORTHLESS.
As for John O'Sullivan's buddy, analytical chemist and PSI founding member/CFO Johannes Cornelis Schreuder (Hans), he may be many things but I have found no evidence that he is a "Dr" in any discipline (see 3.3 below).
My blog article "SpotlightON Principia Scientific International" (https://web.archive.org/web/20130602081200/http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/spotlighton-principia-scientific.html) provides detailed background information about many of the PSI members, including founding members Messrs O'Sullivan and Schreuder, e.g:
- QUOTE: ..
3.2 Co-Founder "CEO and Legal Consultant" John O'Sullivan ..
.. John O'Sullivan claims to have studied at Leicester University, UK from 1995-2000 for a Doctoral Degree in Education Management and Leadership and at State University of New York (SUNY) from 2004-2007 for a Bachelor’s Degree in International and Comparative Law. His wife (who lives in New York State) .. advised that .. they married there on 1st Jan, 1998, John stayed for barely a year, returned to the UK and has not been back to the USA in all those years ..
In his New York County Lawyers Association .. profile John O'Sullivan stated “Law School – University of Surrey/Hill .. Date Graduated - 01/2010 .. ”. There is an Internet-based .. “Hill University” which .. is one of 26 “ .. fake college websites .. ” listed as a “Diploma Mill” (http://www.diplomamillscam.com/fraud/hill-university-reviews) .. John’s wife advised that she had also come across a certificate from Hill University and " .. that is where he obtained a so called Law Degree .. ” ..
Why would someone who had earned a Bachelor’s Degree in International and Comparative Law from SUNY after completing studies there in 2007 claim in his NYCLA profile to have studied Law at University of Surrey/Hill and have qualified in Jan. 2010? ..
.. Not everyone swallowed John O'Sullivan's claims about .. litigating on both sides of the Atlantic as meaning he was a qualified and successful lawyer ..
.. at almost 50 years old John O'Sullivan had no track record of successfully managing any business venture at all. .. his WEBANGLIA.COM Ltd. business had been struck off after 4 years in existence making loss after annual loss ..
.. he said " .. Its indeed a strange world where folk with genuine scientific qualifications and credibility like Postma, Peirs Corbyn and Claes Johnson seem to need a front man without any formal scientific training and who requires name changing from time to time .. " ".
3.3 Co-Founder and "CFO" Johannes Cornelis Schreuder
.. Apart from Hans's numerous blog articles and his chapters in "Slaying the sky dragon" there appears to be no evidence of any peer-reviewed papers or significant scientific research of any sort by him ..
.. THE LONDON GAZETTE MONDAY 5 JULY 1999 announced that " .. SCHREUDER, Johannes Cornells, also known as Hans Schreuder, a Marine Technician .. Date of Bankruptcy Order— 28th June 1999 ..
.. None of these refer to Johannes Cornelis Schreuder as a scientist but simply as a "technician" ..
.. UNQUOTE.
As I have repeatedly opined, Doug's blog articles (or "papers" as he likes to call them) have not been subjected to competent peer review prior to publication in any respected scientific learned society journal.
Just because Doug decrees " .. that it is valid to use S-B to determine the MAXIMUM temperature of ANY body that is warmed only by a SINGLE source of radiation (whether or not that body is a black or grey body) because NOTHING GETS HOTTER THAN A BLACKBODY for any given flux .. " does not make it TRUTH.
As respected CACC-sceptic scientist (real) Dr. Roy Spencer said in March 2012 " ..
Temperature is determined by rates of energy gain and energy loss. It does not matter whether we are talking about the human body, a car engine, a pot of water on the stove, or the climate system. The temperature (and whether it is rising or falling) is determined by the rates of energy gain and energy loss. In the case of the climate system, the Earth receives energy from the sun (primarily at visible wavelengths of light), and loses energy to outer space (primarily at infrared wavelengths). A temperature rise can occur either from (1) increasing the rate of energy gain, or (2) decreasing the rate of energy loss. The greenhouse effect has to do with the 2nd of these possibilities.
.. Infrared absorbing gases reduce the rate at which the Earth loses infrared energy to space. Satellite measurements of the rate at which the Earth loses infrared energy to space have been made as early as the 1970’s, from the NASA Nimbus 4 spacecraft. The following plot (*) shows the IR intensity (vertical axis) as a function of IR wavelength (horizontal axis). The area under the jagged curve is proportional to the rate of energy loss to space. Note that at the wavelengths where water vapor, carbon dioxide, and ozone absorb and emit IR energy, the rate of energy loss by the Earth is reduced .. " (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/03/slaying-the-slayers-with-the-alabama-two-step/).
* Dr. Spencer provided a copy of the Guam spectral plot to which I keep trying to get Doug to pay proper attention.
One thing that I do agree with is Doug's statement that he has " .. wasted enough .. time teaching .. the gravito-thermal effect and correcting .. misapprehensions about radiation .. ". In my opinion, rather than promoting his distorted version of physics Doug would be better spending his time learning about atmospheric radiation, an excellent starting point being "A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation .. For meteorology and climatology students who require an introduction to the principles and practical consequences of atmospheric radiation .. By Grant W. Petty .. Professor of Atmospheric Science in the Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences department at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, where he teaches atmospheric physics and remote sensing to both undergraduate meteorology majors and graduate students. His research specialties include satellite microwave remote sensing of rainfall and other atmospheric variables, as well as radiative transfer modeling in three-dimensional clouds .. (http://www.sundogpublishing.com/shop/a-first-course-in-atmospheric-radiation-2nd-ed/).
At $36 Grant's book is in my opinion excellent value, unlike Doug's "Why It's Not Carbon Dioxide After All" at $20.48.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
David A. Burton2 years ago
Doug Cotton wrote, "If radiative fluxes... add then, if an electric bar radiator at a certain distance warms your cheek to 42°C (which is 315K) then 16 such radiators would cook you at double the absolute temperature according to your conjecture (and NASA's and the IPCC's) namely 630K. They don't..."
Good grief, Mr. Cotton. Why do you keep posting this nonsense, over and over, AFTER AHistory&BiographyLover has already explained it to you with such clarity, just one week ago (3/28/2017):
"Actually, Mr. Cotton, if your cheek were a blackbody in empty space (no other radiation source including no back radiation), and one radiator raised its temperature to 42 degree C, 16 radiators would double the absolute temperature of that cheek to 357 degree C. The power the radiators deliver to the cheek are additive. 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?"
Mr. Cotton, are you really incapable of understanding that very simple explanation? Or are you simply unwilling to ADMIT that you understand it, because your PRIDE won't let you ADMIT that you were wrong?
Ref #1:
https://www.amazon.com/review/R3L4RWMLCPUD1O/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?ie=UTF8&asin=1478729228&cdForum=FxGKOKBYP090RE&cdMsgID=Mx3RLKTDBV8B4E4&cdMsgNo=118&cdPage=12&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx1P6O3C1OQHC5J&store=books#Mx3RLKTDBV8B4E4
Ref #2:
“Everyone with a proud heart is detestable to the Lord; be assured, he will not go unpunished.”
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+16:5
Good grief, Mr. Cotton. Why do you keep posting this nonsense, over and over, AFTER AHistory&BiographyLover has already explained it to you with such clarity, just one week ago (3/28/2017):
"Actually, Mr. Cotton, if your cheek were a blackbody in empty space (no other radiation source including no back radiation), and one radiator raised its temperature to 42 degree C, 16 radiators would double the absolute temperature of that cheek to 357 degree C. The power the radiators deliver to the cheek are additive. 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?"
Mr. Cotton, are you really incapable of understanding that very simple explanation? Or are you simply unwilling to ADMIT that you understand it, because your PRIDE won't let you ADMIT that you were wrong?
Ref #1:
https://www.amazon.com/review/R3L4RWMLCPUD1O/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?ie=UTF8&asin=1478729228&cdForum=FxGKOKBYP090RE&cdMsgID=Mx3RLKTDBV8B4E4&cdMsgNo=118&cdPage=12&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx1P6O3C1OQHC5J&store=books#Mx3RLKTDBV8B4E4
Ref #2:
“Everyone with a proud heart is detestable to the Lord; be assured, he will not go unpunished.”
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+16:5
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Doug Cotton wrote, "Sixteen radiators would do no such thing in Space because the sum of 16 Planck functions cannot possibly have a greater peak frequency than any one of them."
"Frequency?" Nobody said anything about frequency. Mr. Cotton, do you really not understand the difference between power and frequency??
Mr. Cotton continued, "...resonating processes wherein some of the incident energy is sometimes converted only to electron energy, not kinetic (thermal) energy..."
That is complete gibberish.
There's no such thing as "electron energy" (in the sense that you're using the term), and the distribution of energy in a warm object among the constituent molecules' various translational, vibrational & rotational modes is no different if the object is heated by one electric heater or sixteen. (Unless the matter undergoes a phase change, of course.)
"Frequency?" Nobody said anything about frequency. Mr. Cotton, do you really not understand the difference between power and frequency??
Mr. Cotton continued, "...resonating processes wherein some of the incident energy is sometimes converted only to electron energy, not kinetic (thermal) energy..."
That is complete gibberish.
There's no such thing as "electron energy" (in the sense that you're using the term), and the distribution of energy in a warm object among the constituent molecules' various translational, vibrational & rotational modes is no different if the object is heated by one electric heater or sixteen. (Unless the matter undergoes a phase change, of course.)
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
David A. Burton2 years ago
Doug Cotton wrote, "temperature attained by radiation is proportional to the peak (modal) frequency"
That's complete gibberish. Radiation doesn't attain "temperature." Radiation has power, wavelength/frequency, direction, polarization, but NOT temperature.
Mr. Cotton continued, "I referred you to Wien's Displacement Law."
That's more proof of your confusion. Wien's Displacement Law has nothing to do with any of this. It describes black body emission spectra, and GHGs do not even slightly resemble black bodies.
Perhaps you are confused because your light bulbs are specified with a "color temperature." That doesn't mean the light from the light bulb is any temperature, it is just a rough indication of the spectral distribution of the light which that bulb produces. It means that the light is supposed to LOOK similar to the human eye to light which WOULD be emitted by a black body of that temperature. Here's a pretty good article:
http://www.soundandvision.com/content/led-vs-cfl-bulbs-color-temp-light-spectrum-and-more
Doug Cotton continued, "Electron (potential) energy is increased when electrons move up through one or more quantum states, you clot!"
Well, of course, but that's not what we were talking about.
IR photons do not "move electrons up through one or more quantum states." The energy associated with electrons making atomic orbital transitions is much higher than the thermal and infrared photon energies we've been talking about. CO2's LWIR is centered around 15,000 nm wavelength, which means that each photon has less than one-twentieth of the energy of a photon in the visible spectrum, and not anywhere near enough energy to elevate electrons to higher orbitals.
Perhaps you've noticed that the atmosphere is transparent in the visible spectrum. That's because the molecules which make up the atmosphere (mainly N2, O2, Ar, CO2, H2O), and the atoms which make up those molecules, do NOT absorb photons in the visible spectrum. When gas does not absorb at a particular wavelength, it means that none of the transitions of which it is capable correspond to the energy of photons at that wavelength.
Most atmospheric gases do not absorb LWIR, either, but CO2 and H2O do. But they do NOT do so via electron transitions to higher atomic orbitals; there's not nearly enough energy in a LWIR photon for that. CO2's 15,000 nm absorption band is due to a molecular bending-mode transition, as illustrated in this diagram:
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/earth/climate/images/carbon.gif
(Note: that diagram is wrong in one respect. It should not show the absorbed IR photon being re-emitted by the same molecule. While that can happen, it's not the usual case. In the troposphere >99.99999% of the LWIR photons which CO2 absorbs are not re-emitted. Instead, the absorbed energy is transferred by collisions with other air molecules, so it just heats the air. That's why the CO2 stays in thermal equilibrium with the rest of the air, even while absorbing very intense IR. It is also why the amount of 15,000 nm IR emitted by atmospheric CO2 depends only on the atmosphere's temperature (and CO2 partial pressure), not on how the air got to that temperature. Whether the ground is very cold and emits little IR, or very warm and emits lots of IR, will not affect the amount of IR emitted by the CO2 in the adjacent atmosphere, except by affecting the temperature of that air.)
Mr. Cotton also wrote, "you have not studied physics to third year Distinction Level in any recognized university, as I have."
Is that supposed to be impressive? I don't even know what a "distinction level" is -- it must be some sort of Australian thing.
I don't find any CV for you on your web sites, either; e.g. there's no mention of your qualifications here:
http://ageslowly.homestead.com/
So, exactly what degree(s) did you earn, and where?
Did you write a dissertation or thesis? Is it published anywhere?
That's complete gibberish. Radiation doesn't attain "temperature." Radiation has power, wavelength/frequency, direction, polarization, but NOT temperature.
Mr. Cotton continued, "I referred you to Wien's Displacement Law."
That's more proof of your confusion. Wien's Displacement Law has nothing to do with any of this. It describes black body emission spectra, and GHGs do not even slightly resemble black bodies.
Perhaps you are confused because your light bulbs are specified with a "color temperature." That doesn't mean the light from the light bulb is any temperature, it is just a rough indication of the spectral distribution of the light which that bulb produces. It means that the light is supposed to LOOK similar to the human eye to light which WOULD be emitted by a black body of that temperature. Here's a pretty good article:
http://www.soundandvision.com/content/led-vs-cfl-bulbs-color-temp-light-spectrum-and-more
Doug Cotton continued, "Electron (potential) energy is increased when electrons move up through one or more quantum states, you clot!"
Well, of course, but that's not what we were talking about.
IR photons do not "move electrons up through one or more quantum states." The energy associated with electrons making atomic orbital transitions is much higher than the thermal and infrared photon energies we've been talking about. CO2's LWIR is centered around 15,000 nm wavelength, which means that each photon has less than one-twentieth of the energy of a photon in the visible spectrum, and not anywhere near enough energy to elevate electrons to higher orbitals.
Perhaps you've noticed that the atmosphere is transparent in the visible spectrum. That's because the molecules which make up the atmosphere (mainly N2, O2, Ar, CO2, H2O), and the atoms which make up those molecules, do NOT absorb photons in the visible spectrum. When gas does not absorb at a particular wavelength, it means that none of the transitions of which it is capable correspond to the energy of photons at that wavelength.
Most atmospheric gases do not absorb LWIR, either, but CO2 and H2O do. But they do NOT do so via electron transitions to higher atomic orbitals; there's not nearly enough energy in a LWIR photon for that. CO2's 15,000 nm absorption band is due to a molecular bending-mode transition, as illustrated in this diagram:
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/earth/climate/images/carbon.gif
(Note: that diagram is wrong in one respect. It should not show the absorbed IR photon being re-emitted by the same molecule. While that can happen, it's not the usual case. In the troposphere >99.99999% of the LWIR photons which CO2 absorbs are not re-emitted. Instead, the absorbed energy is transferred by collisions with other air molecules, so it just heats the air. That's why the CO2 stays in thermal equilibrium with the rest of the air, even while absorbing very intense IR. It is also why the amount of 15,000 nm IR emitted by atmospheric CO2 depends only on the atmosphere's temperature (and CO2 partial pressure), not on how the air got to that temperature. Whether the ground is very cold and emits little IR, or very warm and emits lots of IR, will not affect the amount of IR emitted by the CO2 in the adjacent atmosphere, except by affecting the temperature of that air.)
Mr. Cotton also wrote, "you have not studied physics to third year Distinction Level in any recognized university, as I have."
Is that supposed to be impressive? I don't even know what a "distinction level" is -- it must be some sort of Australian thing.
I don't find any CV for you on your web sites, either; e.g. there's no mention of your qualifications here:
http://ageslowly.homestead.com/
So, exactly what degree(s) did you earn, and where?
Did you write a dissertation or thesis? Is it published anywhere?
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Doug Cotton wrote, "In other words, the temperature which black body radiation achieves in a black body target is proportional to the peak frequency."
That is such complete nonsense that I think you are lying about having a BS in physics. Nobody with a BS in physics could possibly say something so obviously wrong. When and where do you claim to have been awarded a physics degree? Which year and which university?
Wien's displacement law predicts black body EMISSIONS, not absorption. The TEMPERATURE which a black body reaches has NOTHING at all to do with the peak frequency of the radiation which heats it.
In fact, that is what makes it a black body: the fact that it absorbs ALL incoming radiation, without preference.
Which do you think will heat a black body (or your dinner) to a higher temperature? A 5 mW green laser pointer at 532 nm (563,000 GHz), or an 1100 W microwave oven at 12.5 cm (2.4 GHz)?
Each green photon contains 235,000 times as much energy as each microwave photon! But that doesn't matter at all. What matters is the total amount & rate of energy transferred.
A black body would absorb either photon (green visible or microwave) without preference, so you could heat it equally effectively with green photons or microwave photons. But the microwave oven puts out 220 million times as much energy as the green laser pointer, so the microwave oven would heat a black body 220 million times faster than the green laser pointer (assuming that all the emitted energy reaches the target).
This is VERY elementary. You should not be able to pass a high school physics course without understanding it. I do not believe that either Sydney University or Macquarie University awarded a physics degree to someone who does not understand this.
That is such complete nonsense that I think you are lying about having a BS in physics. Nobody with a BS in physics could possibly say something so obviously wrong. When and where do you claim to have been awarded a physics degree? Which year and which university?
Wien's displacement law predicts black body EMISSIONS, not absorption. The TEMPERATURE which a black body reaches has NOTHING at all to do with the peak frequency of the radiation which heats it.
In fact, that is what makes it a black body: the fact that it absorbs ALL incoming radiation, without preference.
Which do you think will heat a black body (or your dinner) to a higher temperature? A 5 mW green laser pointer at 532 nm (563,000 GHz), or an 1100 W microwave oven at 12.5 cm (2.4 GHz)?
Each green photon contains 235,000 times as much energy as each microwave photon! But that doesn't matter at all. What matters is the total amount & rate of energy transferred.
A black body would absorb either photon (green visible or microwave) without preference, so you could heat it equally effectively with green photons or microwave photons. But the microwave oven puts out 220 million times as much energy as the green laser pointer, so the microwave oven would heat a black body 220 million times faster than the green laser pointer (assuming that all the emitted energy reaches the target).
This is VERY elementary. You should not be able to pass a high school physics course without understanding it. I do not believe that either Sydney University or Macquarie University awarded a physics degree to someone who does not understand this.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Wow, another collection of scientifically illiterate gibberish by Doug Cotton. E.g., "black body absorption in an atom" -- good grief!
But tucked away right in the middle of it Mr. Cotton snuck in a bald-faced lie about me: "Burton thinks that carbon dioxide molecules hardly emit ANY radiation."
For the record, I most certainly do NOT think that.
I also notice that Mr. Cotton wrote nearly 1000 words WITHOUT answering my question: When and where, Mr. Cotton, do you claim to have been awarded a physics degree? Which year and which university?
It doesn't surprise me that he didn't answer. I didn't expect an answer, because I doubt that there is one.
But tucked away right in the middle of it Mr. Cotton snuck in a bald-faced lie about me: "Burton thinks that carbon dioxide molecules hardly emit ANY radiation."
For the record, I most certainly do NOT think that.
I also notice that Mr. Cotton wrote nearly 1000 words WITHOUT answering my question: When and where, Mr. Cotton, do you claim to have been awarded a physics degree? Which year and which university?
It doesn't surprise me that he didn't answer. I didn't expect an answer, because I doubt that there is one.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
In a comment below David Burton wrote "In the troposphere >99.99999% of the LWIR photons which CO2 absorbs are not re-emitted." Well what is it emitting? Does a carbon dioxide molecule "know" that a certain portion of its thermal energy came from collisions? Can it distinguish that thermal energy from what it attained via absorption of radiation? What about water vapor? What does it emit? The facts are that over 98% of the thermal energy in Earth's atmosphere is in oxygen, nitrogen and argon molecules. It is the IR-active (so-called "greenhouse") molecules that are the only ones cooling the atmosphere by radiating energy back to space: they act like holes in a blanket. Whatever radiation strikes a warmer target below undergoes resonant (or "pseudo") scattering and so does not add any thermal energy to that target. If it did it would decrease entropy in an independent natural process, and physics tells us that cannot happen. Every one-way pencil of radiation is an independent process and entropy will not decrease in that process. There are no other dependent "interacting thermodynamic systems" as are referred to in the Second Law of Thermodynamics which reads: "In a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems increases." [Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics.] So-called "net" effects are irrelevant. This is all explained in my 2012 paper "Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics" at https://ssrn.com/author=2627605 where you may also read my "Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures" and my "Comprehensive Refutation of the Radiative Forcing Greenhouse Hypothesis."
The radiative forcing greenhouse conjecture is false because you cannot explain Earth's surface temperature with 168W/m^2 of solar radiation plus an overstated (and impossible) flux of 324W/m^2 of atmospheric radiation.
The Alarmists writing this review and the comments in this thread think physics is just formulas which they misapply because they have not studied physics to degree level and learned to UNDERSTAND it in a recognised university. There is copious empirical evidence proving them wrong, such as real-world data that confirm water vapor cools, as my hypothesis predicts it should.
In contrast to what has become the biggest deceptive scam in history, my hypothesis in my three papers and this book is developed directly from the laws of physics and, more importantly, supported by an abundance of empirical evidence both on Earth and throughout the Solar System. If you think you can fault it there is a reward of AU $50,000 (about US $35,000) offered at http://whyitsnotco2.com but all submissions must be on my blog which is linked and must show evidence of having read the hypothesis.
As for Burton's question, it is answered a third time here ....
Douglas Cotton B.Sc (physics), B.A. (economics), Dip.Bus.Admin
Sydney and Macquarie Universities (1963 to 1972 inclusive)
Awarded four academic scholarships including one by the Physics Dept of the University of Sydney
The radiative forcing greenhouse conjecture is false because you cannot explain Earth's surface temperature with 168W/m^2 of solar radiation plus an overstated (and impossible) flux of 324W/m^2 of atmospheric radiation.
The Alarmists writing this review and the comments in this thread think physics is just formulas which they misapply because they have not studied physics to degree level and learned to UNDERSTAND it in a recognised university. There is copious empirical evidence proving them wrong, such as real-world data that confirm water vapor cools, as my hypothesis predicts it should.
In contrast to what has become the biggest deceptive scam in history, my hypothesis in my three papers and this book is developed directly from the laws of physics and, more importantly, supported by an abundance of empirical evidence both on Earth and throughout the Solar System. If you think you can fault it there is a reward of AU $50,000 (about US $35,000) offered at http://whyitsnotco2.com but all submissions must be on my blog which is linked and must show evidence of having read the hypothesis.
As for Burton's question, it is answered a third time here ....
Douglas Cotton B.Sc (physics), B.A. (economics), Dip.Bus.Admin
Sydney and Macquarie Universities (1963 to 1972 inclusive)
Awarded four academic scholarships including one by the Physics Dept of the University of Sydney
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Climate Physicist2 years ago
You don't have to take my word for it. I suggest you read the comment at https://www.quora.com/The-greenhouse-effect-has-never-been-demonstrated-Is-it-Fake-Science by ...
John Murphy, BSc (hons) Physics from London University a long time ago
Written yesterday
Fake Science is a good description because the Greenhouse Gas Effect (GHE) cannot exist.
Not only that – it is straightforward to prove it doesn’t exist.
How people have got away with this stuff for so long amazes me.
Below are a couple of proofs that the GHE can’t exist. ....
...
The key here is in the “Energy balance at the the Earth’s surface” box.
Here the Solar radiation flux is added to the flux from the Greenhouse gases (Infrared radiation from the atmosphere) to get a total flux – and from there using Boltzmann's (fourth power) relationship the Earth’s temperature is calculated.
Who said you can add fluxes together?
Just because measurements are the in the same units does not mean you can add or aggregate them .
Did anyone test it?
Where are the examples that you can add radiation flux to radiation flux
Who made that assumption – and why don’t students challenge it?
Nobody suggests adding temperatures together – why do they think of adding fluxes together? There is no precedent – it does not happen anywhere else in the known universe.
It would mean (amongst other impossible things) that heat from a source would be added to whatever was there in the first place; heat piling on top of heat.
Straight out of Alice in Wonderland which used to be Literature not Physics.
I like to think that in my day they’d never get away with because it’s completely wrong; you just can’t add fluxes together. It would mean that two or more sources of radiation aimed at the same target would create a higher temperature than either of the sources could acting alone.
And that’s an easily testable property of heat and heat transfer. It is not a property of Climate or Atmosphere – it is a heat-transfer property of heat. It may be necessary for the GHE theory to work – but it is a basic heat property.
It must work everywhere – basic properties are not selective.
Theoretical proof that two or more sources of radiation aimed at the same target do not create a temperature based on adding the individual fluxes together.
Take a high number of electric bar elements (1kw) and surround a block of iron.
Very quickly the block of iron will become much, much hotter than the wire in the elements.
The block of iron will radiate and begin to increase the temperature of the elements – which will then radiate more heat towards the iron block.
(Note that the block of iron can be made as hot as you wish – just add more elements.)
The block of iron will then get even hotter still – and so on ad-infinitum.
The positive feedback effect (actually unknown in nature) would progress at near the speed of light and as there is nothing to slow it down or stop it (convection being far too slow) it would consume the universe.
Not only that, it would do so without energy; no extra energy is needed at the elements for them to get hotter and hotter to infinity.
Completely impossible or Alice in Wonderland – take your pick.
Two or more sources of radiation aimed at the same target do not create a temperature based on adding the individual fluxes together.
Therefore the GHE which relies on the two sources of Solar radiation and GHE radiation to be summed cannot be true.
The Earth’s surface reaches the temperature achieved by either Solar or GHE acting alone – they cannot be added together. (See experimental results for the algebra / arithmetic)
To test it experimentally is fairly straightforward; either do this at home or get your university to do it better: (and you can read the rest with the above link)
John Murphy, BSc (hons) Physics from London University a long time ago
Written yesterday
Fake Science is a good description because the Greenhouse Gas Effect (GHE) cannot exist.
Not only that – it is straightforward to prove it doesn’t exist.
How people have got away with this stuff for so long amazes me.
Below are a couple of proofs that the GHE can’t exist. ....
...
The key here is in the “Energy balance at the the Earth’s surface” box.
Here the Solar radiation flux is added to the flux from the Greenhouse gases (Infrared radiation from the atmosphere) to get a total flux – and from there using Boltzmann's (fourth power) relationship the Earth’s temperature is calculated.
Who said you can add fluxes together?
Just because measurements are the in the same units does not mean you can add or aggregate them .
Did anyone test it?
Where are the examples that you can add radiation flux to radiation flux
Who made that assumption – and why don’t students challenge it?
Nobody suggests adding temperatures together – why do they think of adding fluxes together? There is no precedent – it does not happen anywhere else in the known universe.
It would mean (amongst other impossible things) that heat from a source would be added to whatever was there in the first place; heat piling on top of heat.
Straight out of Alice in Wonderland which used to be Literature not Physics.
I like to think that in my day they’d never get away with because it’s completely wrong; you just can’t add fluxes together. It would mean that two or more sources of radiation aimed at the same target would create a higher temperature than either of the sources could acting alone.
And that’s an easily testable property of heat and heat transfer. It is not a property of Climate or Atmosphere – it is a heat-transfer property of heat. It may be necessary for the GHE theory to work – but it is a basic heat property.
It must work everywhere – basic properties are not selective.
Theoretical proof that two or more sources of radiation aimed at the same target do not create a temperature based on adding the individual fluxes together.
Take a high number of electric bar elements (1kw) and surround a block of iron.
Very quickly the block of iron will become much, much hotter than the wire in the elements.
The block of iron will radiate and begin to increase the temperature of the elements – which will then radiate more heat towards the iron block.
(Note that the block of iron can be made as hot as you wish – just add more elements.)
The block of iron will then get even hotter still – and so on ad-infinitum.
The positive feedback effect (actually unknown in nature) would progress at near the speed of light and as there is nothing to slow it down or stop it (convection being far too slow) it would consume the universe.
Not only that, it would do so without energy; no extra energy is needed at the elements for them to get hotter and hotter to infinity.
Completely impossible or Alice in Wonderland – take your pick.
Two or more sources of radiation aimed at the same target do not create a temperature based on adding the individual fluxes together.
Therefore the GHE which relies on the two sources of Solar radiation and GHE radiation to be summed cannot be true.
The Earth’s surface reaches the temperature achieved by either Solar or GHE acting alone – they cannot be added together. (See experimental results for the algebra / arithmetic)
To test it experimentally is fairly straightforward; either do this at home or get your university to do it better: (and you can read the rest with the above link)
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Hi Doug,
Are you talking about that Sydney University 1962 Summer School that you attended with 150 other high school students?
Also, is that John Murphy just another of your many many sock puppets?
Are you talking about that Sydney University 1962 Summer School that you attended with 150 other high school students?
Also, is that John Murphy just another of your many many sock puppets?
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
I explained how CO2 remains in thermal equilibrium with the rest of the atmosphere, even if it is absorbing large amounts of IR, but Mr. Cotton obviously didn't understand it. He wrote, "Burton thinks that carbon dioxide molecules hardly emit ANY radiation."
I replied, "I most certainly do NOT think that."
Still confused, Mr. Cotton replied, "In a comment below David Burton wrote 'In the troposphere >99.99999% of the LWIR photons which CO2 absorbs are not re-emitted.' Well what is it emitting? Does a carbon dioxide molecule 'know' that a certain portion of its thermal energy came from collisions? Can it distinguish that thermal energy from what it attained via absorption of radiation?"
I'll try to make this as simple as possible, for Mr. Cotton.
When a CO2 molecule absorbs 0.083 eV of energy, corresponding to a molecular bending-mode vibration, it may acquire the energy either by collision(s) with other air molecule(s) or by absorption of a 15,000 nm LWIR photon. It will remain in that excited state until it gives up the energy: again, either by collision with another air molecule, or by emission of a photon.
The relative likelihoods of those two ways of releasing that energy are determined probabilistically, according to the relative mean amounts of time before the energy is lost in the two different ways. So what are those lifetimes?
At one atmosphere air pressure and comfortable air temperatures, it will be only a few nanoseconds, on average, before the IR molecule gives up the energy by collision.
However, it takes, on average, about one second(!!!) for it to give up the energy by emission of an IR photon.
Compared to the time between collisions that is VERY long.
That means when a CO2 molecule is in that excited state, >99.99999% of the time it will give up the energy by collision with another air molecule, rather than by emission of a photon. (Aside: if you count the nines, you may think there aren't enough of them... that's intentional, because I wanted what I wrote to be true for the entire troposphere, not just at sea level.)
However, that does NOT mean "carbon dioxide molecules hardly emit any radiation," because although CO2 molecules are constantly giving up energy by collision with other air molecules, they are also constantly absorbing energy from other air molecules. That continual process of collisional energy transfer between air molecules keeps the constituent gases in the atmosphere in thermal equilibrium. So the amount of IR emitted by CO2 in the air is determined by just two factors: 1. the temperature of the air, and 2. the partial pressure of the CO2.
I replied, "I most certainly do NOT think that."
Still confused, Mr. Cotton replied, "In a comment below David Burton wrote 'In the troposphere >99.99999% of the LWIR photons which CO2 absorbs are not re-emitted.' Well what is it emitting? Does a carbon dioxide molecule 'know' that a certain portion of its thermal energy came from collisions? Can it distinguish that thermal energy from what it attained via absorption of radiation?"
I'll try to make this as simple as possible, for Mr. Cotton.
When a CO2 molecule absorbs 0.083 eV of energy, corresponding to a molecular bending-mode vibration, it may acquire the energy either by collision(s) with other air molecule(s) or by absorption of a 15,000 nm LWIR photon. It will remain in that excited state until it gives up the energy: again, either by collision with another air molecule, or by emission of a photon.
The relative likelihoods of those two ways of releasing that energy are determined probabilistically, according to the relative mean amounts of time before the energy is lost in the two different ways. So what are those lifetimes?
At one atmosphere air pressure and comfortable air temperatures, it will be only a few nanoseconds, on average, before the IR molecule gives up the energy by collision.
However, it takes, on average, about one second(!!!) for it to give up the energy by emission of an IR photon.
Compared to the time between collisions that is VERY long.
That means when a CO2 molecule is in that excited state, >99.99999% of the time it will give up the energy by collision with another air molecule, rather than by emission of a photon. (Aside: if you count the nines, you may think there aren't enough of them... that's intentional, because I wanted what I wrote to be true for the entire troposphere, not just at sea level.)
However, that does NOT mean "carbon dioxide molecules hardly emit any radiation," because although CO2 molecules are constantly giving up energy by collision with other air molecules, they are also constantly absorbing energy from other air molecules. That continual process of collisional energy transfer between air molecules keeps the constituent gases in the atmosphere in thermal equilibrium. So the amount of IR emitted by CO2 in the air is determined by just two factors: 1. the temperature of the air, and 2. the partial pressure of the CO2.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
David A. Burton2 years ago
Once again, Doug Cotton has declined to answer my simple question: When and where were you awarded a physics degree, Mr. Cotton? Which year and which university?
The answer, if there is one, is NOT a ten-year range of dates, and NOT a list of two schools. It is a single year, and a single university.
I don't expect an answer, because I doubt that there is one. But if I am wrong, Mr. Cotton, and you really DO have a physics degree, then answer the question: in which year was it awarded, and by which university?
The answer, if there is one, is NOT a ten-year range of dates, and NOT a list of two schools. It is a single year, and a single university.
I don't expect an answer, because I doubt that there is one. But if I am wrong, Mr. Cotton, and you really DO have a physics degree, then answer the question: in which year was it awarded, and by which university?
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Peter Ridley2 years agoIn reply toan earlier post
David A. Burton2 years ago
Once again, Doug Cotton has declined to answer my simple question: When and where were you awarded a physics degree, Mr. Cotton? Which year and which university?
The answer, if there is one, is NOT a ten-year range of dates, and NOT a list of two schools. It is a single year, and a single university.
I don't expect an answer, because I doubt that there is one. But if I am wrong, Mr. Cotton, and you really DO have a physics degree, then answer the question: in which year was it awarded, and by which university?
The answer, if there is one, is NOT a ten-year range of dates, and NOT a list of two schools. It is a single year, and a single university.
I don't expect an answer, because I doubt that there is one. But if I am wrong, Mr. Cotton, and you really DO have a physics degree, then answer the question: in which year was it awarded, and by which university?
Hi Doug,
During exchanges in December 2011 with members of the PSI blogging group (which you were proud to be a member of) its front man John O'Sullivan was challenged about his claims to having an accredited Law Degree. In retaliation he accused investigative journalist Andrew Skolnick of lying about having an MSc.
Both were challenged to provide evidence to support their claims. John O'Sullivan never did provide any evidence to refute that he had bought his degree from "Hill University", an on-line diploma mill. On the other hand, Andrew Skolnick quickly provided me with a certified copy of his MSc.
(See my Aug. 2012 comment following the revealing article "Affidavits in Michael Mann Libel Suit Reveal Astonishing Facts About Tim Ball Associate John O'Sullivan" at https://www.desmogblog.com/comment/727946#comment-727946).
Why don't you do what Andrew did and send me a certified copy of your degrees in Physics and Maths so that you can at least get David Burton off your back on this issue.
During exchanges in December 2011 with members of the PSI blogging group (which you were proud to be a member of) its front man John O'Sullivan was challenged about his claims to having an accredited Law Degree. In retaliation he accused investigative journalist Andrew Skolnick of lying about having an MSc.
Both were challenged to provide evidence to support their claims. John O'Sullivan never did provide any evidence to refute that he had bought his degree from "Hill University", an on-line diploma mill. On the other hand, Andrew Skolnick quickly provided me with a certified copy of his MSc.
(See my Aug. 2012 comment following the revealing article "Affidavits in Michael Mann Libel Suit Reveal Astonishing Facts About Tim Ball Associate John O'Sullivan" at https://www.desmogblog.com/comment/727946#comment-727946).
Why don't you do what Andrew did and send me a certified copy of your degrees in Physics and Maths so that you can at least get David Burton off your back on this issue.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
As physicists learn and understand in degree-level university physics courses (such as I completed at the University of Sydney in 1966, with graduation ceremony early in 1967) we cannot use Stefan-Boltzmann calculations for an input of two or more sources of radiation because that Law is based on the integral of a single Planck function. Yet that is what climatologists do (with their self-taught one year course on atmospheric physics) because they could think of no other explanation as to how the necessary thermal energy gets into Earth's surface. In fact, as Dr Roy Spencer admitted, their figure of 324W/m^2 for atmospheric radiation is just a calculated value that gives 288K for the surface temperature as explained here: http://whyitsnotco2.com/PSI.html. It is an overstated and totally impossible flux for the atmosphere to emit, anyway, and virtually all atmospheric radiation impinging on the surface undergoes the process of resonant (or pseudo) scattering that Prof Johnson explained and I cited in my "Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics" in 2012.
The correct physics which, in complete contrast, does explain temperatures and the required heat transfers in the atmospheres and sub-surface regions of planets and satellite moons first appeared in my "Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures" in 2013 and that document (on which this book is based) is being subjected to a full five (5) years of review in open media, with a reward of AU $50,000 (about US $35,000) offered at https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com for the first to prove the physics substantially wrong and to produce a counter study to mine that showed the greenhouse gas water vapor cooling, as my hypothesis predicts it should. Carbon dioxide cools for the same reasons, but by less than 0.1 degree.
For a brief summary read my six-page "Comprehensive Refutation of the Radiative Forcing Greenhouse Hypothesis" linked from my website http://whyitsnotco2.com. Any questions or attempted refutations will only be read and answered on my blog that, along with my videos, is also linked from http://climate-change-theory.com. See also my earlier website http://earth-climate.com and join over 100,000 others who have visited my websites or viewed my videos about the breakthrough science that the world will come to understand hopefully within the next twenty years or so.
Douglas Cotton B.Sc (physics), B.A. (economics), Dip.Bus.Admin
Sydney and Macquarie Universities (1963 to 1972 inclusive)
Awarded four academic scholarships including one by the Physics Dept of the University of Sydney
The correct physics which, in complete contrast, does explain temperatures and the required heat transfers in the atmospheres and sub-surface regions of planets and satellite moons first appeared in my "Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures" in 2013 and that document (on which this book is based) is being subjected to a full five (5) years of review in open media, with a reward of AU $50,000 (about US $35,000) offered at https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com for the first to prove the physics substantially wrong and to produce a counter study to mine that showed the greenhouse gas water vapor cooling, as my hypothesis predicts it should. Carbon dioxide cools for the same reasons, but by less than 0.1 degree.
For a brief summary read my six-page "Comprehensive Refutation of the Radiative Forcing Greenhouse Hypothesis" linked from my website http://whyitsnotco2.com. Any questions or attempted refutations will only be read and answered on my blog that, along with my videos, is also linked from http://climate-change-theory.com. See also my earlier website http://earth-climate.com and join over 100,000 others who have visited my websites or viewed my videos about the breakthrough science that the world will come to understand hopefully within the next twenty years or so.
Douglas Cotton B.Sc (physics), B.A. (economics), Dip.Bus.Admin
Sydney and Macquarie Universities (1963 to 1972 inclusive)
Awarded four academic scholarships including one by the Physics Dept of the University of Sydney
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
It appears that what Doug means by his Sydney University scholarship is his attendance at one of its 1962 Summer Schools along with 150 other high school students.
Doubts have been raised about his claim to a BSc in Physics, just as doubts were raised over PSI blog "CEO and Legal Consultant" John O'Sullivan's claim to having a Law Degree from Surrey University/Hill University.
It's puzzling why Doug avoids responding to David Burton's reasonable request for further information. After all, people making false claims about their status is not unheard of, so it is always worthwhile doing some due diligence when important issues are involved.
Come on Doug. Put this one to rest by making available certification of your degree by Sydney University.
Doubts have been raised about his claim to a BSc in Physics, just as doubts were raised over PSI blog "CEO and Legal Consultant" John O'Sullivan's claim to having a Law Degree from Surrey University/Hill University.
It's puzzling why Doug avoids responding to David Burton's reasonable request for further information. After all, people making false claims about their status is not unheard of, so it is always worthwhile doing some due diligence when important issues are involved.
Come on Doug. Put this one to rest by making available certification of your degree by Sydney University.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
David A. Burton2 years ago (Edited)In reply toan earlier post
Peter Ridley2 years ago
Hi Doug,
During exchanges in December 2011 with members of the PSI blogging group (which you were proud to be a member of) its front man John O'Sullivan was challenged about his claims to having an accredited Law Degree. In retaliation he accused investigative journalist Andrew Skolnick of lying about having an MSc.
Both were challenged to provide evidence to support their claims. John O'Sullivan never did provide any evidence to refute that he had bought his degree from "Hill University", an on-line diploma mill. On the other hand, Andrew Skolnick quickly provided me with a certified copy of his MSc.
(See my Aug. 2012 comment following the revealing article "Affidavits in Michael Mann Libel Suit Reveal Astonishing Facts About Tim Ball Associate John O'Sullivan" at https://www.desmogblog.com/comment/727946#comment-727946).
Why don't you do what Andrew did and send me a certified copy of your degrees in Physics and Maths so that you can at least get David Burton off your back on this issue.
During exchanges in December 2011 with members of the PSI blogging group (which you were proud to be a member of) its front man John O'Sullivan was challenged about his claims to having an accredited Law Degree. In retaliation he accused investigative journalist Andrew Skolnick of lying about having an MSc.
Both were challenged to provide evidence to support their claims. John O'Sullivan never did provide any evidence to refute that he had bought his degree from "Hill University", an on-line diploma mill. On the other hand, Andrew Skolnick quickly provided me with a certified copy of his MSc.
(See my Aug. 2012 comment following the revealing article "Affidavits in Michael Mann Libel Suit Reveal Astonishing Facts About Tim Ball Associate John O'Sullivan" at https://www.desmogblog.com/comment/727946#comment-727946).
Why don't you do what Andrew did and send me a certified copy of your degrees in Physics and Maths so that you can at least get David Burton off your back on this issue.
That's very interesting, Peter!
I was aware of the fact John O'Sullivan cannot be trusted. In 2015 O'Sullivan & Pierre Latour blatantly lied on the PSI web site, and also in emails, about Dr. S. Fred Singer's views. The web site article was entitled, "Singer Concurs with Latour: CO2 Doesn't Cause Global Warming."
http://web.archive.org/web/20150117064319/http://www.principia-scientific.org/singer-concurs-with-latour-co2-doesn-t-cause-global-warming.html
In email O'Sullivan wrote, "Fred Singer has now come over to PSI's view that CO2 can only cool. I suggest you contact him."
I forwarded that to Prof. Singer, who was then 90 years old, and asked him:
"Dear Dr. Singer,
Please confirm or deny this allegation.
Warmest regards,
Dave"
Prof. Singer replied:
"denied SFS"
That's what I expected. I forwarded it to O'Sullivan & others, including Dr. Singer's friend, Lord Christopher Monckton, but O'Sullivan STILL refused to to remove the dishonest article from the PSI web site.
Prof. Singer elaborated in a subsequent email:
"Friends, There is a sure way to smoke out deniers like PS [Principia Scientific]
Just ask them if GH models violate the 2nd Law of Thermo ...
These people just won't accept the existence of DWR (downwelling IR from atm to sfc)
-- even if measured empirically
No point wasting more time -- as Jo said
Fred"
After Lord Monckton threatened legal action, PSI finally did edit and tone down the article, making it less flagrantly false. (It now says "Singer Converges on ZERO Climate Carbon Forcing.")
So I knew O'Sullivan was a liar, but I did not know that he also faked his degree. Thank you for educating me.
Strangely enough, Mr. Cotton apparently has that in common with his estranged comrade, Mr. O'Sullivan. As you can see, Mr. Cotton still refuses to reveal what college awarded his supposed physics degree, and still refuses to reveal the year it which it was supposedly awarded. The only possible reason for that which I can think of is that Mr. Cotton knows the information could be verified if true, or refuted if false.
I was aware of the fact John O'Sullivan cannot be trusted. In 2015 O'Sullivan & Pierre Latour blatantly lied on the PSI web site, and also in emails, about Dr. S. Fred Singer's views. The web site article was entitled, "Singer Concurs with Latour: CO2 Doesn't Cause Global Warming."
http://web.archive.org/web/20150117064319/http://www.principia-scientific.org/singer-concurs-with-latour-co2-doesn-t-cause-global-warming.html
In email O'Sullivan wrote, "Fred Singer has now come over to PSI's view that CO2 can only cool. I suggest you contact him."
I forwarded that to Prof. Singer, who was then 90 years old, and asked him:
"Dear Dr. Singer,
Please confirm or deny this allegation.
Warmest regards,
Dave"
Prof. Singer replied:
"denied SFS"
That's what I expected. I forwarded it to O'Sullivan & others, including Dr. Singer's friend, Lord Christopher Monckton, but O'Sullivan STILL refused to to remove the dishonest article from the PSI web site.
Prof. Singer elaborated in a subsequent email:
"Friends, There is a sure way to smoke out deniers like PS [Principia Scientific]
Just ask them if GH models violate the 2nd Law of Thermo ...
These people just won't accept the existence of DWR (downwelling IR from atm to sfc)
-- even if measured empirically
No point wasting more time -- as Jo said
Fred"
After Lord Monckton threatened legal action, PSI finally did edit and tone down the article, making it less flagrantly false. (It now says "Singer Converges on ZERO Climate Carbon Forcing.")
So I knew O'Sullivan was a liar, but I did not know that he also faked his degree. Thank you for educating me.
Strangely enough, Mr. Cotton apparently has that in common with his estranged comrade, Mr. O'Sullivan. As you can see, Mr. Cotton still refuses to reveal what college awarded his supposed physics degree, and still refuses to reveal the year it which it was supposedly awarded. The only possible reason for that which I can think of is that Mr. Cotton knows the information could be verified if true, or refuted if false.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
David A. Burton2 years agoIn reply toan earlier post
Peter Ridley2 years ago
It appears that what Doug means by his Sydney University scholarship is his attendance at one of its 1962 Summer Schools along with 150 other high school students.
Doubts have been raised about his claim to a BSc in Physics, just as doubts were raised over PSI blog "CEO and Legal Consultant" John O'Sullivan's claim to having a Law Degree from Surrey University/Hill University.
It's puzzling why Doug avoids responding to David Burton's reasonable request for further information. After all, people making false claims about their status is not unheard of, so it is always worthwhile doing some due diligence when important issues are involved.
Come on Doug. Put this one to rest by making available certification of your degree by Sydney University.
Doubts have been raised about his claim to a BSc in Physics, just as doubts were raised over PSI blog "CEO and Legal Consultant" John O'Sullivan's claim to having a Law Degree from Surrey University/Hill University.
It's puzzling why Doug avoids responding to David Burton's reasonable request for further information. After all, people making false claims about their status is not unheard of, so it is always worthwhile doing some due diligence when important issues are involved.
Come on Doug. Put this one to rest by making available certification of your degree by Sydney University.
Peter Ridley wrote, "Come on Doug. Put this one to rest by making available certification of your degree by Sydney University."
Has he claimed that his physics degree was awarded by Sydney University? All I've seen is this:
"Douglas Cotton B.Sc (physics), B.A. (economics), Dip.Bus.Admin / Sydney and Macquarie Universities (1963 to 1972 inclusive)"
That's two different universities, and a ten year range of dates.
They are both large institutions:
http://sydney.edu.au/ (~53,000 students)
https://www.mq.edu.au/ (~40,000 students)
I wonder if his Economics and Business Administration degrees are fake, too?
Has he claimed that his physics degree was awarded by Sydney University? All I've seen is this:
"Douglas Cotton B.Sc (physics), B.A. (economics), Dip.Bus.Admin / Sydney and Macquarie Universities (1963 to 1972 inclusive)"
That's two different universities, and a ten year range of dates.
They are both large institutions:
http://sydney.edu.au/ (~53,000 students)
https://www.mq.edu.au/ (~40,000 students)
I wonder if his Economics and Business Administration degrees are fake, too?
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Climate Physicist2 years ago
As physicists learn and understand in degree-level university physics courses, such as I completed at Sydney University in 1966, we cannot use Stefan-Boltzmann calculations for an input of two or more sources of radiation because that Law is based on the integral of a single Planck function. Yet that is what climatologists do (with their self-taught one year course on atmospheric physics) because they could think of no other explanation as to how the necessary thermal energy gets into Earth's surface. In fact, as Dr Roy Spencer admitted, their figure of 324W/m^2 for atmospheric radiation is just a calculated value that gives 288K for the surface temperature as explained here: http://whyitsnotco2.com/PSI.html. It is an overstated and totally impossible flux for the atmosphere to emit, anyway, and virtually all atmospheric radiation impinging on the surface undergoes the process of resonant (or pseudo) scattering that Prof Johnson explained and I cited in my "Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics" in 2012.
The correct physics which, in complete contrast, does explain temperatures and the required heat transfers in the atmospheres and sub-surface regions of planets and satellite moons first appeared in my "Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures" in 2013 and that document (on which this book is based) is being subjected to a full five (5) years of review in open media, with a reward of AU $50,000 (about US $35,000) offered at https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com for the first to prove the physics substantially wrong and to produce a counter study to mine that showed the greenhouse gas water vapor cooling, as my hypothesis predicts it should. Carbon dioxide cools for the same reasons, but by less than 0.1 degree.
For a brief summary read my six-page "Comprehensive Refutation of the Radiative Forcing Greenhouse Hypothesis" linked from my website http://whyitsnotco2.com. Any questions or attempted refutations will only be read and answered on my blog that, along with my videos, is also linked from http://climate-change-theory.com. See also my earlier website http://earth-climate.com and join over 100,000 others who have visited my websites or viewed my videos about the breakthrough science that the world will come to understand hopefully within the next twenty years or so.
Douglas Cotton B.Sc (physics), B.A. (economics), Dip.Bus.Admin
Sydney and Macquarie Universities (1963 to 1972 inclusive)
Awarded four academic scholarships including one by the Physics Dept of the University of Sydney
The correct physics which, in complete contrast, does explain temperatures and the required heat transfers in the atmospheres and sub-surface regions of planets and satellite moons first appeared in my "Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures" in 2013 and that document (on which this book is based) is being subjected to a full five (5) years of review in open media, with a reward of AU $50,000 (about US $35,000) offered at https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com for the first to prove the physics substantially wrong and to produce a counter study to mine that showed the greenhouse gas water vapor cooling, as my hypothesis predicts it should. Carbon dioxide cools for the same reasons, but by less than 0.1 degree.
For a brief summary read my six-page "Comprehensive Refutation of the Radiative Forcing Greenhouse Hypothesis" linked from my website http://whyitsnotco2.com. Any questions or attempted refutations will only be read and answered on my blog that, along with my videos, is also linked from http://climate-change-theory.com. See also my earlier website http://earth-climate.com and join over 100,000 others who have visited my websites or viewed my videos about the breakthrough science that the world will come to understand hopefully within the next twenty years or so.
Douglas Cotton B.Sc (physics), B.A. (economics), Dip.Bus.Admin
Sydney and Macquarie Universities (1963 to 1972 inclusive)
Awarded four academic scholarships including one by the Physics Dept of the University of Sydney
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
David A. Burton2 years ago
Doug Cotton wrote, "...in degree-level university physics courses, such as I completed at Sydney University in 1966..."
Are you claiming that you received a B.Sc in physics in 1966 from Sydney University, Mr. Cotton?
If not, then when and where were you awarded a B.Sc in physics?
Are you claiming that you received a B.Sc in physics in 1966 from Sydney University, Mr. Cotton?
If not, then when and where were you awarded a B.Sc in physics?
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Doug Cotton again wrote, "In a comment below David Burton wrote 'In the troposphere >99.99999% of the LWIR photons which CO2 absorbs are not re-emitted.' Well what is it emitting? Does a carbon dioxide molecule 'know that a certain portion of its thermal energy came from collisions? Can it distinguish that thermal energy from what it attained via absorption of radiation?"
Mr. Cotton, you just asked that very confused question, and I just answered it, Apr 6, 2017, 3:35:11 PM PDT, here:
https://www.amazon.com/review/R3L4RWMLCPUD1O/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?ie=UTF8&asin=1478729228&cdForum=FxGKOKBYP090RE&cdMsgID=Mx8DNTM4TAF2VA&cdMsgNo=164&cdPage=17&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx1P6O3C1OQHC5J&store=books#Mx8DNTM4TAF2VA
.
Mr. Cotton continued, "over 98% of the thermal energy in Earth's atmosphere is in oxygen, nitrogen and argon molecules."
That's true, but irrelevant. The various gases in the atmosphere remain in thermal equilibrium via collisional energy transfer.
.
Mr. Cotton continued, "It is the IR-active (so-called 'greenhouse') molecules that are the only ones cooling the atmosphere by radiating energy back to space: they act like holes in a blanket."
They do, indeed, radiate energy from the upper atmosphere to space. But if they weren't in the atmosphere then LWIR radiation could pass directly from the ground to space.
I don't much like blanket analogies, but if you want to use one, the GHG-laden atmosphere is not like holes in a blanket, it is more like the blanket, itself. A blanket is warmed from the underside by your body, and radiates IR from the top. Even though it radiates IR from the top, it still keeps your body warmer than it otherwise would be.
.
Mr. Cotton continued, "Whatever radiation strikes a warmer target below undergoes resonant (or 'pseudo') scattering and so does not add any thermal energy to that target."
That's absolute nonsense!
When you write, "a warmer target" the question is, "warmer than what?"
A photon has NO temperature.
A photon has NO characteristic which is indicative of the temperature of the molecule which emitted it.
CO2 molecules DO absorb LWIR 15,000 nm photons WITHOUT REGARD to the temperature of the source.
Please, PLEASE find a physicist, ANY physicist, ANYWHERE, and ask him or her about this.
.
Mr. Cotton continued, "As for Burton's question, it is answered here .... Douglas Cotton B.Sc (physics), Sydney University (completed 1966 with graduation ceremony early in 1967)"
Thank you for answering my question!
.
Mr. Cotton continued, "...you cite no references for your assertive claims, as usual."
Here's a very informative lecture by a leading atmospheric physicist, Dr. Wm Happer:
http://www.sealevel.info/Happer_UNC_2014-09-08/
Here's a follow-up email conversation, in which he very generously explained it to me in greater depth:
http://www.sealevel.info/Happer_UNC_2014-09-08/Another_question.html
Note, especially, the email from Prof. Robert G. Brown, of Duke Univ.
Also, near the end of that page you'll find an email from me to Prof. Happer, with a link to an article by Dr. Joshua Halpern (who blogs under the pen name of Eli Rabett). Halpern calculated that 1 in 10^5 rather than 1 in 10^9 IR-stimulated CO2 molecules will give up that energy by re-emission of an IR photon, rather than collision with another air molecule. He gets about the same radiative lifetime as Dr. Happer (approx. one second), but a collisional lifetime of about 10 microseconds rather than one nanosecond, apparently because he failed to consider collisional transfers of energy with N2 and O2 molecules.
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2013/04/this-is-where-eli-came-in.html
.
Mr. Cotton continued, "The portion of the radiation which is pseudo-scattered is re-emitted almost instantaneously, its electro-magnetic energy never having been converted to thermal energy."
That is wrong. This is an excerpt from the email from Prof. Brown, referenced above:
"...CO_2 doesn't 'scatter' LWIR radiation, it absorbs it (typically within a few meters, the mean free path at atmospheric concentrations) and the energy is almost instantly transferred to the surrounding air. That doesn't mean that they don't radiate. It just means that their radiation temperature is in equilibrium in the surrounding air, and it isn't reradiating of a photon it absorbed, it is radiation initiated by e.g. a collision with an air molecule."
.
Mr. Cotton continued, "Collisions... does not necessarily raise an electron through one or more quantum states as a result of the collision, as you appear to think: that is a separate process in preparation for the emission of a photon."
You are confused. 15,000 nm LWIR absorption and emission is NOT associated with electron orbital transitions. The photons associated with those transitions are MUCH shorter wavelength. 15,000 nm photons are absorbed and emitted through CO2 molecular bending mode vibrations.
Mr. Cotton, you just asked that very confused question, and I just answered it, Apr 6, 2017, 3:35:11 PM PDT, here:
https://www.amazon.com/review/R3L4RWMLCPUD1O/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?ie=UTF8&asin=1478729228&cdForum=FxGKOKBYP090RE&cdMsgID=Mx8DNTM4TAF2VA&cdMsgNo=164&cdPage=17&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx1P6O3C1OQHC5J&store=books#Mx8DNTM4TAF2VA
.
Mr. Cotton continued, "over 98% of the thermal energy in Earth's atmosphere is in oxygen, nitrogen and argon molecules."
That's true, but irrelevant. The various gases in the atmosphere remain in thermal equilibrium via collisional energy transfer.
.
Mr. Cotton continued, "It is the IR-active (so-called 'greenhouse') molecules that are the only ones cooling the atmosphere by radiating energy back to space: they act like holes in a blanket."
They do, indeed, radiate energy from the upper atmosphere to space. But if they weren't in the atmosphere then LWIR radiation could pass directly from the ground to space.
I don't much like blanket analogies, but if you want to use one, the GHG-laden atmosphere is not like holes in a blanket, it is more like the blanket, itself. A blanket is warmed from the underside by your body, and radiates IR from the top. Even though it radiates IR from the top, it still keeps your body warmer than it otherwise would be.
.
Mr. Cotton continued, "Whatever radiation strikes a warmer target below undergoes resonant (or 'pseudo') scattering and so does not add any thermal energy to that target."
That's absolute nonsense!
When you write, "a warmer target" the question is, "warmer than what?"
A photon has NO temperature.
A photon has NO characteristic which is indicative of the temperature of the molecule which emitted it.
CO2 molecules DO absorb LWIR 15,000 nm photons WITHOUT REGARD to the temperature of the source.
Please, PLEASE find a physicist, ANY physicist, ANYWHERE, and ask him or her about this.
.
Mr. Cotton continued, "As for Burton's question, it is answered here .... Douglas Cotton B.Sc (physics), Sydney University (completed 1966 with graduation ceremony early in 1967)"
Thank you for answering my question!
.
Mr. Cotton continued, "...you cite no references for your assertive claims, as usual."
Here's a very informative lecture by a leading atmospheric physicist, Dr. Wm Happer:
http://www.sealevel.info/Happer_UNC_2014-09-08/
Here's a follow-up email conversation, in which he very generously explained it to me in greater depth:
http://www.sealevel.info/Happer_UNC_2014-09-08/Another_question.html
Note, especially, the email from Prof. Robert G. Brown, of Duke Univ.
Also, near the end of that page you'll find an email from me to Prof. Happer, with a link to an article by Dr. Joshua Halpern (who blogs under the pen name of Eli Rabett). Halpern calculated that 1 in 10^5 rather than 1 in 10^9 IR-stimulated CO2 molecules will give up that energy by re-emission of an IR photon, rather than collision with another air molecule. He gets about the same radiative lifetime as Dr. Happer (approx. one second), but a collisional lifetime of about 10 microseconds rather than one nanosecond, apparently because he failed to consider collisional transfers of energy with N2 and O2 molecules.
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2013/04/this-is-where-eli-came-in.html
.
Mr. Cotton continued, "The portion of the radiation which is pseudo-scattered is re-emitted almost instantaneously, its electro-magnetic energy never having been converted to thermal energy."
That is wrong. This is an excerpt from the email from Prof. Brown, referenced above:
"...CO_2 doesn't 'scatter' LWIR radiation, it absorbs it (typically within a few meters, the mean free path at atmospheric concentrations) and the energy is almost instantly transferred to the surrounding air. That doesn't mean that they don't radiate. It just means that their radiation temperature is in equilibrium in the surrounding air, and it isn't reradiating of a photon it absorbed, it is radiation initiated by e.g. a collision with an air molecule."
.
Mr. Cotton continued, "Collisions... does not necessarily raise an electron through one or more quantum states as a result of the collision, as you appear to think: that is a separate process in preparation for the emission of a photon."
You are confused. 15,000 nm LWIR absorption and emission is NOT associated with electron orbital transitions. The photons associated with those transitions are MUCH shorter wavelength. 15,000 nm photons are absorbed and emitted through CO2 molecular bending mode vibrations.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
In his Apr 8, 2017, 3:41:04 AM PDT comment in this chain, Mr. Cotton disputes that radiative power adds stating:
“As physicists learn and understand in degree-level university physics courses, such as I completed at Sydney University in 1966, we cannot use Stefan-Boltzmann calculations for an input of two or more sources of radiation because that Law is based on the integral of a single Planck function.”
Indeed, the part about Stefan-Boltzmann being the integral of the Plank Law is correct. But this only disproves his whole point. Any mathematician or physicist knows that an integral is a sum of infinitesimal contributions by definition. So, Stefan-Boltzmann is already a sum of infinitesimal powers over wavelength.
Further the integral of a sum is the sum of the individual integrals. So, the power delivered by two spectra is the sum of the power they deliver individually.
It appears that the calculus that physicists have understood and applied since Newton’s time is not one of Mr. Cotton’s strong suits.
“As physicists learn and understand in degree-level university physics courses, such as I completed at Sydney University in 1966, we cannot use Stefan-Boltzmann calculations for an input of two or more sources of radiation because that Law is based on the integral of a single Planck function.”
Indeed, the part about Stefan-Boltzmann being the integral of the Plank Law is correct. But this only disproves his whole point. Any mathematician or physicist knows that an integral is a sum of infinitesimal contributions by definition. So, Stefan-Boltzmann is already a sum of infinitesimal powers over wavelength.
Further the integral of a sum is the sum of the individual integrals. So, the power delivered by two spectra is the sum of the power they deliver individually.
It appears that the calculus that physicists have understood and applied since Newton’s time is not one of Mr. Cotton’s strong suits.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Climate Physicist2 years ago
The physics presented in this book is correct. It is supported by overwhelming evidence, such as you can read about in my website http://whyitsnotco2.com, my "Comprehensive Refutation of the Radiative Forcing Greenhouse Hypothesis" at https://ssrn.com/author=2627605 and in my blog https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com where there is offered a reward of AU $50,000 for the first to prove me wrong in what is now over four years. I do not read attempted refutations anywhere else and nobody will get the reward unless he or she reads my material and then submits in the comment thread for the above blog.
As physicists learn and understand in degree-level university physics courses, such as I completed at Sydney University in 1966 and was awarded early in 1967, we cannot use Stefan-Boltzmann calculations for an input of two or more sources of radiation because that Law is based on the integral of a single Planck function. Likewise the temperature is inversely related to the peak wavelength as per Wien's Displace Law which also only applies for a single source of radiation. Yet climatologists do add radiative fluxes (with their self-taught one year course on atmospheric physics) because they could think of no other explanation as to how the necessary thermal energy gets into Earth's surface. In fact, as Dr Roy Spencer admitted, their figure of 324W/m^2 for atmospheric radiation is just a calculated value that gives 288K for the surface temperature as explained here: http://whyitsnotco2.com/PSI.html. It is an overstated and totally impossible flux for the atmosphere to emit, anyway, and virtually all atmospheric radiation impinging on the surface undergoes the process of resonant (or pseudo) scattering that Prof Johnson explained and I cited in my "Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics" in 2012.
The correct physics which, in complete contrast, does explain temperatures and the required heat transfers in the atmospheres and sub-surface regions of planets and satellite moons first appeared in my "Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures" in 2013 and that document (on which this book is based) is being subjected to a full five (5) years of review in open media, with the above-mentioned reward of AU $50,000 (about US $35,000) offered at https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com for the first to prove the physics substantially wrong and to produce a counter study to mine that showed the greenhouse gas water vapor cooling, as my hypothesis predicts it should. Carbon dioxide cools for the same reasons, but by less than 0.1 degree.
For a brief summary read my six-page "Comprehensive Refutation of the Radiative Forcing Greenhouse Hypothesis" linked from my website http://whyitsnotco2.com. Any questions or attempted refutations will only be read and answered on my blog that, along with my videos, is also linked from http://climate-change-theory.com. See also my earlier website http://earth-climate.com and join over 100,000 others who have visited my websites or viewed my videos about the breakthrough science that the world will come to understand hopefully within the next twenty years or so.
Douglas Cotton B.Sc (physics), B.A. (economics), Dip.Bus.Admin
Sydney and Macquarie Universities (1963 to 1972 inclusive)
Awarded four academic scholarships including one by the Physics Dept of the University of Sydney
As physicists learn and understand in degree-level university physics courses, such as I completed at Sydney University in 1966 and was awarded early in 1967, we cannot use Stefan-Boltzmann calculations for an input of two or more sources of radiation because that Law is based on the integral of a single Planck function. Likewise the temperature is inversely related to the peak wavelength as per Wien's Displace Law which also only applies for a single source of radiation. Yet climatologists do add radiative fluxes (with their self-taught one year course on atmospheric physics) because they could think of no other explanation as to how the necessary thermal energy gets into Earth's surface. In fact, as Dr Roy Spencer admitted, their figure of 324W/m^2 for atmospheric radiation is just a calculated value that gives 288K for the surface temperature as explained here: http://whyitsnotco2.com/PSI.html. It is an overstated and totally impossible flux for the atmosphere to emit, anyway, and virtually all atmospheric radiation impinging on the surface undergoes the process of resonant (or pseudo) scattering that Prof Johnson explained and I cited in my "Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics" in 2012.
The correct physics which, in complete contrast, does explain temperatures and the required heat transfers in the atmospheres and sub-surface regions of planets and satellite moons first appeared in my "Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures" in 2013 and that document (on which this book is based) is being subjected to a full five (5) years of review in open media, with the above-mentioned reward of AU $50,000 (about US $35,000) offered at https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com for the first to prove the physics substantially wrong and to produce a counter study to mine that showed the greenhouse gas water vapor cooling, as my hypothesis predicts it should. Carbon dioxide cools for the same reasons, but by less than 0.1 degree.
For a brief summary read my six-page "Comprehensive Refutation of the Radiative Forcing Greenhouse Hypothesis" linked from my website http://whyitsnotco2.com. Any questions or attempted refutations will only be read and answered on my blog that, along with my videos, is also linked from http://climate-change-theory.com. See also my earlier website http://earth-climate.com and join over 100,000 others who have visited my websites or viewed my videos about the breakthrough science that the world will come to understand hopefully within the next twenty years or so.
Douglas Cotton B.Sc (physics), B.A. (economics), Dip.Bus.Admin
Sydney and Macquarie Universities (1963 to 1972 inclusive)
Awarded four academic scholarships including one by the Physics Dept of the University of Sydney
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Climate Physicist2 years ago
As for David Burton, he is narcissistic and unteachable. He STILL refers to THERMAL equilibrium even though I have explained to him that he should be talking about THERMODYNAMIC equilibrium, and that makes all the difference. Entropy is maximized in THERMODYNAMIC equilibrium which is determined by BOTH kinetic energy and GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL ENERGY such that (PE+KE)=constant for all altitudes in an ideal troposphere in the state that the Second Law says will evolve, namely THERMODYNAMIC equilibrium. That is why the brilliant 19th century physicist Josef Loschmidt (first to determine the size of air molecules) was correct in 1876 when he said gravity forms a stable equilibrium non-zero temperature gradient. LOSCHMIDT HAS BEEN PROVEN CORRECT WITH EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE IN THE 21st CENTURY. Do you get it yet, you clot? It is NOT a good idea to assume I'm wrong, for that is not the case. Keep it up and I'll come down harder and harder on you.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
AHistory&BiographyLover2 years ago
Mr. Cotton, Loschmidt was talking about STATIC EQUILIBRIUM in a column of gas. The troposphere is a DYNAMIC OPEN system heated from the bottom and constantly transporting heat upward (and radiating it in all directions). Likewise, the Ranque-Hilsch vortex is a DYNAMIC OPEN system constantly transporting gas from near its center (expansion, cooling) to its outer circumference (compression, heating). Even if it were correct (and it’s not), Loschmidt’s conjecture does not even apply to either. The only thing common about the real troposphere and the fictitious Loschmidt column is adiabatic lapse rate. Correlation is not cause.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
AHistory&BiographyLover2 years ago
Am I talking to a spamming ‘bot?
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
David A. Burton2 years agoIn reply toan earlier post
AHistory&BiographyLover2 years ago
Am I talking to a spamming ‘bot?
Doug Cotton wrote, "So-called compression 'heating' is a myth. To raise a temperature requires an input of thermal energy - an increase in the mean molecular kinetic energy. Compressing a gas does NOT increase the mean molecular kinetic energy: each molecule still has the same KE - they are just closer..."
AH&BL replied, "Am I talking to a spamming ‘bot?"
Well, if so, it's a spam bot who apparently doesn't believe in diesel engines:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+does+a+diesel+engine+work
The spam bot also apparently has never pumped up a car tire with an old fashioned manual tire pump, and then put his hand on the hot tire pump body.
AH&BL replied, "Am I talking to a spamming ‘bot?"
Well, if so, it's a spam bot who apparently doesn't believe in diesel engines:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+does+a+diesel+engine+work
The spam bot also apparently has never pumped up a car tire with an old fashioned manual tire pump, and then put his hand on the hot tire pump body.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Doug Cotton wrote, "Pathetic David Burton. The tire pumping produces friction that warms the air."
"Friction?" Good grief! You think diesel engines ignite their fuel by "FRICTION," Mr. Cotton?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+does+a+diesel+engine+work
"Friction?" Good grief! You think diesel engines ignite their fuel by "FRICTION," Mr. Cotton?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+does+a+diesel+engine+work
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Doug Cotton wrote, "there is no law in physics which says an increase in pressure always causes an increase in temperature."
There is, actually. It's called Gay-Lussac's law: for a fixed volume of air, the pressure is proportional to the absolute temperature. So if you heat up a sealed container filled with air, the pressure goes up, and if you cool it down the pressure goes down.
It's part of the Combined Gas Law (of which the Ideal Gas Law is a particular case). The Combined Gas Law is:
PV = kT
Where P is pressure, V is volume, T is absolute temperature, and (as long as the amount of gas being considered doesn't change) k is a constant.
Now, if you change the volume, things get a lot more complicated. If you have a volume of air and compress it to a smaller volume, e.g., with a piston in a diesel engine, you are doing work. That's called "adiabatic compression." At the sub-microscopic scale, the moving piston head accelerates ricocheting gas molecules like a tennis racket accelerates tennis balls, which causes the gas to heat.
https://www.google.com/search?q=temperature+change+from+adiabatic+compression
The amount by which the gas heats is a function of the work done (moving the piston head against pressure), and the specific heat of the gas. The later depends on whether the gas is monatomic, diatomic, triatomic, etc. (Dry atmospheric air is about 99% diatomic and 1% monatomic.)
At this point, we've exceeded the physics I can pull out of the cobwebs in my head. But here's an online calculator:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/adiab.html
(Scroll about halfway down the page to find the calculator.)
For example, if the initial volume is 1 cubic meter of air at about 1 atm pressure and 20°C (=68°F, =293.15K), and you intend to compress it to half the original volume, let's find out what the resulting temperature and pressure will be.
One cubic meter of air at room temperature and 1 Atm pressure is roughly 42 moles.
So using the online calculator you'd enter:
n = 42 (moles)
Vi = 1 (cubic meter, the initial volume)
Vf = 0.5 (one-half cubic meter, the final volume)
Ti = 293.15 (Kelvin, the initial temperature)
The calculator uses the ideal gas law to calculate the approximate initial pressure:
Pi = 102.37 kPa (which is about 1.0103 atm, close enough for gov't work).
Then skip down a couple of lines and enter the Cp/Cv ratio, which is about 1.4 for diatomic gases (N2 & O2). It is higher for monatomic gases like Argon, and lower for triatomic gases like CO2 and H2O, but the atmosphere is mostly N2 and O2 so we'll just use 1.4.
The calculator fills in Cp & Cv values immediately above; you may ignore them.
The calculator then calculates the work W done by compressing the gas to half its volume.
The calculator also then calculates and fills in the final pressure and temperature:
Pf = 270.17 kPa = 2.67 Atm
Tf = 386.81 K = 113.66 °C = 236.59 °F
As you can see, as the volume goes down so does the T/P ratio, which means that as volume goes down AND temperature goes up, pressure goes up as the product of the volume and temperature changes.
Now, for a more realistic example, let's use a compression ratio of 20:1, which is typical for a diesel engine, and 1 liter volume.
1 liter = 1 thousandth of a cubic meter, so:
n = .042
Vi = 0.001
A compression ratio of 20:1 means Vf = Vi/20:
Vf = 0.00005
As before, the intake air is at 20 °C (Ti = 293.15 K)
and Cp/Cv is 1.4
The calculator finds:
Pf = 6786 kPa = 67 Atm = 984 PSI
Tf = 972 K = 700 °C = 1300 °F
That's right: 1300 °F just from compressing the air, BEFORE burning the fuel!
And now you know why, in a pinch, you can burn almost any sort of liquid oil in a diesel engine!
.
Mr. Cotton continued, "This discussion of diesel engines highlights DAVID BURTON'S ignorance. What happens is that the higher pressure lowers the auto-self-ignition (ASI) temperature... For diesel it is around 210°C..." and he cited an article entitled, "Pressure dependence of the auto-ignition temperature of methane/air mixtures."
1. That's wrong. As we've seen above, compression of the air increases its temperature to way above the auto-self-ignition temperature of diesel fuel, which is why the diesel fuel immediately burns when injected into the very hot air in the cylinder.
If you'd bothered to click the link, you could have read any number of sources which explain this. Even Wikipedia gets it right:
"In [the Diesel cycle] fuel is ignited by heat generated during the compression of air in the combustion chamber, into which fuel is then injected."
2. Methane is not diesel fuel. Methane is the main component of natural gas.
3. It is very difficult for me to believe that someone could have a physics or chemistry degree of any sort, yet be unfamiliar with the Gas Laws. That much, at least, is high school material, not college material.
There is, actually. It's called Gay-Lussac's law: for a fixed volume of air, the pressure is proportional to the absolute temperature. So if you heat up a sealed container filled with air, the pressure goes up, and if you cool it down the pressure goes down.
It's part of the Combined Gas Law (of which the Ideal Gas Law is a particular case). The Combined Gas Law is:
PV = kT
Where P is pressure, V is volume, T is absolute temperature, and (as long as the amount of gas being considered doesn't change) k is a constant.
Now, if you change the volume, things get a lot more complicated. If you have a volume of air and compress it to a smaller volume, e.g., with a piston in a diesel engine, you are doing work. That's called "adiabatic compression." At the sub-microscopic scale, the moving piston head accelerates ricocheting gas molecules like a tennis racket accelerates tennis balls, which causes the gas to heat.
https://www.google.com/search?q=temperature+change+from+adiabatic+compression
The amount by which the gas heats is a function of the work done (moving the piston head against pressure), and the specific heat of the gas. The later depends on whether the gas is monatomic, diatomic, triatomic, etc. (Dry atmospheric air is about 99% diatomic and 1% monatomic.)
At this point, we've exceeded the physics I can pull out of the cobwebs in my head. But here's an online calculator:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/adiab.html
(Scroll about halfway down the page to find the calculator.)
For example, if the initial volume is 1 cubic meter of air at about 1 atm pressure and 20°C (=68°F, =293.15K), and you intend to compress it to half the original volume, let's find out what the resulting temperature and pressure will be.
One cubic meter of air at room temperature and 1 Atm pressure is roughly 42 moles.
So using the online calculator you'd enter:
n = 42 (moles)
Vi = 1 (cubic meter, the initial volume)
Vf = 0.5 (one-half cubic meter, the final volume)
Ti = 293.15 (Kelvin, the initial temperature)
The calculator uses the ideal gas law to calculate the approximate initial pressure:
Pi = 102.37 kPa (which is about 1.0103 atm, close enough for gov't work).
Then skip down a couple of lines and enter the Cp/Cv ratio, which is about 1.4 for diatomic gases (N2 & O2). It is higher for monatomic gases like Argon, and lower for triatomic gases like CO2 and H2O, but the atmosphere is mostly N2 and O2 so we'll just use 1.4.
The calculator fills in Cp & Cv values immediately above; you may ignore them.
The calculator then calculates the work W done by compressing the gas to half its volume.
The calculator also then calculates and fills in the final pressure and temperature:
Pf = 270.17 kPa = 2.67 Atm
Tf = 386.81 K = 113.66 °C = 236.59 °F
As you can see, as the volume goes down so does the T/P ratio, which means that as volume goes down AND temperature goes up, pressure goes up as the product of the volume and temperature changes.
Now, for a more realistic example, let's use a compression ratio of 20:1, which is typical for a diesel engine, and 1 liter volume.
1 liter = 1 thousandth of a cubic meter, so:
n = .042
Vi = 0.001
A compression ratio of 20:1 means Vf = Vi/20:
Vf = 0.00005
As before, the intake air is at 20 °C (Ti = 293.15 K)
and Cp/Cv is 1.4
The calculator finds:
Pf = 6786 kPa = 67 Atm = 984 PSI
Tf = 972 K = 700 °C = 1300 °F
That's right: 1300 °F just from compressing the air, BEFORE burning the fuel!
And now you know why, in a pinch, you can burn almost any sort of liquid oil in a diesel engine!
.
Mr. Cotton continued, "This discussion of diesel engines highlights DAVID BURTON'S ignorance. What happens is that the higher pressure lowers the auto-self-ignition (ASI) temperature... For diesel it is around 210°C..." and he cited an article entitled, "Pressure dependence of the auto-ignition temperature of methane/air mixtures."
1. That's wrong. As we've seen above, compression of the air increases its temperature to way above the auto-self-ignition temperature of diesel fuel, which is why the diesel fuel immediately burns when injected into the very hot air in the cylinder.
If you'd bothered to click the link, you could have read any number of sources which explain this. Even Wikipedia gets it right:
"In [the Diesel cycle] fuel is ignited by heat generated during the compression of air in the combustion chamber, into which fuel is then injected."
2. Methane is not diesel fuel. Methane is the main component of natural gas.
3. It is very difficult for me to believe that someone could have a physics or chemistry degree of any sort, yet be unfamiliar with the Gas Laws. That much, at least, is high school material, not college material.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Actually, Mr. Cotton, the compression ratio of gasoline engine is set below 14 to avoid pre-ignition of the already existing fuel/air mixture in the cylinder. The compression ratio of a diesel engine is set above 14 to guarantee ignition when the fuel is injected into the already compressed air in the cylinder.
It seems you missed that day in high school shop class. Those things in your diesel engine that you thought were spark plugs were really only glow plugs used to get the engine warm enough to start.
It seems you missed that day in high school shop class. Those things in your diesel engine that you thought were spark plugs were really only glow plugs used to get the engine warm enough to start.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Peter Ridley2 years ago (Edited)In reply toan earlier post
AHistory&BiographyLover2 years ago
Actually, Mr. Cotton, the compression ratio of gasoline engine is set below 14 to avoid pre-ignition of the already existing fuel/air mixture in the cylinder. The compression ratio of a diesel engine is set above 14 to guarantee ignition when the fuel is injected into the already compressed air in the cylinder.
It seems you missed that day in high school shop class. Those things in your diesel engine that you thought were spark plugs were really only glow plugs used to get the engine warm enough to start.
It seems you missed that day in high school shop class. Those things in your diesel engine that you thought were spark plugs were really only glow plugs used to get the engine warm enough to start.
No doubt the authors of "Compression Heating and Temperature Control for High-Pressure Destruction of Bacterial Spores: An Experimental Method for Kinetics Evaluation" (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11947-008-0057-y) will be distraught if they ever hear that "heat creep" Doug has decreed that " .. compression "heating" is a myth .. ".
I've been fooling myself for decades thinking that the Ideal Gas Law explained why my bicycle pump became warm if I was in a hurry to get on the road again after repairing a puncture.
A couple of years ago when researching the fractionation of atmospheric gasses in ice (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2010/12/smogbound-on-molecular-fractionation-in.html) I experimented with a CO2 fire extinguisher. I mistakenly though that the IGL also explained why releasing gas from the extinguisher caused dramatic cooling of the air and condensation.
Damn that "skoolboy fissix" from 60 years ago". Hopefully Doug will help future generations by writing an elementary physics text book. - NO, NO, Doug. I'm only joking!!
David Burton said " .. It is very difficult for me to believe that someone could have a physics or chemistry degree of any sort, yet be unfamiliar with the Gas Laws. That much, at least, is high school material, not college material .. ".
Giving credit where it is due, it does appear that when in his final year at Sydney Church of England Grammar School Doug did earn a certificate of merit for maths, a place at Sydney University's summer school in physics and went on to earn a degree in physics/pure maths. Let's not be unkind but make allowance for the fact that that that was over half a century ago. Perhaps Doug has forgotten some of the basics that he was taught at high school.
" .. Research out of Harvard Medical School identifies what researchers call the “four horsemen of forgetfulness” - depression, stress, anxiety, and sleep deprivation .. " (http://www.activebeat.co/your-health/6-times-memory-loss-has-nothing-to-do-with-alzheimers/6/).
I've been fooling myself for decades thinking that the Ideal Gas Law explained why my bicycle pump became warm if I was in a hurry to get on the road again after repairing a puncture.
A couple of years ago when researching the fractionation of atmospheric gasses in ice (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2010/12/smogbound-on-molecular-fractionation-in.html) I experimented with a CO2 fire extinguisher. I mistakenly though that the IGL also explained why releasing gas from the extinguisher caused dramatic cooling of the air and condensation.
Damn that "skoolboy fissix" from 60 years ago". Hopefully Doug will help future generations by writing an elementary physics text book. - NO, NO, Doug. I'm only joking!!
David Burton said " .. It is very difficult for me to believe that someone could have a physics or chemistry degree of any sort, yet be unfamiliar with the Gas Laws. That much, at least, is high school material, not college material .. ".
Giving credit where it is due, it does appear that when in his final year at Sydney Church of England Grammar School Doug did earn a certificate of merit for maths, a place at Sydney University's summer school in physics and went on to earn a degree in physics/pure maths. Let's not be unkind but make allowance for the fact that that that was over half a century ago. Perhaps Doug has forgotten some of the basics that he was taught at high school.
" .. Research out of Harvard Medical School identifies what researchers call the “four horsemen of forgetfulness” - depression, stress, anxiety, and sleep deprivation .. " (http://www.activebeat.co/your-health/6-times-memory-loss-has-nothing-to-do-with-alzheimers/6/).
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Climate Physicist2 years ago
Any of you: quantify the surface temperatures of Earth and Venus using whatever data you wish to cite and correct physics. If you, Burton wish to believe that high pressure is what causes the surface temperature to be warmer than that at the radiating altitude (even when there is no piston in the troposphere) then you agree with me that it is not back radiation. Also quantify what you think the 16 radiators would achieve in an ambient temperature of, say, 10°C if one warms a target to 42°C. Until you can answer these questions correctly, I see no point in continuing this discussion.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
With the blackbody initially in equilibrium with its 10 degree C surroundings, it is absorbing and emitting 364 W/m**2. With the black body raised to 42 degree C, it is emitting 558W/m**2 or an extra 195 W/m**2. To get 16 times this extra emission, it has to be raised to 225 degree C.
If it wasn’t receiving the background 364 W/m**2 from its surroundings, it would have to raised to 357 degree C to emit 16 times what it was emitting at 42 degree C. Similarly, it would have to be raised to 293 degree C to emit 16 times what it was emitting at 10 degree C.
What’s the point? Take away the background 364 W/m**2 from the surroundings in your test case and the fourth power character of S-B is apparent.
(Somebody please check my math. The S-B constant I used was 5.6704e-8 W/m**2/K**4 with degree C = K - 273.)
If it wasn’t receiving the background 364 W/m**2 from its surroundings, it would have to raised to 357 degree C to emit 16 times what it was emitting at 42 degree C. Similarly, it would have to be raised to 293 degree C to emit 16 times what it was emitting at 10 degree C.
What’s the point? Take away the background 364 W/m**2 from the surroundings in your test case and the fourth power character of S-B is apparent.
(Somebody please check my math. The S-B constant I used was 5.6704e-8 W/m**2/K**4 with degree C = K - 273.)
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
The sun’s surface temperature is 5777 K and its radius is 696000 Km. The radius of the earth’s orbit is 149.6e6 km. Thus the solar intensity at the earth orbit is 1368 W/m**2. The earth’s albedo is roughly 0.3. Thus its surface (four times the area of its disk) receives an average of 240 W/m**2. Ignoring the effect of the fourth power character of S-B on averaging, some part of the earth would have to average -18 degree C to radiate that much power intensity back out to space. What part of the earth? Well as another crude estimate, pick the atmosphere center of mass at 500 millibar or 5.5 km up. The lapse rate of the troposphere averages -6.5 K/km. so the surface has to be 35 degree C hotter than 5.5 km up, or 17 degree C.
The actual answer is more like 15 degree C. Pretty darn close for a bunch of estimates.
How does the surface of the earth get hotter than the -18 degree C required to cool the earth/atmosphere system? Well, you guessed it, back radiation from the atmosphere. How much back radiation? That's hard to tell. There is radiation, convection, conduction, and phase change taking place at the surface. How much do you allot to each? You do know that it is radiating 390 W/m**2 (assuming a blackbody), but not how much it is absorbing. I don't know. Anyone help?
The actual answer is more like 15 degree C. Pretty darn close for a bunch of estimates.
How does the surface of the earth get hotter than the -18 degree C required to cool the earth/atmosphere system? Well, you guessed it, back radiation from the atmosphere. How much back radiation? That's hard to tell. There is radiation, convection, conduction, and phase change taking place at the surface. How much do you allot to each? You do know that it is radiating 390 W/m**2 (assuming a blackbody), but not how much it is absorbing. I don't know. Anyone help?
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Climate Physicist2 years ago
Silent readers will note that Burton doesn't even read my comments to which he replies. For example, my last comment ended with ...
"In general, at normal temperatures, air molecules move at about 1,800 Km/hr (or 500m/sec) and, unless the piston actually moves at a significant speed relative to that 500m/sec, it will not significantly increase the mean velocity (and thus temperature) of the molecules. There is no piston moving like that in the troposphere anyway."
and in his reply, Burton writes ...
"At the microscopic scale, the moving piston head accelerates ricocheting gas molecules like a tennis racket accelerates tennis balls, which causes the gas to heat ..."
Yes, well, the speed of the tennis racquet is comparable with that of the ball. Burton still doesn't realize that this relatively small heating effect (due to a piston moving much slower than the molecules) has nothing to do with the Ideal Gas Law (because it depends on the speed of the piston) and is not a general proof that compression always causes warming. That is especially the case in a planet's troposphere because there is no moving piston bumping up the speed of molecules that it collides with. The density and temperature gradients in the troposphere are caused by gravity and the pressure gradient is just a corollary, because the Ideal Gas Law tells us that pressure is proportional to the product of density and temperature and nothing more. The high pressure at the base of the troposphere is neither creating or maintaining the high temperatures found there. Nor is atmospheric radiation helping the solar radiation to do so.
The higher temperatures seen at the base of every planetary troposphere are NOT the result of radiation of any form reaching that region - they are the result of the Second Law process of maximum entropy production operating in a gravitational field. That is why it is about 320K (hotter than Earth's surface) at the base of the nominal troposphere of the planet Uranus, even though the solar radiation can only maintain a temperature of about 60K (-213°C) in the methane layer that absorbs most of the radiation up near the top of the Uranus troposphere. That answers the question that you avoid answering.
"In general, at normal temperatures, air molecules move at about 1,800 Km/hr (or 500m/sec) and, unless the piston actually moves at a significant speed relative to that 500m/sec, it will not significantly increase the mean velocity (and thus temperature) of the molecules. There is no piston moving like that in the troposphere anyway."
and in his reply, Burton writes ...
"At the microscopic scale, the moving piston head accelerates ricocheting gas molecules like a tennis racket accelerates tennis balls, which causes the gas to heat ..."
Yes, well, the speed of the tennis racquet is comparable with that of the ball. Burton still doesn't realize that this relatively small heating effect (due to a piston moving much slower than the molecules) has nothing to do with the Ideal Gas Law (because it depends on the speed of the piston) and is not a general proof that compression always causes warming. That is especially the case in a planet's troposphere because there is no moving piston bumping up the speed of molecules that it collides with. The density and temperature gradients in the troposphere are caused by gravity and the pressure gradient is just a corollary, because the Ideal Gas Law tells us that pressure is proportional to the product of density and temperature and nothing more. The high pressure at the base of the troposphere is neither creating or maintaining the high temperatures found there. Nor is atmospheric radiation helping the solar radiation to do so.
The higher temperatures seen at the base of every planetary troposphere are NOT the result of radiation of any form reaching that region - they are the result of the Second Law process of maximum entropy production operating in a gravitational field. That is why it is about 320K (hotter than Earth's surface) at the base of the nominal troposphere of the planet Uranus, even though the solar radiation can only maintain a temperature of about 60K (-213°C) in the methane layer that absorbs most of the radiation up near the top of the Uranus troposphere. That answers the question that you avoid answering.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Shortly after asserting that, "So-called compression 'heating' is a myth," Doug Cotton now says, "Physics HAS to be confirmed with experiments." That would be hilarious, if it weren't so sad. Doug actually doesn't care about experimental confirmation or falsification. He firmly holds onto his confusion with complete disregard for experimental evidence.
Anyone who's ever used a manual tire pump has "confirmed with experiment" that AHistory&BiographyLover is correct, and Mr. Cotton is wrong.
Even though Mr. Cotton QUOTED FROM a lengthy comment in which I showed him how to use an online calculator to CALCULATE from first principles HOW MUCH a gas will HEAT UP when it is compressed, he is STILL unable or unwilling to comprehend or admit that compressing a gas causes it to heat up.
Mr. Cotton says he used to own a diesel car. That means every time he drove his own car, his confusion was "confirmed with experiment," since diesel engines rely on the heat of compressed air to ignite their fuel. In a diesel engine with 20:1 compression, every other stroke of the cylinder heats the air within the cylinder by more than 600 °C. (On alternate strokes the exhaust port is open, to expel exhaust gases.)
Here's a video of another experiment. I particularly like this one, because in it COTTON proves Cotton is clueless! :-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qe1Ueifekg
Here're a couple of others:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EszEbVEcAQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PD15UFiDRyM
Nice demo, eh?
Mr. Cotton wrote, "if even just one experiment shows it is wrong, then you scrap the hypothesis." Well, there's your one experiment, Mr. Cotton. Will you now scrap your hypothesis?
Of course not. Cotton doesn't care about evidence.
Google finds many other videos explaining and/or demonstrating this principle:
https://www.google.com/search?q=adiabatic+compression+temperature&tbm=vid
Mr. Cotton might be able to learn from them, if he were willing to try. But he won't.
"If an honest man is wrong, after it is demonstrated that he is wrong he either stops being wrong or he stops being honest."
- unknown (related by Andre Bijkerk)
Despite abundant proof, Mr. Cotton will STILL insist that compressing a gas does not raise its temperature, because he is not honest.
You can prove ME wrong about you, Mr. Cotton, by admitting that YOU were wrong about the compression heating of gases. But you won't.
Anyone who's ever used a manual tire pump has "confirmed with experiment" that AHistory&BiographyLover is correct, and Mr. Cotton is wrong.
Even though Mr. Cotton QUOTED FROM a lengthy comment in which I showed him how to use an online calculator to CALCULATE from first principles HOW MUCH a gas will HEAT UP when it is compressed, he is STILL unable or unwilling to comprehend or admit that compressing a gas causes it to heat up.
Mr. Cotton says he used to own a diesel car. That means every time he drove his own car, his confusion was "confirmed with experiment," since diesel engines rely on the heat of compressed air to ignite their fuel. In a diesel engine with 20:1 compression, every other stroke of the cylinder heats the air within the cylinder by more than 600 °C. (On alternate strokes the exhaust port is open, to expel exhaust gases.)
Here's a video of another experiment. I particularly like this one, because in it COTTON proves Cotton is clueless! :-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qe1Ueifekg
Here're a couple of others:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EszEbVEcAQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PD15UFiDRyM
Nice demo, eh?
Mr. Cotton wrote, "if even just one experiment shows it is wrong, then you scrap the hypothesis." Well, there's your one experiment, Mr. Cotton. Will you now scrap your hypothesis?
Of course not. Cotton doesn't care about evidence.
Google finds many other videos explaining and/or demonstrating this principle:
https://www.google.com/search?q=adiabatic+compression+temperature&tbm=vid
Mr. Cotton might be able to learn from them, if he were willing to try. But he won't.
"If an honest man is wrong, after it is demonstrated that he is wrong he either stops being wrong or he stops being honest."
- unknown (related by Andre Bijkerk)
Despite abundant proof, Mr. Cotton will STILL insist that compressing a gas does not raise its temperature, because he is not honest.
You can prove ME wrong about you, Mr. Cotton, by admitting that YOU were wrong about the compression heating of gases. But you won't.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Sadly, I was right. Doug Cotton still refuses to admit he was wrong, despite proof like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qe1Ueifekg
I'd rather have been wrong about him.
BTW, you can buy one of these "fire syringes" on Amazon for less than US$30.
https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?field-keywords=Fire+Syringe
Fire syringes are also sold as survival gear, for starting fires. Those are usually called "fire pistons," and they aren't usually transparent. Amazon sells them, too:
https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?field-keywords="fire+piston"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qe1Ueifekg
I'd rather have been wrong about him.
BTW, you can buy one of these "fire syringes" on Amazon for less than US$30.
https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?field-keywords=Fire+Syringe
Fire syringes are also sold as survival gear, for starting fires. Those are usually called "fire pistons," and they aren't usually transparent. Amazon sells them, too:
https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?field-keywords="fire+piston"
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Peter Ridley2 years ago (Edited)In reply toan earlier post
David A. Burton2 years ago
Sadly, I was right. Doug Cotton still refuses to admit he was wrong, despite proof like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qe1Ueifekg
I'd rather have been wrong about him.
BTW, you can buy one of these "fire syringes" on Amazon for less than US$30.
https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?field-keywords=Fire+Syringe
Fire syringes are also sold as survival gear, for starting fires. Those are usually called "fire pistons," and they aren't usually transparent. Amazon sells them, too:
https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?field-keywords="fire+piston"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qe1Ueifekg
I'd rather have been wrong about him.
BTW, you can buy one of these "fire syringes" on Amazon for less than US$30.
https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?field-keywords=Fire+Syringe
Fire syringes are also sold as survival gear, for starting fires. Those are usually called "fire pistons," and they aren't usually transparent. Amazon sells them, too:
https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?field-keywords="fire+piston"
David Burton is wasting his time trying to prove, using real-world empirical evidence, that compression heating occurs in Cottton-world. As he should have cottoned onto by now, in Cottonland laws of physics such as the Ideal Gas Law and Stefan-Boltzmann Law are turned on their head. All of that "compression heating" that we experience in real-world is caused by friction in Cottonland.
In my comment of 10th April I said " .. I mistakenly though that the IGL also explained why releasing gas from the (CO2 fire) extinguisher caused dramatic cooling of the air and condensation .. ". No doubt in Cottonland such cooling is caused by lanoitcirf conductance, the same mechanism upon which Cottonland Diesel engines and fire syringes depend.
In my comment of 10th April I said " .. I mistakenly though that the IGL also explained why releasing gas from the (CO2 fire) extinguisher caused dramatic cooling of the air and condensation .. ". No doubt in Cottonland such cooling is caused by lanoitcirf conductance, the same mechanism upon which Cottonland Diesel engines and fire syringes depend.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
David A. Burton2 years ago
Doug Cotton wrote, "What happens [in fire syringes] is that gas is released from the small amount of fuel in the cotton wool and the auto-ignition temperature of the gas is lowered dramatically by extreme compression, so the gas ignites at perhaps just a little above room temperature."
LOL! Mr. Cotton just makes up random nonsense, and states it as fact.
No, Mr. Cotton, cotton does not burst into flame at "just a little above room temperature" under extreme pressure.
Also, high air pressure does not cause "gas" or "fuel in the cotton wool" to be released.
In fact, if you want to draw volatiles out of a substance, it is LOW pressures which will do that, not high pressures.
The cotton IS the fuel. Compressing the air raises its temperature to 400°C or more, which is well above the ~360°C autoignition temperature of cotton. It is that high temperature which causes the cotton to burst into flame.
In a diesel engine with 20:1 compression, compressing the air causes it to reach even higher temperatures -- typically well above 650°C. That's how a diesel engine can start with no spark plug: the fuel injectors spray fuel into the cylinder near the top of the stroke, when the air has been compressed to more than 650°C, which causes the diesel fuel to instantly burn.
Here's a fire syringe sold for educational demonstrations which has 72% 4-star & 5-star reviews:
https://www.amazon.com/Carolina-Biological-Supply-Company-Syringe/dp/B0064CPODG/
Here's a fire piston sold as a fire-starter, with 82% five-star reviews:
https://www.amazon.com/CampfirePiston-Campfirepiston-Hickory-Fire-Piston/dp/B00X6L3KG6/
LOL! Mr. Cotton just makes up random nonsense, and states it as fact.
No, Mr. Cotton, cotton does not burst into flame at "just a little above room temperature" under extreme pressure.
Also, high air pressure does not cause "gas" or "fuel in the cotton wool" to be released.
In fact, if you want to draw volatiles out of a substance, it is LOW pressures which will do that, not high pressures.
The cotton IS the fuel. Compressing the air raises its temperature to 400°C or more, which is well above the ~360°C autoignition temperature of cotton. It is that high temperature which causes the cotton to burst into flame.
In a diesel engine with 20:1 compression, compressing the air causes it to reach even higher temperatures -- typically well above 650°C. That's how a diesel engine can start with no spark plug: the fuel injectors spray fuel into the cylinder near the top of the stroke, when the air has been compressed to more than 650°C, which causes the diesel fuel to instantly burn.
Here's a fire syringe sold for educational demonstrations which has 72% 4-star & 5-star reviews:
https://www.amazon.com/Carolina-Biological-Supply-Company-Syringe/dp/B0064CPODG/
Here's a fire piston sold as a fire-starter, with 82% five-star reviews:
https://www.amazon.com/CampfirePiston-Campfirepiston-Hickory-Fire-Piston/dp/B00X6L3KG6/
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
(12.1) That video about the fire syringe is riddled with errors. They refer to the auto-ignition temperature (AIT) of cotton being about 400°C but that is under atmospheric pressure. The AIT of all such substances becomes significantly lower under increasing pressure.
(12.2) If the AIT were not reduced significantly, then the speed of the piston would have to be of the order of over 700 m/sec to accelerate the molecules from about 500 m/sec at ambient temperature to a temperature that is well over double the original temperature, because kinetic energy (and thus temperature) is proportional to the square of the velocity of the molecules between collisions.
(12.3) At the very least you would need to produce actual temperature measurements in experiments using this gadget without any fuel, because once the fuel ignites it is obvious that combustion is raising the temperature of just a very small piece of cotton-wool fuel. The only evidence you have of a hotter temperature is in that small burning piece of cotton wool: not in the air because the glass in the container is touched many times in the video and so does not appear to be warmed much even after a few plunges. I wonder what temperature you would observe if the piston were stopped by, say, a rubber washer, leaving just a small area of highly compressed air in which the temperature could be measured in the absence of ignition. There is no published peer-reviewed paper in a reputable journal to which you have referred me, so I need comment no more.
(12.4) You will note that the small piece of well-aired cotton wool does not ignite if the cylinder is not pushed down fast enough. Supposedly (according to the video) the "heat escapes" if you don't do it very quickly. Well, since when is the temperature supposed to relate to the speed of compression? If the "heat escapes" when you move it marginally slower, then you would expect to feel it warming the glass right through. Watch the video and we don't get the impression that the device is about 400°C when they touch it several times. Suppose you moved the piston only three quarters of the way down. Would you expect about 300°C? Surely the lowest quarter of the glass would then be far too hot to handle, especially after a few such three-quarter compressions. It's all garbage science my friends with a simple explanation; it would make a good magician's trick.
(12.5) I have explained what happens in (11.6) though I accept being misled by one commenter who referred to a small amount of fuel in the gadget he purchased. He may well have been referring to a small amount of cotton wool. If there were a liquid fuel added then it would have been evaporating into the lower air before compression and the piston movement would "blow" it around the whole remaining space as the piston moved down. But it doesn't matter anyway, for apparently the AIT of the cotton wool can be lowered sufficiently below whatever slightly higher temperature may be achieved perhaps even mostly by friction as in a bicycle pump. I refer you back to 11.1.
(12.6) The whole experiment is a red herring because the cotton wool does not ignite when the piston is moved slowly, even though the compression is equivalent.
(12.7) This is all totally irrelevant because their experiment is not adiabatic at all, for their own energy pushing the cylinder down is transferred into the gas, mostly as potential energy as explained in 11.1. There are no such pistons in the troposphere. The tropospheric density gradient forms (and tends to be restored) in perfectly calm conditions at night. The same Second Law of Thermodynamics process of maximum entropy production simultaneously forms (or restores) the temperature gradient, for which climatologists like to use the term "lapse rate" even though there is no lapsing process involved.
(12.8) The commenter in the video is totally and utterly wrong in assuming that "pushing all these air molecules together" raises the temperature, because there is no physics that says that would happen. The mean kinetic energy does not increase due to molecules colliding more often. His lack of knowledge and experience in physics is epitomized by his phrase "an enormous amount of temperature."
(12.9) I quote Ted Hutch at https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-compression-temperature-of-Diesel-engine "Most engines run at between 195F and 220F but the fuel ignites at any temperature that is conducive to the fuel’s flash point. The range is 90F to 220F. Compression ignites the fuel in a diesel engine and the temperature of the cylinder when the fuel is introduced needs to be stable to achieve a clean burn. Enrichment plays a role in how well the engine runs." Go and argue with him about whether fuel can ignite at a mere 90°F!
(12.2) If the AIT were not reduced significantly, then the speed of the piston would have to be of the order of over 700 m/sec to accelerate the molecules from about 500 m/sec at ambient temperature to a temperature that is well over double the original temperature, because kinetic energy (and thus temperature) is proportional to the square of the velocity of the molecules between collisions.
(12.3) At the very least you would need to produce actual temperature measurements in experiments using this gadget without any fuel, because once the fuel ignites it is obvious that combustion is raising the temperature of just a very small piece of cotton-wool fuel. The only evidence you have of a hotter temperature is in that small burning piece of cotton wool: not in the air because the glass in the container is touched many times in the video and so does not appear to be warmed much even after a few plunges. I wonder what temperature you would observe if the piston were stopped by, say, a rubber washer, leaving just a small area of highly compressed air in which the temperature could be measured in the absence of ignition. There is no published peer-reviewed paper in a reputable journal to which you have referred me, so I need comment no more.
(12.4) You will note that the small piece of well-aired cotton wool does not ignite if the cylinder is not pushed down fast enough. Supposedly (according to the video) the "heat escapes" if you don't do it very quickly. Well, since when is the temperature supposed to relate to the speed of compression? If the "heat escapes" when you move it marginally slower, then you would expect to feel it warming the glass right through. Watch the video and we don't get the impression that the device is about 400°C when they touch it several times. Suppose you moved the piston only three quarters of the way down. Would you expect about 300°C? Surely the lowest quarter of the glass would then be far too hot to handle, especially after a few such three-quarter compressions. It's all garbage science my friends with a simple explanation; it would make a good magician's trick.
(12.5) I have explained what happens in (11.6) though I accept being misled by one commenter who referred to a small amount of fuel in the gadget he purchased. He may well have been referring to a small amount of cotton wool. If there were a liquid fuel added then it would have been evaporating into the lower air before compression and the piston movement would "blow" it around the whole remaining space as the piston moved down. But it doesn't matter anyway, for apparently the AIT of the cotton wool can be lowered sufficiently below whatever slightly higher temperature may be achieved perhaps even mostly by friction as in a bicycle pump. I refer you back to 11.1.
(12.6) The whole experiment is a red herring because the cotton wool does not ignite when the piston is moved slowly, even though the compression is equivalent.
(12.7) This is all totally irrelevant because their experiment is not adiabatic at all, for their own energy pushing the cylinder down is transferred into the gas, mostly as potential energy as explained in 11.1. There are no such pistons in the troposphere. The tropospheric density gradient forms (and tends to be restored) in perfectly calm conditions at night. The same Second Law of Thermodynamics process of maximum entropy production simultaneously forms (or restores) the temperature gradient, for which climatologists like to use the term "lapse rate" even though there is no lapsing process involved.
(12.8) The commenter in the video is totally and utterly wrong in assuming that "pushing all these air molecules together" raises the temperature, because there is no physics that says that would happen. The mean kinetic energy does not increase due to molecules colliding more often. His lack of knowledge and experience in physics is epitomized by his phrase "an enormous amount of temperature."
(12.9) I quote Ted Hutch at https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-compression-temperature-of-Diesel-engine "Most engines run at between 195F and 220F but the fuel ignites at any temperature that is conducive to the fuel’s flash point. The range is 90F to 220F. Compression ignites the fuel in a diesel engine and the temperature of the cylinder when the fuel is introduced needs to be stable to achieve a clean burn. Enrichment plays a role in how well the engine runs." Go and argue with him about whether fuel can ignite at a mere 90°F!
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
On 9th April 2017 Doug Cotton claimed here that " .. compression "heating" is a myth .. ".
On 14th June 2014 James Stevens claimed on his "Heat Transfer and Applied Thermodynamics" blog that " .. Compression Heating of a Gas .. An ideal gas, like air, or helium, will tend to heat up when it is compressed. Unless measures are taken to cool the gas during the compression process, this can lead to a pretty large temperature increase for relatively modest pressure increases. If we assume that no cooling takes place (adiabatic) it is easy to calculate the minimum temperature to which the gas is heated from the compression process alone .. " (http://heat-transfer-thermodynamics.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/compression-heating-of-gas.html).
Whereas Doug Cotton has provided only hot air, James Stevens was good enough to provide a T/P graph for several gases.
Some readers of these comments may have difficulty deciding which of these two claims is correct. It may help them to know a bit more about the two individuals who made them:
- Dr. James W Stevens " .. a professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs .. Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering, Brigham Young University , 1991, M.S., Mechanical Engineering, BYU, 1988, B.S., Mechanical Engineering, BYU, 1987, Minor in Mathematics .. " (https://sites.google.com/site/heatxferconsulting/Home/vitae).
- Mr Douglas J Cotton - " .. Retired IT Businessman / Part-time Educator / Now Researcher in Atmospheric & Subterrestrial Physics, Self-employed consultant March 1967 – Present .. " (https://au.linkedin.com/in/douglas-cotton-b794a871) " .. climate change greenhouse effect global warming carbon dioxide carbon tax radiative forcing Christianity Jesus Christ salvation rate of ageing slower aging human aging health heart disease cancer photography landscape photography photos of tasmania photos of UK photos of Europe .. " (http://www.infositeshow.com/sites/douglascotton.com) and goodness knows what else " .. B.Sc (physics), B.A. (economics), Dip.Bus.Admin Sydney and Macquarie Universities (1963 to 1972 inclusive)
Awarded four academic scholarships including one by the Physics Dept of the University of Sydney .. ".
My money's on Dr. Stevens being correct!!
On 14th June 2014 James Stevens claimed on his "Heat Transfer and Applied Thermodynamics" blog that " .. Compression Heating of a Gas .. An ideal gas, like air, or helium, will tend to heat up when it is compressed. Unless measures are taken to cool the gas during the compression process, this can lead to a pretty large temperature increase for relatively modest pressure increases. If we assume that no cooling takes place (adiabatic) it is easy to calculate the minimum temperature to which the gas is heated from the compression process alone .. " (http://heat-transfer-thermodynamics.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/compression-heating-of-gas.html).
Whereas Doug Cotton has provided only hot air, James Stevens was good enough to provide a T/P graph for several gases.
Some readers of these comments may have difficulty deciding which of these two claims is correct. It may help them to know a bit more about the two individuals who made them:
- Dr. James W Stevens " .. a professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs .. Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering, Brigham Young University , 1991, M.S., Mechanical Engineering, BYU, 1988, B.S., Mechanical Engineering, BYU, 1987, Minor in Mathematics .. " (https://sites.google.com/site/heatxferconsulting/Home/vitae).
- Mr Douglas J Cotton - " .. Retired IT Businessman / Part-time Educator / Now Researcher in Atmospheric & Subterrestrial Physics, Self-employed consultant March 1967 – Present .. " (https://au.linkedin.com/in/douglas-cotton-b794a871) " .. climate change greenhouse effect global warming carbon dioxide carbon tax radiative forcing Christianity Jesus Christ salvation rate of ageing slower aging human aging health heart disease cancer photography landscape photography photos of tasmania photos of UK photos of Europe .. " (http://www.infositeshow.com/sites/douglascotton.com) and goodness knows what else " .. B.Sc (physics), B.A. (economics), Dip.Bus.Admin Sydney and Macquarie Universities (1963 to 1972 inclusive)
Awarded four academic scholarships including one by the Physics Dept of the University of Sydney .. ".
My money's on Dr. Stevens being correct!!
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Doug Cotton wrote, "(13.1) There is a hell of a lot of confused thinking on the internet about the issue as to whether or not, or by how much compression raises the temperature of a gas."
Not really. YOU are confused. But I've given you a link to an online calculator where you can calculate by how much the compression will raise the temperature of a gas:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/adiab.html
I've also given you two examples of how to use that calculator.
.
Mr. Cotton wrote, "(13.2) Read the opening comment by tomtraxler at https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/why-does-temperature-rise-with-pressure.39446/ where he writes ..."
The correct answer to his question was "#5" given on Aug 15, 2004 by "Chi Meson."
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/why-does-temperature-rise-with-pressure.39446/#post-286039
.
Mr. Cotton wrote, "(13.5) So go and buy your fire syringe and feel how hot the glass gets without any cotton wool. At least it will be a highlight at your next kid's party, and not too hot to pass around I would suggest."
Transparent fire syringes are made with thick walls, and they compress very small volumes of air. So you won't feel much heat on the outside. But if you pump up an automobile tire with an old-fashioned manual tire pump, the barrel of the tire pump will, indeed, become too hot to comfortably handle.
.
Mr. Cotton wrote, "(13.6) I don't dispute that internal combustion engines run at high "compression" temperatures, but the temperature has been built up over thousands of cycles as the engine warms up in the first few minutes..."
Wrong. Small marine diesel engines often come with hand cranks, so that they can be started without using the electric starter motor. Such engines should start immediately, when cold.
The starting technique is to first activate the compression release, so that the engine can be manually turned. Then spin the engine as fast as you can with the crank, and deactivate the compression release, so that the momentum of the fly wheel will carry it through the compression stroke. If everything is working properly, the engine will fire immediately, because the compression ALONE drives the air temperature to above 600 °C, even on a cold day, so that when the fuel is injected it will ignite.
The one I'm personally familiar with is my friend's Volvo Penta MD2 (two-cylinder) engine, similar to these:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mu1KDLYUCBM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZ1zbjZ2FS0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KYivg9xTkA
Note that there are no glow plugs, and there is no need to crank the engine "thousands of cycles" before it will run. The compression ratio is 17.5:1, and ONE compression cycle is all that is needed to ignite the fuel and start the engine.
Here's someone starting an MD1 (one-cylinder version) manually. That lever he throws on top is the compression release valve.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAzpeHGmvXg
Not really. YOU are confused. But I've given you a link to an online calculator where you can calculate by how much the compression will raise the temperature of a gas:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/adiab.html
I've also given you two examples of how to use that calculator.
.
Mr. Cotton wrote, "(13.2) Read the opening comment by tomtraxler at https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/why-does-temperature-rise-with-pressure.39446/ where he writes ..."
The correct answer to his question was "#5" given on Aug 15, 2004 by "Chi Meson."
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/why-does-temperature-rise-with-pressure.39446/#post-286039
.
Mr. Cotton wrote, "(13.5) So go and buy your fire syringe and feel how hot the glass gets without any cotton wool. At least it will be a highlight at your next kid's party, and not too hot to pass around I would suggest."
Transparent fire syringes are made with thick walls, and they compress very small volumes of air. So you won't feel much heat on the outside. But if you pump up an automobile tire with an old-fashioned manual tire pump, the barrel of the tire pump will, indeed, become too hot to comfortably handle.
.
Mr. Cotton wrote, "(13.6) I don't dispute that internal combustion engines run at high "compression" temperatures, but the temperature has been built up over thousands of cycles as the engine warms up in the first few minutes..."
Wrong. Small marine diesel engines often come with hand cranks, so that they can be started without using the electric starter motor. Such engines should start immediately, when cold.
The starting technique is to first activate the compression release, so that the engine can be manually turned. Then spin the engine as fast as you can with the crank, and deactivate the compression release, so that the momentum of the fly wheel will carry it through the compression stroke. If everything is working properly, the engine will fire immediately, because the compression ALONE drives the air temperature to above 600 °C, even on a cold day, so that when the fuel is injected it will ignite.
The one I'm personally familiar with is my friend's Volvo Penta MD2 (two-cylinder) engine, similar to these:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mu1KDLYUCBM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZ1zbjZ2FS0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KYivg9xTkA
Note that there are no glow plugs, and there is no need to crank the engine "thousands of cycles" before it will run. The compression ratio is 17.5:1, and ONE compression cycle is all that is needed to ignite the fuel and start the engine.
Here's someone starting an MD1 (one-cylinder version) manually. That lever he throws on top is the compression release valve.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAzpeHGmvXg
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Doug Cotton wrote, "(12.9) I quote Ted Hutch at https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-compression-temperature-of-Diesel-engine 'Most engines run at between 195F and 220F but the fuel ignites at any temperature that is conducive to the fuel’s flash point. The range is 90F to 220F. Compression ignites the fuel in a diesel engine and the temperature of the cylinder when the fuel is introduced needs to be stable to achieve a clean burn. Enrichment plays a role in how well the engine runs.' Go and argue with him about whether fuel can ignite at a mere 90°F!"
You didn't understand what he was talking about. He was talking about "the temperature of the CYLINDER," not the temperature of the compressed air.
Diesel fuel does NOT "ignite at a mere 90°F." When the cylinder walls are too cool, fuel that is in contact with the cylinder walls won't burn. That's why you often see black smoke when a diesel engine is starting: because a portion of the injected fuel doesn't burn. On that first stroke, the AIR is hot enough to ignite the fuel which is injected into the air, so the engine fires and develops enough power to come up to speed. But some of the fuel, which is in contact with the cold cylinder walls, doesn't burn, resulting in smoke. When the inside surfaces of the cylinder walls get hot enough to quickly vaporize the fuel, then you get a much cleaner burn.
Read the upvoted answers to that Quora question, by Amrendra Jha and Stephen Carey. Even in relatively low-compression diesel engines, the compressed air temperature approaches 600°C (which is well above the autoignition temperature of diesel fuel).
You didn't understand what he was talking about. He was talking about "the temperature of the CYLINDER," not the temperature of the compressed air.
Diesel fuel does NOT "ignite at a mere 90°F." When the cylinder walls are too cool, fuel that is in contact with the cylinder walls won't burn. That's why you often see black smoke when a diesel engine is starting: because a portion of the injected fuel doesn't burn. On that first stroke, the AIR is hot enough to ignite the fuel which is injected into the air, so the engine fires and develops enough power to come up to speed. But some of the fuel, which is in contact with the cold cylinder walls, doesn't burn, resulting in smoke. When the inside surfaces of the cylinder walls get hot enough to quickly vaporize the fuel, then you get a much cleaner burn.
Read the upvoted answers to that Quora question, by Amrendra Jha and Stephen Carey. Even in relatively low-compression diesel engines, the compressed air temperature approaches 600°C (which is well above the autoignition temperature of diesel fuel).
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
AHistory&BiographyLover2 years ago (Edited)In reply toan earlier post
Peter Ridley2 years ago
On 9th April 2017 Doug Cotton claimed here that " .. compression "heating" is a myth .. ".
On 14th June 2014 James Stevens claimed on his "Heat Transfer and Applied Thermodynamics" blog that " .. Compression Heating of a Gas .. An ideal gas, like air, or helium, will tend to heat up when it is compressed. Unless measures are taken to cool the gas during the compression process, this can lead to a pretty large temperature increase for relatively modest pressure increases. If we assume that no cooling takes place (adiabatic) it is easy to calculate the minimum temperature to which the gas is heated from the compression process alone .. " (http://heat-transfer-thermodynamics.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/compression-heating-of-gas.html).
Whereas Doug Cotton has provided only hot air, James Stevens was good enough to provide a T/P graph for several gases.
Some readers of these comments may have difficulty deciding which of these two claims is correct. It may help them to know a bit more about the two individuals who made them:
- Dr. James W Stevens " .. a professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs .. Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering, Brigham Young University , 1991, M.S., Mechanical Engineering, BYU, 1988, B.S., Mechanical Engineering, BYU, 1987, Minor in Mathematics .. " (https://sites.google.com/site/heatxferconsulting/Home/vitae).
- Mr Douglas J Cotton - " .. Retired IT Businessman / Part-time Educator / Now Researcher in Atmospheric & Subterrestrial Physics, Self-employed consultant March 1967 – Present .. " (https://au.linkedin.com/in/douglas-cotton-b794a871) " .. climate change greenhouse effect global warming carbon dioxide carbon tax radiative forcing Christianity Jesus Christ salvation rate of ageing slower aging human aging health heart disease cancer photography landscape photography photos of tasmania photos of UK photos of Europe .. " (http://www.infositeshow.com/sites/douglascotton.com) and goodness knows what else " .. B.Sc (physics), B.A. (economics), Dip.Bus.Admin Sydney and Macquarie Universities (1963 to 1972 inclusive)
Awarded four academic scholarships including one by the Physics Dept of the University of Sydney .. ".
My money's on Dr. Stevens being correct!!
On 14th June 2014 James Stevens claimed on his "Heat Transfer and Applied Thermodynamics" blog that " .. Compression Heating of a Gas .. An ideal gas, like air, or helium, will tend to heat up when it is compressed. Unless measures are taken to cool the gas during the compression process, this can lead to a pretty large temperature increase for relatively modest pressure increases. If we assume that no cooling takes place (adiabatic) it is easy to calculate the minimum temperature to which the gas is heated from the compression process alone .. " (http://heat-transfer-thermodynamics.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/compression-heating-of-gas.html).
Whereas Doug Cotton has provided only hot air, James Stevens was good enough to provide a T/P graph for several gases.
Some readers of these comments may have difficulty deciding which of these two claims is correct. It may help them to know a bit more about the two individuals who made them:
- Dr. James W Stevens " .. a professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs .. Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering, Brigham Young University , 1991, M.S., Mechanical Engineering, BYU, 1988, B.S., Mechanical Engineering, BYU, 1987, Minor in Mathematics .. " (https://sites.google.com/site/heatxferconsulting/Home/vitae).
- Mr Douglas J Cotton - " .. Retired IT Businessman / Part-time Educator / Now Researcher in Atmospheric & Subterrestrial Physics, Self-employed consultant March 1967 – Present .. " (https://au.linkedin.com/in/douglas-cotton-b794a871) " .. climate change greenhouse effect global warming carbon dioxide carbon tax radiative forcing Christianity Jesus Christ salvation rate of ageing slower aging human aging health heart disease cancer photography landscape photography photos of tasmania photos of UK photos of Europe .. " (http://www.infositeshow.com/sites/douglascotton.com) and goodness knows what else " .. B.Sc (physics), B.A. (economics), Dip.Bus.Admin Sydney and Macquarie Universities (1963 to 1972 inclusive)
Awarded four academic scholarships including one by the Physics Dept of the University of Sydney .. ".
My money's on Dr. Stevens being correct!!
“Regardless of the presence of gravity, Gibbs’s isothermal solution is the maximum-entropy state in a thermally-isolated (energy-conserving) atmosphere.”
On the energetics of maximum-entropy temperature profiles
R. A. Akmaev
QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY
Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 134: 187–197 (2008)
Published online in Wiley InterScience
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.209/pdf
This is precisely the situation that Loschmidt talked about – static equilibrium in an isolated column of gas. But Loschmidt didn’t finish the solution. If you stand a horizontal isothermal isolated column of gas up vertically you may well get an TRANSIENT temperature gradient because of the gas slumping (compressing in the lower part, expanding in the upper part). If so, the upper and lower parts of the column will then exchange energy (via conduction, radiation, and/or convection) to maximize system entropy by restoring the ISOTHERMAL condition. You cannot maintain a temperature gradient with gravity alone. You must disrupt the isolation of the column somehow to do that.
Once again, the troposphere is a dynamic open system (heat entering at the bottom, exiting at the top, and for many other reasons). Loschmidt, even if he had been correct, doesn't even apply.
On the energetics of maximum-entropy temperature profiles
R. A. Akmaev
QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY
Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 134: 187–197 (2008)
Published online in Wiley InterScience
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.209/pdf
This is precisely the situation that Loschmidt talked about – static equilibrium in an isolated column of gas. But Loschmidt didn’t finish the solution. If you stand a horizontal isothermal isolated column of gas up vertically you may well get an TRANSIENT temperature gradient because of the gas slumping (compressing in the lower part, expanding in the upper part). If so, the upper and lower parts of the column will then exchange energy (via conduction, radiation, and/or convection) to maximize system entropy by restoring the ISOTHERMAL condition. You cannot maintain a temperature gradient with gravity alone. You must disrupt the isolation of the column somehow to do that.
Once again, the troposphere is a dynamic open system (heat entering at the bottom, exiting at the top, and for many other reasons). Loschmidt, even if he had been correct, doesn't even apply.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
“Josiah Willard Gibbs (February 11, 1839 – April 28, 1903)”
“… he became the earliest theoretical scientist in the United States to earn an international reputation and was praised by Albert Einstein as "the greatest mind in American history.”
“Together with James Clerk Maxwell and Ludwig Boltzmann, he created statistical mechanics (a term that he coined), explaining the laws of thermodynamics as consequences of the statistical properties of ensembles of the possible states of a physical system composed of many particles.”
“Unassuming in manner, genial and kindly in his intercourse with his fellow-men, never showing impatience or irritation, devoid of personal ambition of the baser sort or of the slightest desire to exalt himself, he went far toward realizing the ideal of the unselfish, Christian gentleman. In the minds of those who knew him, the greatness of his intellectual achievements will never overshadow the beauty and dignity of his life.”
— H. A. Bumstead, 1903”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josiah_Willard_Gibbs
AHistory&BiographyLover
“… he became the earliest theoretical scientist in the United States to earn an international reputation and was praised by Albert Einstein as "the greatest mind in American history.”
“Together with James Clerk Maxwell and Ludwig Boltzmann, he created statistical mechanics (a term that he coined), explaining the laws of thermodynamics as consequences of the statistical properties of ensembles of the possible states of a physical system composed of many particles.”
“Unassuming in manner, genial and kindly in his intercourse with his fellow-men, never showing impatience or irritation, devoid of personal ambition of the baser sort or of the slightest desire to exalt himself, he went far toward realizing the ideal of the unselfish, Christian gentleman. In the minds of those who knew him, the greatness of his intellectual achievements will never overshadow the beauty and dignity of his life.”
— H. A. Bumstead, 1903”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josiah_Willard_Gibbs
AHistory&BiographyLover
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
I'm puzzled why all of Doug Cotton's comments on all of the Amazon reviews of his self-published booklet have been " .. Deleted by Amazon on Apr 16, 2017 .. ".
On 13th April David Burton refuted Doug's theory of how a Diesel engine works. Until then Doug had been firing off comments here as though there would be no tomorrow - now silence!! This is so unlike Doug.
Since February Doug has blasted me with over 150 E-mails but I've had nothing from him since the 19th April. Those of the 18th/19th April are typical QUOTE: ..
18th .. Subj: You can easily rubbish History & Biography Lover
Tell him to half-fill his cylinder with ball bearings and then use the energy when they fall to create his perpetual motion machine (LOL). By the way, Roderich Graeff did H&BL's suggested experiment over 850 times, turning the cylinders upside down and noting that the temperature gradient virtually always formed and re-formed with cooler temperatures at the top.
18th .. Subj: A challenge
Feel free to quote this on Amazon or any blog and try to counter it, smart PR.
The Radiative Forcing Greenhouse Hypothesis is false because there is no valid physics supporting its underlying assumption that the surface temperature can be explained by adding to the solar radiation about twice as much radiation from the colder atmosphere. If climatology physics were correct, then, if one electric bar radiator warmed something to 42°C in an ambient temperature of 10°C, sixteen such radiators would have to warm it to over 200°C, but they don't. The hypothesis in the book is developed directly from a correct statement (and understanding) of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. That law gives only one result in a gravitational field, namely a stable density gradient and stable temperature gradient. I suggest it is time that the reviewer (H&BL) read the rest of the book, especially the study that showed water vapor cools ..
19th .. Subj: Why GREENHOUSE gas COOLS and CANNOT WARM us. There's $50,000 if I'm wrong.
Dear Politicians, Scientists and others .. The Radiative Forcing Greenhouse Hypothesis is false because ... (The remainder was a repeat of Doug's E-mail to me on 18th .. Subj: A challeng) ..
.. UNQUOTE.
Included among Doug Cotton's many questionable pronouncements in his E-mails, blog comments and here are his repeated claims about how the Stefan-Boltzmann Law can be used to determine the temperature of a body that is absorbing electromagnetic radiation.
During E-mail exchanges on 10th Oct. 2011 with members of the PSI blog (see FOOTNOTE 1) and others on the subject of "John O'Sullivan's specious claims" Dr. Grant Petty, Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Wisconson (http://sleet.aos.wisc.edu/~gpetty/wp/?page_id=12) said to Professor Claes Johnson (one of Doug's heroes - see FOOTNOTE 2) " .. the SB law isn't two-way because it is UNDERSTOOD by anyone who actually works with radiation to apply only to the radiation EMITTED by a surface .. This is not climate science. This is routine undergraduate-level physics .. ".
It's a shame that at that time Doug was not included in those exchanges therefore did not benefit from the sound physics that Professor Petty offered to the group. It was several months later, in March 2012 (http://www.webcommentary.com/docs/jo120314.pdf) that Doug became " .. proud to be an active member of PSI and .. in daily email contact with many of these main stream scientists, including professors and PhD’s in various disciplines such as physics, applied mathematics, chemistry, climatology and astro physics .. " (http://www.climate-resistance.org/2012/04/how-to-talk-like-an-oily-dishonest-creep.html#comment-51573).
Never mind, if Doug ever becomes inclined to properly educate himself about the relevant physics then he can always get copies of Professor Petty's text books "A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation" and "A First Course in Atmospheric Thermodynamics". They should remove all of his misconceptions about atmospheric radiation and the SLoT.
FOOTNOTES:
1) The Principia Scientific International (PSI) blog was set up in 2010 by ex-high school art teacher John O'Sullivan. He envisaged establishing PSI as a successful publishing business with himself as CEO and thousands of members, each paying an annual fee of £50 (see https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2012/02/18/the-cotton-war/#comment-71990 and the subsequent exchanges, noting Doug's use of the pseudonym "retiredphysicseducator").
For more information on PSI see https://www.desmogblog.com/principia-scientific-international .
2) Claes Johnson is Professor of Applied Mathematics, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden. He was a prominent contributor to the 2010 booklet "Slaying the sky dragon .. " (https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/customer-reviews/R2VT54CSOB9NNI/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B004DNWJN6) and to the subsequent discussions about John O'Sullivan's proposals for the role and structure of PSI. In March 2012 Doug Cotton said " .. The whole world should acknowledge the work of Claes Johnson .. This .. is the foundation for my writings here .. " (http://principia-scientific.org/publications/psi_radiated_energy.pdf).
On 13th April David Burton refuted Doug's theory of how a Diesel engine works. Until then Doug had been firing off comments here as though there would be no tomorrow - now silence!! This is so unlike Doug.
Since February Doug has blasted me with over 150 E-mails but I've had nothing from him since the 19th April. Those of the 18th/19th April are typical QUOTE: ..
18th .. Subj: You can easily rubbish History & Biography Lover
Tell him to half-fill his cylinder with ball bearings and then use the energy when they fall to create his perpetual motion machine (LOL). By the way, Roderich Graeff did H&BL's suggested experiment over 850 times, turning the cylinders upside down and noting that the temperature gradient virtually always formed and re-formed with cooler temperatures at the top.
18th .. Subj: A challenge
Feel free to quote this on Amazon or any blog and try to counter it, smart PR.
The Radiative Forcing Greenhouse Hypothesis is false because there is no valid physics supporting its underlying assumption that the surface temperature can be explained by adding to the solar radiation about twice as much radiation from the colder atmosphere. If climatology physics were correct, then, if one electric bar radiator warmed something to 42°C in an ambient temperature of 10°C, sixteen such radiators would have to warm it to over 200°C, but they don't. The hypothesis in the book is developed directly from a correct statement (and understanding) of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. That law gives only one result in a gravitational field, namely a stable density gradient and stable temperature gradient. I suggest it is time that the reviewer (H&BL) read the rest of the book, especially the study that showed water vapor cools ..
19th .. Subj: Why GREENHOUSE gas COOLS and CANNOT WARM us. There's $50,000 if I'm wrong.
Dear Politicians, Scientists and others .. The Radiative Forcing Greenhouse Hypothesis is false because ... (The remainder was a repeat of Doug's E-mail to me on 18th .. Subj: A challeng) ..
.. UNQUOTE.
Included among Doug Cotton's many questionable pronouncements in his E-mails, blog comments and here are his repeated claims about how the Stefan-Boltzmann Law can be used to determine the temperature of a body that is absorbing electromagnetic radiation.
During E-mail exchanges on 10th Oct. 2011 with members of the PSI blog (see FOOTNOTE 1) and others on the subject of "John O'Sullivan's specious claims" Dr. Grant Petty, Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Wisconson (http://sleet.aos.wisc.edu/~gpetty/wp/?page_id=12) said to Professor Claes Johnson (one of Doug's heroes - see FOOTNOTE 2) " .. the SB law isn't two-way because it is UNDERSTOOD by anyone who actually works with radiation to apply only to the radiation EMITTED by a surface .. This is not climate science. This is routine undergraduate-level physics .. ".
It's a shame that at that time Doug was not included in those exchanges therefore did not benefit from the sound physics that Professor Petty offered to the group. It was several months later, in March 2012 (http://www.webcommentary.com/docs/jo120314.pdf) that Doug became " .. proud to be an active member of PSI and .. in daily email contact with many of these main stream scientists, including professors and PhD’s in various disciplines such as physics, applied mathematics, chemistry, climatology and astro physics .. " (http://www.climate-resistance.org/2012/04/how-to-talk-like-an-oily-dishonest-creep.html#comment-51573).
Never mind, if Doug ever becomes inclined to properly educate himself about the relevant physics then he can always get copies of Professor Petty's text books "A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation" and "A First Course in Atmospheric Thermodynamics". They should remove all of his misconceptions about atmospheric radiation and the SLoT.
FOOTNOTES:
1) The Principia Scientific International (PSI) blog was set up in 2010 by ex-high school art teacher John O'Sullivan. He envisaged establishing PSI as a successful publishing business with himself as CEO and thousands of members, each paying an annual fee of £50 (see https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2012/02/18/the-cotton-war/#comment-71990 and the subsequent exchanges, noting Doug's use of the pseudonym "retiredphysicseducator").
For more information on PSI see https://www.desmogblog.com/principia-scientific-international .
2) Claes Johnson is Professor of Applied Mathematics, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden. He was a prominent contributor to the 2010 booklet "Slaying the sky dragon .. " (https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/customer-reviews/R2VT54CSOB9NNI/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B004DNWJN6) and to the subsequent discussions about John O'Sullivan's proposals for the role and structure of PSI. In March 2012 Doug Cotton said " .. The whole world should acknowledge the work of Claes Johnson .. This .. is the foundation for my writings here .. " (http://principia-scientific.org/publications/psi_radiated_energy.pdf).
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
David A. Burton2 years ago (Edited)In reply toan earlier post
Peter Ridley2 years ago
I'm puzzled why all of Doug Cotton's comments on all of the Amazon reviews of his self-published booklet have been " .. Deleted by Amazon on Apr 16, 2017 .. ".
On 13th April David Burton refuted Doug's theory of how a Diesel engine works. Until then Doug had been firing off comments here as though there would be no tomorrow - now silence!! This is so unlike Doug.
Since February Doug has blasted me with over 150 E-mails but I've had nothing from him since the 19th April. Those of the 18th/19th April are typical QUOTE: ..
18th .. Subj: You can easily rubbish History & Biography Lover
Tell him to half-fill his cylinder with ball bearings and then use the energy when they fall to create his perpetual motion machine (LOL). By the way, Roderich Graeff did H&BL's suggested experiment over 850 times, turning the cylinders upside down and noting that the temperature gradient virtually always formed and re-formed with cooler temperatures at the top.
18th .. Subj: A challenge
Feel free to quote this on Amazon or any blog and try to counter it, smart PR.
The Radiative Forcing Greenhouse Hypothesis is false because there is no valid physics supporting its underlying assumption that the surface temperature can be explained by adding to the solar radiation about twice as much radiation from the colder atmosphere. If climatology physics were correct, then, if one electric bar radiator warmed something to 42°C in an ambient temperature of 10°C, sixteen such radiators would have to warm it to over 200°C, but they don't. The hypothesis in the book is developed directly from a correct statement (and understanding) of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. That law gives only one result in a gravitational field, namely a stable density gradient and stable temperature gradient. I suggest it is time that the reviewer (H&BL) read the rest of the book, especially the study that showed water vapor cools ..
19th .. Subj: Why GREENHOUSE gas COOLS and CANNOT WARM us. There's $50,000 if I'm wrong.
Dear Politicians, Scientists and others .. The Radiative Forcing Greenhouse Hypothesis is false because ... (The remainder was a repeat of Doug's E-mail to me on 18th .. Subj: A challeng) ..
.. UNQUOTE.
Included among Doug Cotton's many questionable pronouncements in his E-mails, blog comments and here are his repeated claims about how the Stefan-Boltzmann Law can be used to determine the temperature of a body that is absorbing electromagnetic radiation.
During E-mail exchanges on 10th Oct. 2011 with members of the PSI blog (see FOOTNOTE 1) and others on the subject of "John O'Sullivan's specious claims" Dr. Grant Petty, Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Wisconson (http://sleet.aos.wisc.edu/~gpetty/wp/?page_id=12) said to Professor Claes Johnson (one of Doug's heroes - see FOOTNOTE 2) " .. the SB law isn't two-way because it is UNDERSTOOD by anyone who actually works with radiation to apply only to the radiation EMITTED by a surface .. This is not climate science. This is routine undergraduate-level physics .. ".
It's a shame that at that time Doug was not included in those exchanges therefore did not benefit from the sound physics that Professor Petty offered to the group. It was several months later, in March 2012 (http://www.webcommentary.com/docs/jo120314.pdf) that Doug became " .. proud to be an active member of PSI and .. in daily email contact with many of these main stream scientists, including professors and PhD’s in various disciplines such as physics, applied mathematics, chemistry, climatology and astro physics .. " (http://www.climate-resistance.org/2012/04/how-to-talk-like-an-oily-dishonest-creep.html#comment-51573).
Never mind, if Doug ever becomes inclined to properly educate himself about the relevant physics then he can always get copies of Professor Petty's text books "A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation" and "A First Course in Atmospheric Thermodynamics". They should remove all of his misconceptions about atmospheric radiation and the SLoT.
FOOTNOTES:
1) The Principia Scientific International (PSI) blog was set up in 2010 by ex-high school art teacher John O'Sullivan. He envisaged establishing PSI as a successful publishing business with himself as CEO and thousands of members, each paying an annual fee of £50 (see https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2012/02/18/the-cotton-war/#comment-71990 and the subsequent exchanges, noting Doug's use of the pseudonym "retiredphysicseducator").
For more information on PSI see https://www.desmogblog.com/principia-scientific-international .
2) Claes Johnson is Professor of Applied Mathematics, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden. He was a prominent contributor to the 2010 booklet "Slaying the sky dragon .. " (https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/customer-reviews/R2VT54CSOB9NNI/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B004DNWJN6) and to the subsequent discussions about John O'Sullivan's proposals for the role and structure of PSI. In March 2012 Doug Cotton said " .. The whole world should acknowledge the work of Claes Johnson .. This .. is the foundation for my writings here .. " (http://principia-scientific.org/publications/psi_radiated_energy.pdf).
On 13th April David Burton refuted Doug's theory of how a Diesel engine works. Until then Doug had been firing off comments here as though there would be no tomorrow - now silence!! This is so unlike Doug.
Since February Doug has blasted me with over 150 E-mails but I've had nothing from him since the 19th April. Those of the 18th/19th April are typical QUOTE: ..
18th .. Subj: You can easily rubbish History & Biography Lover
Tell him to half-fill his cylinder with ball bearings and then use the energy when they fall to create his perpetual motion machine (LOL). By the way, Roderich Graeff did H&BL's suggested experiment over 850 times, turning the cylinders upside down and noting that the temperature gradient virtually always formed and re-formed with cooler temperatures at the top.
18th .. Subj: A challenge
Feel free to quote this on Amazon or any blog and try to counter it, smart PR.
The Radiative Forcing Greenhouse Hypothesis is false because there is no valid physics supporting its underlying assumption that the surface temperature can be explained by adding to the solar radiation about twice as much radiation from the colder atmosphere. If climatology physics were correct, then, if one electric bar radiator warmed something to 42°C in an ambient temperature of 10°C, sixteen such radiators would have to warm it to over 200°C, but they don't. The hypothesis in the book is developed directly from a correct statement (and understanding) of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. That law gives only one result in a gravitational field, namely a stable density gradient and stable temperature gradient. I suggest it is time that the reviewer (H&BL) read the rest of the book, especially the study that showed water vapor cools ..
19th .. Subj: Why GREENHOUSE gas COOLS and CANNOT WARM us. There's $50,000 if I'm wrong.
Dear Politicians, Scientists and others .. The Radiative Forcing Greenhouse Hypothesis is false because ... (The remainder was a repeat of Doug's E-mail to me on 18th .. Subj: A challeng) ..
.. UNQUOTE.
Included among Doug Cotton's many questionable pronouncements in his E-mails, blog comments and here are his repeated claims about how the Stefan-Boltzmann Law can be used to determine the temperature of a body that is absorbing electromagnetic radiation.
During E-mail exchanges on 10th Oct. 2011 with members of the PSI blog (see FOOTNOTE 1) and others on the subject of "John O'Sullivan's specious claims" Dr. Grant Petty, Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Wisconson (http://sleet.aos.wisc.edu/~gpetty/wp/?page_id=12) said to Professor Claes Johnson (one of Doug's heroes - see FOOTNOTE 2) " .. the SB law isn't two-way because it is UNDERSTOOD by anyone who actually works with radiation to apply only to the radiation EMITTED by a surface .. This is not climate science. This is routine undergraduate-level physics .. ".
It's a shame that at that time Doug was not included in those exchanges therefore did not benefit from the sound physics that Professor Petty offered to the group. It was several months later, in March 2012 (http://www.webcommentary.com/docs/jo120314.pdf) that Doug became " .. proud to be an active member of PSI and .. in daily email contact with many of these main stream scientists, including professors and PhD’s in various disciplines such as physics, applied mathematics, chemistry, climatology and astro physics .. " (http://www.climate-resistance.org/2012/04/how-to-talk-like-an-oily-dishonest-creep.html#comment-51573).
Never mind, if Doug ever becomes inclined to properly educate himself about the relevant physics then he can always get copies of Professor Petty's text books "A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation" and "A First Course in Atmospheric Thermodynamics". They should remove all of his misconceptions about atmospheric radiation and the SLoT.
FOOTNOTES:
1) The Principia Scientific International (PSI) blog was set up in 2010 by ex-high school art teacher John O'Sullivan. He envisaged establishing PSI as a successful publishing business with himself as CEO and thousands of members, each paying an annual fee of £50 (see https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2012/02/18/the-cotton-war/#comment-71990 and the subsequent exchanges, noting Doug's use of the pseudonym "retiredphysicseducator").
For more information on PSI see https://www.desmogblog.com/principia-scientific-international .
2) Claes Johnson is Professor of Applied Mathematics, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden. He was a prominent contributor to the 2010 booklet "Slaying the sky dragon .. " (https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/customer-reviews/R2VT54CSOB9NNI/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B004DNWJN6) and to the subsequent discussions about John O'Sullivan's proposals for the role and structure of PSI. In March 2012 Doug Cotton said " .. The whole world should acknowledge the work of Claes Johnson .. This .. is the foundation for my writings here .. " (http://principia-scientific.org/publications/psi_radiated_energy.pdf).
That is strange, indeed.
I have a saved copy of this comment thread, from before the Cotton comments were deleted. Email me if you want a copy of it. (If you email me to ask for a copy, then please remind me that I saved it in the "Doug_Cotton" folder under "Downloads.")
I have a saved copy of this comment thread, from before the Cotton comments were deleted. Email me if you want a copy of it. (If you email me to ask for a copy, then please remind me that I saved it in the "Doug_Cotton" folder under "Downloads.")
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Peter Ridley2 years agoIn reply toan earlier post
David A. Burton2 years ago
That is strange, indeed.
I have a saved copy of this comment thread, from before the Cotton comments were deleted. Email me if you want a copy of it. (If you email me to ask for a copy, then please remind me that I saved it in the "Doug_Cotton" folder under "Downloads.")
I have a saved copy of this comment thread, from before the Cotton comments were deleted. Email me if you want a copy of it. (If you email me to ask for a copy, then please remind me that I saved it in the "Doug_Cotton" folder under "Downloads.")
Hi Dave, I'd like a copy please. You have my E-mail address.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
AHistory&BiographyLover2 years ago (Edited)In reply toan earlier post
Peter Ridley2 years ago
Hi Dave, I'd like a copy please. You have my E-mail address.
Here are two paragraphs from the beginning of Chapter 40, The Principles of Statistical Mechanics of The Feynman Lectures on Physics: The New Millennium Edition, Vol. 1.
"So, these are the two questions that we shall try to answer: How are the molecules distributed in space when there are forces acting on them, and how are they distributed in velocity?
It turns out that the two questions are completely independent, and that the distribution of velocities is always the same. We already received a hint of the latter fact when we found that the average kinetic energy is the same, kT/2 per degree of freedom, no matter what forces are acting on the molecules. The distribution of the velocities on the molecules is independent of the forces, because the collision rates do not depend upon the forces."
Herein may lie an explanation of where Loschmidt went wrong. I only have second hand knowledge of his argument, but it seems it was essentially that since a particle of gas in a sparsely populated column will lose kinetic energy (a measure of temperature) as it travels up the column, and gain kinetic energy as it falls, the temperature will rise as you go down the column. He then seemed to have tacitly extrapolated that result to a more densely populated column, ignoring the interaction with other particles. He should have taken an expandable box of particles from bottom to top of the column, and noted the effect of gravity on their average kinetic energy. There is none according to Feynman. Only density and pressure change, and in equal proportions. That cancels the temperature change in the ideal gas law.
I have no idea how he extended his result to liquids and solids. Must be lost in the dustbin of (justly forgotten) history.
PS: Where is Mr. Cotton? He get banned from here too?
"So, these are the two questions that we shall try to answer: How are the molecules distributed in space when there are forces acting on them, and how are they distributed in velocity?
It turns out that the two questions are completely independent, and that the distribution of velocities is always the same. We already received a hint of the latter fact when we found that the average kinetic energy is the same, kT/2 per degree of freedom, no matter what forces are acting on the molecules. The distribution of the velocities on the molecules is independent of the forces, because the collision rates do not depend upon the forces."
Herein may lie an explanation of where Loschmidt went wrong. I only have second hand knowledge of his argument, but it seems it was essentially that since a particle of gas in a sparsely populated column will lose kinetic energy (a measure of temperature) as it travels up the column, and gain kinetic energy as it falls, the temperature will rise as you go down the column. He then seemed to have tacitly extrapolated that result to a more densely populated column, ignoring the interaction with other particles. He should have taken an expandable box of particles from bottom to top of the column, and noted the effect of gravity on their average kinetic energy. There is none according to Feynman. Only density and pressure change, and in equal proportions. That cancels the temperature change in the ideal gas law.
I have no idea how he extended his result to liquids and solids. Must be lost in the dustbin of (justly forgotten) history.
PS: Where is Mr. Cotton? He get banned from here too?
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
David A. Burton2 years agoIn reply toan earlier post
AHistory&BiographyLover2 years ago
Here are two paragraphs from the beginning of Chapter 40, The Principles of Statistical Mechanics of The Feynman Lectures on Physics: The New Millennium Edition, Vol. 1.
"So, these are the two questions that we shall try to answer: How are the molecules distributed in space when there are forces acting on them, and how are they distributed in velocity?
It turns out that the two questions are completely independent, and that the distribution of velocities is always the same. We already received a hint of the latter fact when we found that the average kinetic energy is the same, kT/2 per degree of freedom, no matter what forces are acting on the molecules. The distribution of the velocities on the molecules is independent of the forces, because the collision rates do not depend upon the forces."
Herein may lie an explanation of where Loschmidt went wrong. I only have second hand knowledge of his argument, but it seems it was essentially that since a particle of gas in a sparsely populated column will lose kinetic energy (a measure of temperature) as it travels up the column, and gain kinetic energy as it falls, the temperature will rise as you go down the column. He then seemed to have tacitly extrapolated that result to a more densely populated column, ignoring the interaction with other particles. He should have taken an expandable box of particles from bottom to top of the column, and noted the effect of gravity on their average kinetic energy. There is none according to Feynman. Only density and pressure change, and in equal proportions. That cancels the temperature change in the ideal gas law.
I have no idea how he extended his result to liquids and solids. Must be lost in the dustbin of (justly forgotten) history.
PS: Where is Mr. Cotton? He get banned from here too?
"So, these are the two questions that we shall try to answer: How are the molecules distributed in space when there are forces acting on them, and how are they distributed in velocity?
It turns out that the two questions are completely independent, and that the distribution of velocities is always the same. We already received a hint of the latter fact when we found that the average kinetic energy is the same, kT/2 per degree of freedom, no matter what forces are acting on the molecules. The distribution of the velocities on the molecules is independent of the forces, because the collision rates do not depend upon the forces."
Herein may lie an explanation of where Loschmidt went wrong. I only have second hand knowledge of his argument, but it seems it was essentially that since a particle of gas in a sparsely populated column will lose kinetic energy (a measure of temperature) as it travels up the column, and gain kinetic energy as it falls, the temperature will rise as you go down the column. He then seemed to have tacitly extrapolated that result to a more densely populated column, ignoring the interaction with other particles. He should have taken an expandable box of particles from bottom to top of the column, and noted the effect of gravity on their average kinetic energy. There is none according to Feynman. Only density and pressure change, and in equal proportions. That cancels the temperature change in the ideal gas law.
I have no idea how he extended his result to liquids and solids. Must be lost in the dustbin of (justly forgotten) history.
PS: Where is Mr. Cotton? He get banned from here too?
A&BL, last year I tried to calculate the effect you're describing. It was an educational exercise:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/14/climate-skeptics-behaving-badly/comment-page-1/#comment-2300871
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/14/climate-skeptics-behaving-badly/comment-page-1/#comment-2300871
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
AHistory&BiographyLover2 years ago (Edited)In reply toan earlier post
David A. Burton2 years ago
A&BL, last year I tried to calculate the effect you're describing. It was an educational exercise:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/14/climate-skeptics-behaving-badly/comment-page-1/#comment-2300871
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/14/climate-skeptics-behaving-badly/comment-page-1/#comment-2300871
Can't find it there. Do you use a different name?
Never mind. Found it.
PS: I'm not sure if everything I said is justified by what Feynman said.
To me, in a static isolated system, horizontal or vertical, lapse rate should be zero. The hot parts should conduct and radiate more heat energy to the cold parts than visa versa. Temperature (the measure of heat energy) should even out. But when you start adding heat at the bottom and let it escape from the top, you need a temperature gradient to get heat energy moving upward. Adiabatic lapse rate is the gradient which is just on the verge of instability. Dump too much heat in at bottom and convection will start. Dump way too much in at the bottom, and the column will overturn as in a thunder storm. Or else there'll be phase changes. Too complicated for me.
PS: Obviously, I know that's no answer to your question. : )
PPS: I don't think ballistics is supposed to work in a crowded room. You can't pretend all those people aren't there.
PPPS: I guess that's the point you were trying to make.
Never mind. Found it.
PS: I'm not sure if everything I said is justified by what Feynman said.
To me, in a static isolated system, horizontal or vertical, lapse rate should be zero. The hot parts should conduct and radiate more heat energy to the cold parts than visa versa. Temperature (the measure of heat energy) should even out. But when you start adding heat at the bottom and let it escape from the top, you need a temperature gradient to get heat energy moving upward. Adiabatic lapse rate is the gradient which is just on the verge of instability. Dump too much heat in at bottom and convection will start. Dump way too much in at the bottom, and the column will overturn as in a thunder storm. Or else there'll be phase changes. Too complicated for me.
PS: Obviously, I know that's no answer to your question. : )
PPS: I don't think ballistics is supposed to work in a crowded room. You can't pretend all those people aren't there.
PPPS: I guess that's the point you were trying to make.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Peter Ridley2 years ago (Edited)In reply toan earlier post
AHistory&BiographyLover2 years ago
Can't find it there. Do you use a different name?
Never mind. Found it.
PS: I'm not sure if everything I said is justified by what Feynman said.
To me, in a static isolated system, horizontal or vertical, lapse rate should be zero. The hot parts should conduct and radiate more heat energy to the cold parts than visa versa. Temperature (the measure of heat energy) should even out. But when you start adding heat at the bottom and let it escape from the top, you need a temperature gradient to get heat energy moving upward. Adiabatic lapse rate is the gradient which is just on the verge of instability. Dump too much heat in at bottom and convection will start. Dump way too much in at the bottom, and the column will overturn as in a thunder storm. Or else there'll be phase changes. Too complicated for me.
PS: Obviously, I know that's no answer to your question. : )
PPS: I don't think ballistics is supposed to work in a crowded room. You can't pretend all those people aren't there.
PPPS: I guess that's the point you were trying to make.
Never mind. Found it.
PS: I'm not sure if everything I said is justified by what Feynman said.
To me, in a static isolated system, horizontal or vertical, lapse rate should be zero. The hot parts should conduct and radiate more heat energy to the cold parts than visa versa. Temperature (the measure of heat energy) should even out. But when you start adding heat at the bottom and let it escape from the top, you need a temperature gradient to get heat energy moving upward. Adiabatic lapse rate is the gradient which is just on the verge of instability. Dump too much heat in at bottom and convection will start. Dump way too much in at the bottom, and the column will overturn as in a thunder storm. Or else there'll be phase changes. Too complicated for me.
PS: Obviously, I know that's no answer to your question. : )
PPS: I don't think ballistics is supposed to work in a crowded room. You can't pretend all those people aren't there.
PPPS: I guess that's the point you were trying to make.
Hi AH&BL,
When discussing David's attempt to deduce the atmospheric lapse rate you said " .. when you start adding heat at the bottom and let it escape from the top, you need a temperature gradient to get heat energy moving upward .. ". Some readers may imagine that:
- your "bottom" and "top" are referring to the Earth's atmosphere,
- the "heat energy" is the result of insolation absorbed by the Earth's surface and
- that heat energy then works its way through the atmosphere before escaping to space (the reverse of Doug's "heat creep" from TOA to surface).
On numerous occasions when debating the CACC issue I have found individuals incorrectly using the terms heat and energy interchangeably instead of drawing a clear distinction between the kinetic energy of molecules and the energy associated with e/m radiation (e.g. See https://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-131952).
Just a clarification - radiated e/m energy (insolation) causes heating of the Earth, which returns e/m energy (not heat) to space via the atmosphere, some components of which (the "greenhouse" gases, mainly water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane and ozone - see the absorption spectrogram at https://earthzine.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/6.1.jpg) absorb and reradiate a portion of that e/m energy in all directions.
(Not the full story but enough of an outline).
When discussing David's attempt to deduce the atmospheric lapse rate you said " .. when you start adding heat at the bottom and let it escape from the top, you need a temperature gradient to get heat energy moving upward .. ". Some readers may imagine that:
- your "bottom" and "top" are referring to the Earth's atmosphere,
- the "heat energy" is the result of insolation absorbed by the Earth's surface and
- that heat energy then works its way through the atmosphere before escaping to space (the reverse of Doug's "heat creep" from TOA to surface).
On numerous occasions when debating the CACC issue I have found individuals incorrectly using the terms heat and energy interchangeably instead of drawing a clear distinction between the kinetic energy of molecules and the energy associated with e/m radiation (e.g. See https://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-131952).
Just a clarification - radiated e/m energy (insolation) causes heating of the Earth, which returns e/m energy (not heat) to space via the atmosphere, some components of which (the "greenhouse" gases, mainly water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane and ozone - see the absorption spectrogram at https://earthzine.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/6.1.jpg) absorb and reradiate a portion of that e/m energy in all directions.
(Not the full story but enough of an outline).
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
AHistory&BiographyLover2 years agoIn reply toan earlier post
Peter Ridley2 years ago
Hi AH&BL,
When discussing David's attempt to deduce the atmospheric lapse rate you said " .. when you start adding heat at the bottom and let it escape from the top, you need a temperature gradient to get heat energy moving upward .. ". Some readers may imagine that:
- your "bottom" and "top" are referring to the Earth's atmosphere,
- the "heat energy" is the result of insolation absorbed by the Earth's surface and
- that heat energy then works its way through the atmosphere before escaping to space (the reverse of Doug's "heat creep" from TOA to surface).
On numerous occasions when debating the CACC issue I have found individuals incorrectly using the terms heat and energy interchangeably instead of drawing a clear distinction between the kinetic energy of molecules and the energy associated with e/m radiation (e.g. See https://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-131952).
Just a clarification - radiated e/m energy (insolation) causes heating of the Earth, which returns e/m energy (not heat) to space via the atmosphere, some components of which (the "greenhouse" gases, mainly water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane and ozone - see the absorption spectrogram at https://earthzine.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/6.1.jpg) absorb and reradiate a portion of that e/m energy in all directions.
(Not the full story but enough of an outline).
When discussing David's attempt to deduce the atmospheric lapse rate you said " .. when you start adding heat at the bottom and let it escape from the top, you need a temperature gradient to get heat energy moving upward .. ". Some readers may imagine that:
- your "bottom" and "top" are referring to the Earth's atmosphere,
- the "heat energy" is the result of insolation absorbed by the Earth's surface and
- that heat energy then works its way through the atmosphere before escaping to space (the reverse of Doug's "heat creep" from TOA to surface).
On numerous occasions when debating the CACC issue I have found individuals incorrectly using the terms heat and energy interchangeably instead of drawing a clear distinction between the kinetic energy of molecules and the energy associated with e/m radiation (e.g. See https://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-131952).
Just a clarification - radiated e/m energy (insolation) causes heating of the Earth, which returns e/m energy (not heat) to space via the atmosphere, some components of which (the "greenhouse" gases, mainly water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane and ozone - see the absorption spectrogram at https://earthzine.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/6.1.jpg) absorb and reradiate a portion of that e/m energy in all directions.
(Not the full story but enough of an outline).
Understand. Not being a physicist, I tend to be sloppy in the language. I operate more by instinct and mental images. And yes, I was thinking of the troposphere. But the hottest radiates more than the cooler, so the net tendency is upward, which is what I meant to imply.
Did Mr. Cotton give up, or was he booted? Seems like the latter.
Did Mr. Cotton give up, or was he booted? Seems like the latter.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Peter Ridley2 years ago (Edited)In reply toan earlier post
AHistory&BiographyLover2 years ago
Understand. Not being a physicist, I tend to be sloppy in the language. I operate more by instinct and mental images. And yes, I was thinking of the troposphere. But the hottest radiates more than the cooler, so the net tendency is upward, which is what I meant to imply.
Did Mr. Cotton give up, or was he booted? Seems like the latter.
Did Mr. Cotton give up, or was he booted? Seems like the latter.
Dougy has often said that he was finished commenting then returns very quickly to continue defending his position. Although it is possible that he was booted by Amazon, it could be that he has asked for removal of his comments because he recognises that his rants might undermine his credibility.
After all, he has boasted about how he will be using his "paradigm shift" hypothesis in class actions that will shake the world in 2018.
" .. 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).
After all, he has boasted about how he will be using his "paradigm shift" hypothesis in class actions that will shake the world in 2018.
" .. 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).
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Latest E-mails from Dougy (but nothing of scientific merit, just regurgitation of earlier rants).
QUOTE: ..
Subject: It must really grate on smart Peter Ridley that solid empirical evidence now shows why I have been right all along.
From:Doug Cotton ..
Date:06/05/2017 02:28
To:"peterridley ..
Cc:
To our friend, the smart Peter Ridley (BCC to over 300 others)
Bad Luck, Petey boy ... you backed the wrong horse due to you pathetic lack of understanding of thermodynamics and maximum entropy production, and your gullibility in believing the fictitious fiddled physics of climatology that is entirely based on the false assumption that the brilliant 19th century physicist Josef Loschmidt was wrong about force fields like gravity (and centrifugal force) causing there to be a non-zero temperature gradient - as is seen in every planetary troposphere, every vortex cooling tube, over 850 experiments by Roderich Graeff and as can be correctly explained directly from the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If it did not happen then nobody (not even you) could explain planetary temperatures and heat transfers ..
From: DougCotton ..
Date: 06/05/2017 02:55
To: "peterridley ..
Subj: I don’t normally waste time on you these days, but while it's in my clipboard ....
it seems I must reiterate that there is no valid physics and no empirical evidence that greenhouse gas (like water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane) could possibly warm the surfaces of planets like Earth and Venus. Rain forests are not 50 or more degrees hotter than deserts at similar latitude and altitude, and that tells us the IPCC claim that such “greenhouse” gasses supposed warm the Earth by “33 degrees” at average concentrations is totally false. The correct physics was explained in 1876 by the brilliant physicist Josef Loschmidt, and has never been proven wrong. Now in the 21st century we have solid empirical evidence that his “gravito-thermal” effect is indeed a reality. That single fact is sufficient to refute all the fictitious fiddled physics of climatology.
This comment is continued on my blog at itsnotco2 where you may read (free) my papers including “Comprehensive Refutation of the Radiative Forcing Greenhouse Hypothesis” and “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures” and where you can apply for a reward of tens of thousands if you can prove me wrong
.. UNQUOTE.
QUOTE: ..
Subject: It must really grate on smart Peter Ridley that solid empirical evidence now shows why I have been right all along.
From:Doug Cotton ..
Date:06/05/2017 02:28
To:"peterridley ..
Cc:
To our friend, the smart Peter Ridley (BCC to over 300 others)
Bad Luck, Petey boy ... you backed the wrong horse due to you pathetic lack of understanding of thermodynamics and maximum entropy production, and your gullibility in believing the fictitious fiddled physics of climatology that is entirely based on the false assumption that the brilliant 19th century physicist Josef Loschmidt was wrong about force fields like gravity (and centrifugal force) causing there to be a non-zero temperature gradient - as is seen in every planetary troposphere, every vortex cooling tube, over 850 experiments by Roderich Graeff and as can be correctly explained directly from the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If it did not happen then nobody (not even you) could explain planetary temperatures and heat transfers ..
From: DougCotton ..
Date: 06/05/2017 02:55
To: "peterridley ..
Subj: I don’t normally waste time on you these days, but while it's in my clipboard ....
it seems I must reiterate that there is no valid physics and no empirical evidence that greenhouse gas (like water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane) could possibly warm the surfaces of planets like Earth and Venus. Rain forests are not 50 or more degrees hotter than deserts at similar latitude and altitude, and that tells us the IPCC claim that such “greenhouse” gasses supposed warm the Earth by “33 degrees” at average concentrations is totally false. The correct physics was explained in 1876 by the brilliant physicist Josef Loschmidt, and has never been proven wrong. Now in the 21st century we have solid empirical evidence that his “gravito-thermal” effect is indeed a reality. That single fact is sufficient to refute all the fictitious fiddled physics of climatology.
This comment is continued on my blog at itsnotco2 where you may read (free) my papers including “Comprehensive Refutation of the Radiative Forcing Greenhouse Hypothesis” and “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures” and where you can apply for a reward of tens of thousands if you can prove me wrong
.. UNQUOTE.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
AHistory&BiographyLover2 years ago (Edited)In reply toan earlier post
Peter Ridley2 years ago
Latest E-mails from Dougy (but nothing of scientific merit, just regurgitation of earlier rants).
QUOTE: ..
Subject: It must really grate on smart Peter Ridley that solid empirical evidence now shows why I have been right all along.
From:Doug Cotton ..
Date:06/05/2017 02:28
To:"peterridley ..
Cc:
To our friend, the smart Peter Ridley (BCC to over 300 others)
Bad Luck, Petey boy ... you backed the wrong horse due to you pathetic lack of understanding of thermodynamics and maximum entropy production, and your gullibility in believing the fictitious fiddled physics of climatology that is entirely based on the false assumption that the brilliant 19th century physicist Josef Loschmidt was wrong about force fields like gravity (and centrifugal force) causing there to be a non-zero temperature gradient - as is seen in every planetary troposphere, every vortex cooling tube, over 850 experiments by Roderich Graeff and as can be correctly explained directly from the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If it did not happen then nobody (not even you) could explain planetary temperatures and heat transfers ..
From: DougCotton ..
Date: 06/05/2017 02:55
To: "peterridley ..
Subj: I don’t normally waste time on you these days, but while it's in my clipboard ....
it seems I must reiterate that there is no valid physics and no empirical evidence that greenhouse gas (like water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane) could possibly warm the surfaces of planets like Earth and Venus. Rain forests are not 50 or more degrees hotter than deserts at similar latitude and altitude, and that tells us the IPCC claim that such “greenhouse” gasses supposed warm the Earth by “33 degrees” at average concentrations is totally false. The correct physics was explained in 1876 by the brilliant physicist Josef Loschmidt, and has never been proven wrong. Now in the 21st century we have solid empirical evidence that his “gravito-thermal” effect is indeed a reality. That single fact is sufficient to refute all the fictitious fiddled physics of climatology.
This comment is continued on my blog at itsnotco2 where you may read (free) my papers including “Comprehensive Refutation of the Radiative Forcing Greenhouse Hypothesis” and “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures” and where you can apply for a reward of tens of thousands if you can prove me wrong
.. UNQUOTE.
QUOTE: ..
Subject: It must really grate on smart Peter Ridley that solid empirical evidence now shows why I have been right all along.
From:Doug Cotton ..
Date:06/05/2017 02:28
To:"peterridley ..
Cc:
To our friend, the smart Peter Ridley (BCC to over 300 others)
Bad Luck, Petey boy ... you backed the wrong horse due to you pathetic lack of understanding of thermodynamics and maximum entropy production, and your gullibility in believing the fictitious fiddled physics of climatology that is entirely based on the false assumption that the brilliant 19th century physicist Josef Loschmidt was wrong about force fields like gravity (and centrifugal force) causing there to be a non-zero temperature gradient - as is seen in every planetary troposphere, every vortex cooling tube, over 850 experiments by Roderich Graeff and as can be correctly explained directly from the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If it did not happen then nobody (not even you) could explain planetary temperatures and heat transfers ..
From: DougCotton ..
Date: 06/05/2017 02:55
To: "peterridley ..
Subj: I don’t normally waste time on you these days, but while it's in my clipboard ....
it seems I must reiterate that there is no valid physics and no empirical evidence that greenhouse gas (like water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane) could possibly warm the surfaces of planets like Earth and Venus. Rain forests are not 50 or more degrees hotter than deserts at similar latitude and altitude, and that tells us the IPCC claim that such “greenhouse” gasses supposed warm the Earth by “33 degrees” at average concentrations is totally false. The correct physics was explained in 1876 by the brilliant physicist Josef Loschmidt, and has never been proven wrong. Now in the 21st century we have solid empirical evidence that his “gravito-thermal” effect is indeed a reality. That single fact is sufficient to refute all the fictitious fiddled physics of climatology.
This comment is continued on my blog at itsnotco2 where you may read (free) my papers including “Comprehensive Refutation of the Radiative Forcing Greenhouse Hypothesis” and “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures” and where you can apply for a reward of tens of thousands if you can prove me wrong
.. UNQUOTE.
Thanks for the update. At least he’s alive and well; as well as he gets anyway. I suppose he does drive us to try to better understand what we should have learned long ago. The gadfly effect.
I took a trip to the Judith Curry website. Wow, climate debate is a booming industry producing thousands of words, and perhaps little of anything else of value. Seems like Cotton is just the visible tip of the iceberg of confusion.
I took a trip to the Judith Curry website. Wow, climate debate is a booming industry producing thousands of words, and perhaps little of anything else of value. Seems like Cotton is just the visible tip of the iceberg of confusion.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Peter Ridley2 years ago (Edited)In reply toan earlier post
AHistory&BiographyLover2 years ago
Thanks for the update. At least he’s alive and well; as well as he gets anyway. I suppose he does drive us to try to better understand what we should have learned long ago. The gadfly effect.
I took a trip to the Judith Curry website. Wow, climate debate is a booming industry producing thousands of words, and perhaps little of anything else of value. Seems like Cotton is just the visible tip of the iceberg of confusion.
I took a trip to the Judith Curry website. Wow, climate debate is a booming industry producing thousands of words, and perhaps little of anything else of value. Seems like Cotton is just the visible tip of the iceberg of confusion.
Latest from Dougy, again promoting his distorted interpretation of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law QUOTE: ..
From: its.not.co2@gmail.com
Date: 07/05/2017 13:06
To: <peterridley ..
Subj: I will only comment on my blog ... not Amazon now after they deleted my comments
PR
Insolation of 168 W/m^2 absorbed by Earth's surface CANNOT make the mean surface temperature hotter than 233K .. (followed by more of his previous ranting about the S-B Law) ..
DC
UNQUOTE.
At least we now know that it was Amazon that deleted his comments. It would be interesting to know what inspired Amazon to do that, yet still be happy to sell his nonsense booklet..
From: its.not.co2@gmail.com
Date: 07/05/2017 13:06
To: <peterridley ..
Subj: I will only comment on my blog ... not Amazon now after they deleted my comments
PR
Insolation of 168 W/m^2 absorbed by Earth's surface CANNOT make the mean surface temperature hotter than 233K .. (followed by more of his previous ranting about the S-B Law) ..
DC
UNQUOTE.
At least we now know that it was Amazon that deleted his comments. It would be interesting to know what inspired Amazon to do that, yet still be happy to sell his nonsense booklet..
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
AHistory&BiographyLover2 years ago (Edited)In reply toan earlier post
Peter Ridley2 years ago
Latest from Dougy, again promoting his distorted interpretation of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law QUOTE: ..
From: its.not.co2@gmail.com
Date: 07/05/2017 13:06
To: <peterridley ..
Subj: I will only comment on my blog ... not Amazon now after they deleted my comments
PR
Insolation of 168 W/m^2 absorbed by Earth's surface CANNOT make the mean surface temperature hotter than 233K .. (followed by more of his previous ranting about the S-B Law) ..
DC
UNQUOTE.
At least we now know that it was Amazon that deleted his comments. It would be interesting to know what inspired Amazon to do that, yet still be happy to sell his nonsense booklet..
From: its.not.co2@gmail.com
Date: 07/05/2017 13:06
To: <peterridley ..
Subj: I will only comment on my blog ... not Amazon now after they deleted my comments
PR
Insolation of 168 W/m^2 absorbed by Earth's surface CANNOT make the mean surface temperature hotter than 233K .. (followed by more of his previous ranting about the S-B Law) ..
DC
UNQUOTE.
At least we now know that it was Amazon that deleted his comments. It would be interesting to know what inspired Amazon to do that, yet still be happy to sell his nonsense booklet..
Maybe his reputation precedes him. Or maybe it was his constant repetition. Or maybe they can’t afford the storage space. Or maybe the moderator has his own climate opinion. Or . . . And maybe we shouldn’t look a gift horse in the mouth. I think my original comment has been reasonably defended though. So I’m happy. But I don't think I will be commenting negatively much anymore. [Although this one really deserved it and I'd probably do it again. : )]
Thanks,
AH&BL
Thanks,
AH&BL
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Vaughan Pratt2 years agoIn reply toan earlier post
Werner Munter5 years ago
"Energy absorption does not depend on the source temperature". Brand new physics to save the hypothesis of th IPCC? heat always flows from warmer to cooler, never in the opposite direction. If the cooler upper atmosphere would warm up the warmer lower atmosphere at our feet (temperature is measured 2m above the ground) we would be burned to death for a long time. Nature cannot work if cold flows to warm! Creator was more intelligent than the warmists...
"Nature cannot work if cold flows to warm!"
This is easily refuted. Consider a warm radiator above a cold very fast shutter above a hot surface. According to you radiation will flow from the warm radiator towards the cold shutter. Now open the shutter suddenly. What do you believe will happen to the photons that have already left the radiator but have not yet reached the shutter? Will they change course and follow the shutter? Will the heat from the hot surface turn them around and push them back to where they came from? No, photons just pass through each other.
Or will they simply continue on their way to the hot surface and make Nature very angry?
In case you doubt a shutter could be that fast, consider a cold disk with a thousand radial cuts around its perimeter spinning at 60,000 RPM (a thousand revolutions a second), and consider all radiation from a very large warm surface a thousand feet (one light-microsecond) above the disk to a stationary region just above the disk the size and shape of one cut. (While this is only a very tiny part of all the thermal radiation from the warm radiator it nevertheless contains enough photons to make the point.) The disk will slice each thousand feet of that radiation into one part that hits the cold disk and a second part that passes through a cut and onwards to a hot surface placed below the disk.
According to you the second part had no business leaving the warm radiator during the previous microsecond. But how was it to know?
This is easily refuted. Consider a warm radiator above a cold very fast shutter above a hot surface. According to you radiation will flow from the warm radiator towards the cold shutter. Now open the shutter suddenly. What do you believe will happen to the photons that have already left the radiator but have not yet reached the shutter? Will they change course and follow the shutter? Will the heat from the hot surface turn them around and push them back to where they came from? No, photons just pass through each other.
Or will they simply continue on their way to the hot surface and make Nature very angry?
In case you doubt a shutter could be that fast, consider a cold disk with a thousand radial cuts around its perimeter spinning at 60,000 RPM (a thousand revolutions a second), and consider all radiation from a very large warm surface a thousand feet (one light-microsecond) above the disk to a stationary region just above the disk the size and shape of one cut. (While this is only a very tiny part of all the thermal radiation from the warm radiator it nevertheless contains enough photons to make the point.) The disk will slice each thousand feet of that radiation into one part that hits the cold disk and a second part that passes through a cut and onwards to a hot surface placed below the disk.
According to you the second part had no business leaving the warm radiator during the previous microsecond. But how was it to know?
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Vaughan Pratt2 years agoIn reply toan earlier post
Stickler4 years ago
This review dismisses Joseph Loschmidt's argument about the source of the temperature lapse rate in the atmosphere. Now since William Thompson and Paul Ehrenfest shared Loschmidt's analysis but expressed it differently (without even referring to Loschmidt) does he reject these also? All three of these 'skeptics' based their argument on the effect gravitational energy. Were they wrong?
As I wrote in my review, Loschmidt is a red herring here because the greenhouse effect does not depend on the cause of the lapse rate but only on its existence.
However with the counterfactual hypothesis of a zero lapse rate in the absence of GH gases it becomes an interesting question as to whether introduction of GH gases would increase the lapse rate above zero. I imagine it would for roughly the same reason that when you connect a variable resistor across a constant-current source, raising the resistance raises the voltage across the resistor. If you define the emissivity of Earth in terms of the temperature at the surface and the radiation to space at top of atmosphere (TOA), then without GH gases Earth's emissivity should be 1, and (according to tables of emissivity of CO2 at a fixed temperature and increasing partial pressure) should decrease with increasing CO2, thereby lowering the radiation at TOA. The resulting imbalance will then require Earth's surface to warm until the radiation at TOA is just enough to balance the absorbed solar irradiance.
However with the counterfactual hypothesis of a zero lapse rate in the absence of GH gases it becomes an interesting question as to whether introduction of GH gases would increase the lapse rate above zero. I imagine it would for roughly the same reason that when you connect a variable resistor across a constant-current source, raising the resistance raises the voltage across the resistor. If you define the emissivity of Earth in terms of the temperature at the surface and the radiation to space at top of atmosphere (TOA), then without GH gases Earth's emissivity should be 1, and (according to tables of emissivity of CO2 at a fixed temperature and increasing partial pressure) should decrease with increasing CO2, thereby lowering the radiation at TOA. The resulting imbalance will then require Earth's surface to warm until the radiation at TOA is just enough to balance the absorbed solar irradiance.
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Vaughan Pratt2 years ago (Edited)In reply toan earlier post
AHistory&BiographyLover2 years ago
Here are two paragraphs from the beginning of Chapter 40, The Principles of Statistical Mechanics of The Feynman Lectures on Physics: The New Millennium Edition, Vol. 1.
"So, these are the two questions that we shall try to answer: How are the molecules distributed in space when there are forces acting on them, and how are they distributed in velocity?
It turns out that the two questions are completely independent, and that the distribution of velocities is always the same. We already received a hint of the latter fact when we found that the average kinetic energy is the same, kT/2 per degree of freedom, no matter what forces are acting on the molecules. The distribution of the velocities on the molecules is independent of the forces, because the collision rates do not depend upon the forces."
Herein may lie an explanation of where Loschmidt went wrong. I only have second hand knowledge of his argument, but it seems it was essentially that since a particle of gas in a sparsely populated column will lose kinetic energy (a measure of temperature) as it travels up the column, and gain kinetic energy as it falls, the temperature will rise as you go down the column. He then seemed to have tacitly extrapolated that result to a more densely populated column, ignoring the interaction with other particles. He should have taken an expandable box of particles from bottom to top of the column, and noted the effect of gravity on their average kinetic energy. There is none according to Feynman. Only density and pressure change, and in equal proportions. That cancels the temperature change in the ideal gas law.
I have no idea how he extended his result to liquids and solids. Must be lost in the dustbin of (justly forgotten) history.
PS: Where is Mr. Cotton? He get banned from here too?
"So, these are the two questions that we shall try to answer: How are the molecules distributed in space when there are forces acting on them, and how are they distributed in velocity?
It turns out that the two questions are completely independent, and that the distribution of velocities is always the same. We already received a hint of the latter fact when we found that the average kinetic energy is the same, kT/2 per degree of freedom, no matter what forces are acting on the molecules. The distribution of the velocities on the molecules is independent of the forces, because the collision rates do not depend upon the forces."
Herein may lie an explanation of where Loschmidt went wrong. I only have second hand knowledge of his argument, but it seems it was essentially that since a particle of gas in a sparsely populated column will lose kinetic energy (a measure of temperature) as it travels up the column, and gain kinetic energy as it falls, the temperature will rise as you go down the column. He then seemed to have tacitly extrapolated that result to a more densely populated column, ignoring the interaction with other particles. He should have taken an expandable box of particles from bottom to top of the column, and noted the effect of gravity on their average kinetic energy. There is none according to Feynman. Only density and pressure change, and in equal proportions. That cancels the temperature change in the ideal gas law.
I have no idea how he extended his result to liquids and solids. Must be lost in the dustbin of (justly forgotten) history.
PS: Where is Mr. Cotton? He get banned from here too?
@AH&BL: "He should have taken an expandable box of particles from bottom to top of the column, and noted the effect of gravity on their average kinetic energy. There is none according to Feynman."
That sounds fallacious to me. There's a big difference between being carried up 10,000' in the basket of a balloon vs. having to walk up 10,000 one-foot steps under your own steam. When the box of particles is carried up the particles are getting an assist from the rising bottom of the box: even if the box itself is weightless the particles inside are not, and work is being done by an outside agent to raise the particles. Why? Well, if they depend on their own kinetic energy to rise up then they're going to be converting it to potential energy throughout the rise. If however the parcel inside the box does not cool while expanding, the sum of its potential and kinetic energy is going to rise because the PE is clearly rising while KE by hypothesis does not decrease. Hence under the constant-temperature-inside-the-box hypothesis work must be done to raise the expanding parcel: where else could the energy needed to raise that sum come from?
[An earlier version of this comment did not mention adiabatic expansion and compression. After thinking over my first version I decided that the following argument might make the reasoning clearer. It's still a bit subtle so I wouldn't blame people for wanting to find fault with my reasoning.]
If you take the point of view that at all times this weightless expanding box has neutral buoyancy and therefore no work need be done to raise it, we can analyze that point of view by treating the air inside the box and outside separately. The inside air is undergoing adiabatic expansion against the outside air pressure and is therefore cooling, while the outside air is undergoing adiabatic compression due to the expanding box and is therefore warming, albeit not detectably given the outside air's volume.
Did Feynman really make that argument without mentioning the point that adiabatic expansion cools? I find this very hard to believe. Have people since Feynman been revising his class notes?
That sounds fallacious to me. There's a big difference between being carried up 10,000' in the basket of a balloon vs. having to walk up 10,000 one-foot steps under your own steam. When the box of particles is carried up the particles are getting an assist from the rising bottom of the box: even if the box itself is weightless the particles inside are not, and work is being done by an outside agent to raise the particles. Why? Well, if they depend on their own kinetic energy to rise up then they're going to be converting it to potential energy throughout the rise. If however the parcel inside the box does not cool while expanding, the sum of its potential and kinetic energy is going to rise because the PE is clearly rising while KE by hypothesis does not decrease. Hence under the constant-temperature-inside-the-box hypothesis work must be done to raise the expanding parcel: where else could the energy needed to raise that sum come from?
[An earlier version of this comment did not mention adiabatic expansion and compression. After thinking over my first version I decided that the following argument might make the reasoning clearer. It's still a bit subtle so I wouldn't blame people for wanting to find fault with my reasoning.]
If you take the point of view that at all times this weightless expanding box has neutral buoyancy and therefore no work need be done to raise it, we can analyze that point of view by treating the air inside the box and outside separately. The inside air is undergoing adiabatic expansion against the outside air pressure and is therefore cooling, while the outside air is undergoing adiabatic compression due to the expanding box and is therefore warming, albeit not detectably given the outside air's volume.
Did Feynman really make that argument without mentioning the point that adiabatic expansion cools? I find this very hard to believe. Have people since Feynman been revising his class notes?
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
AHistory&BiographyLover2 years ago (Edited)In reply toan earlier post
Vaughan Pratt2 years ago
@AH&BL: "He should have taken an expandable box of particles from bottom to top of the column, and noted the effect of gravity on their average kinetic energy. There is none according to Feynman."
That sounds fallacious to me. There's a big difference between being carried up 10,000' in the basket of a balloon vs. having to walk up 10,000 one-foot steps under your own steam. When the box of particles is carried up the particles are getting an assist from the rising bottom of the box: even if the box itself is weightless the particles inside are not, and work is being done by an outside agent to raise the particles. Why? Well, if they depend on their own kinetic energy to rise up then they're going to be converting it to potential energy throughout the rise. If however the parcel inside the box does not cool while expanding, the sum of its potential and kinetic energy is going to rise because the PE is clearly rising while KE by hypothesis does not decrease. Hence under the constant-temperature-inside-the-box hypothesis work must be done to raise the expanding parcel: where else could the energy needed to raise that sum come from?
[An earlier version of this comment did not mention adiabatic expansion and compression. After thinking over my first version I decided that the following argument might make the reasoning clearer. It's still a bit subtle so I wouldn't blame people for wanting to find fault with my reasoning.]
If you take the point of view that at all times this weightless expanding box has neutral buoyancy and therefore no work need be done to raise it, we can analyze that point of view by treating the air inside the box and outside separately. The inside air is undergoing adiabatic expansion against the outside air pressure and is therefore cooling, while the outside air is undergoing adiabatic compression due to the expanding box and is therefore warming, albeit not detectably given the outside air's volume.
Did Feynman really make that argument without mentioning the point that adiabatic expansion cools? I find this very hard to believe. Have people since Feynman been revising his class notes?
That sounds fallacious to me. There's a big difference between being carried up 10,000' in the basket of a balloon vs. having to walk up 10,000 one-foot steps under your own steam. When the box of particles is carried up the particles are getting an assist from the rising bottom of the box: even if the box itself is weightless the particles inside are not, and work is being done by an outside agent to raise the particles. Why? Well, if they depend on their own kinetic energy to rise up then they're going to be converting it to potential energy throughout the rise. If however the parcel inside the box does not cool while expanding, the sum of its potential and kinetic energy is going to rise because the PE is clearly rising while KE by hypothesis does not decrease. Hence under the constant-temperature-inside-the-box hypothesis work must be done to raise the expanding parcel: where else could the energy needed to raise that sum come from?
[An earlier version of this comment did not mention adiabatic expansion and compression. After thinking over my first version I decided that the following argument might make the reasoning clearer. It's still a bit subtle so I wouldn't blame people for wanting to find fault with my reasoning.]
If you take the point of view that at all times this weightless expanding box has neutral buoyancy and therefore no work need be done to raise it, we can analyze that point of view by treating the air inside the box and outside separately. The inside air is undergoing adiabatic expansion against the outside air pressure and is therefore cooling, while the outside air is undergoing adiabatic compression due to the expanding box and is therefore warming, albeit not detectably given the outside air's volume.
Did Feynman really make that argument without mentioning the point that adiabatic expansion cools? I find this very hard to believe. Have people since Feynman been revising his class notes?
In my example, if the box walls are thermally conductive and if both temperature measurements are make at thermal equilibrium (or if you just transport the box up the column slow enough); then they are the same. Gibbs shows that an isolated isothermal system at thermal equilibrium is at maximum entropy regardless of gravity.
And I did concede in my next comment that I had not distinguished between Feynman and my interpretation (“PS: I'm not sure if everything I said is justified by what Feynman said.”). I suspect he wouldn’t be too worried about me usurping his authority if he were still around, but you never know. : )
And I did concede in my next comment that I had not distinguished between Feynman and my interpretation (“PS: I'm not sure if everything I said is justified by what Feynman said.”). I suspect he wouldn’t be too worried about me usurping his authority if he were still around, but you never know. : )
Leave a reply
Insert product link
Select
What's this?
Paste the product's web address below:
Product not found. Only products offered on Amazon can be linked.
Select
What are product links?
In the text of your review, you can link directly to any product offered on Amazon.com. To insert a product link, follow these steps:
1. Find the product you want to reference on Amazon.com
2. Copy the web address of the product
3. Click Insert product link
4. Paste the web address in the box
5. Click Select
6. Selecting the item displayed will insert text that looks like this:
[[ASIN:014312854XHamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)]]
7. When your review is displayed on Amazon.com, this text will be transformed into a hyperlink, like so:Hamlet (The Pelican Shakespeare)
You are limited to 10 product links in your review, and your link text may not be longer than 256 characters.
Please write at least one word
You must be in good standing in the Amazon community to post.
Your message will not be posted. Please see our guidelines regarding objectionable content.
You must purchase at least one item from Amazon to post a comment
This comment has exceeded the maximum allowed length. Please shorten your comment and try again.
A problem occurred while submitting your comment. Please try again later.
Show more comments
Product Details
2.6 out of 5 stars
10 customer ratings
$24.95+ Free shipping with Amazon Prime
There's a problem loading this menu right now.
Sign in
New customer?
Start here.
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.
Doug Cotton did not give the DOI of his paper. Instead, he replied with a non sequitur: "my papers... have been reviewed and accepted by SSRN..."
In the first place, that's obviously nonsense. The Social Science Research Network (SSRN) does not review papers. It just archives them.
What's more, SSRN is for social science. ArXiv is the appropriate archive for geophysics. So why is your paper, which you claim presciently responded to my "childish ideas," archived on SSRN, instead of arXiv? (I can imagine a possible reason, but you might think it uncharitable.)
What's more, you didn't answer the question. For the 2nd time: what is your paper's DOI? Every published paper has a DOI, these days. What is your paper's DOI?
Doug Cotton did not give the DOI of his paper. Instead, he replied with a non sequitur: "my papers... have been reviewed and accepted by SSRN..."
In the first place, that's obviously nonsense. The Social Science Research Network (SSRN) does not review papers. It just archives them.
What's more, SSRN is for social science. ArXiv is the appropriate archive for geophysics. So why is your paper, which you claim presciently responded to my "childish ideas," archived on SSRN, instead of arXiv? (I can imagine a possible reason, but you might think it uncharitable.)
What's more, you didn't answer the question. For the 2nd time: what is your paper's DOI? Every published paper has a DOI, these days. What is your paper's DOI?
I had a similar discussion about Doug's blog articles (or "papers" as he calls them) here on 16th January (see Page 4). Here's a relevant extract " .. 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/) .. ".
Throughout this year Doug has been spamming his hypothesis through E-mails to all and sundry (I have received over 300 during the past two months alone. Today I have had three in less than one hour, all on the same old rant.
If Doug could bear to tear off his SLoT(ted) blinkers for once he might find it educational to study the measured OLR spectra for several different geographic locations (copied at https://skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=76&&n=200#14568) provided in the excellent book "A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation" by Professor Grant Petty. For starters he could consider carefully what is revealed by those for Southern Iraq (Fig. d) and the small tropical Pacific island of Guam (Fig c - see FOOTNOTE).
Those spectra and a play with the MODTRAN model freely available at the University of Chicago's web-site should be enough to persuade any reasonably open-minded individual that there really is a "greenhouse effect" due to the properties of the atmospheric gasses H2O, CO2, CH4, NOxs, etc. Unfortunately, it appears that Doug is determined to wallow in his ignorance.
Being a supreme optimist' I try again and suggest that Doug takes a break from spamming his "heat creep hypothesis" to consider what happens between wavenumbers 800 to 1000 and 1100 to 1250 for the different atmospheric conditions to be expected over the Guam and Southern Iraq locations.
FOOTNOTE:
The Guam spectra were also made available by sadly departed Australian CACC sceptic John Daly in his interesting 2001 "Smoking Peashooter" article (https://www.john-daly.com/smoking.htm). Readers may recall the disgusting "Climategate" E-mail comment forwarded to Dr. Michael "Hockey-stick" Mann by the scaremongering Chief Scientist at CRU, Dr. Phil Jones, on learning of John Daly's death in Jan.b2004 “… in an odd way this is cheering news .. ” (http://www.burtonsys.com/FOIA/1075403821.txt).
There's a moving tribute to John Daly at http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2009/11/john-l-daly/.
Doug boasted " .. Senator Malcolm Roberts .. knows me well .. " then linked to the a/v of the Q&A session of Malcolm's 29th March meeting in Parliament House, Canberra (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wq13YvwPzEo).
It looks as though it was not only Malcolm Roberts (see FOOTNOTE) who knows Doug well. When it was Doug's turn to ask a question the request was pointedly made " .. Doug (and just for everybody) no statements please, just a quick question .. ". So what did Doug do? You guessed it. He asked no question, instead making statements to promote his web-site, his 2013 blog article (or "paper" as he likes to call it), his "heat creep hypothesis" and his $50,000 offer to anyone who can prove him wrong. He then advised the panel and audience of the different data sets that he thought should be considered. Malcolm Roberts cut Doug's rant short after only 2 minutes, so yes, it does seem that Doug is known only too well by Malcolm (and others at that meeting).
After promoting here his relationship with Malcolm Roberts, egocentric Doug repeated the three points that he raised at the meeting, one being " .. nor can you explain wet regions being cooler than dry .. ". If by a "wet region" he means a location where there is lots of rain then perhaps the source of that rain has an impact. On this 1st April it is opportune to invite Doug to ponder from whence that rain cometh and what impact that might have on the amount of insolation reaching the Earth's surface. Those April showers that we are experiencing here in the UK today provide an appropriate natural experiment giving a hint to one explanation of " .. wet regions being cooler than dry .. ". They also demonstrate that " .. Radiation reaching a planet's surface IS .. the primary determinant of the temperature .. ", contrary to what Doug would have the world's population believe.
One "Dr. Strangelove" had this to say about one of Doug's articles published on the PSI blog (http://principia-scientific.org/publications/psi_radiated_energy.pdf) " .. cotton Your arrogance is annoying. You’re quoting your own paper as if it’s a revolutionary scientific paper. You must be a legend in your own mind. Your paper is wrong. If you have trouble accepting this, try to publish it in a reputable physics journal. I assure you it will be rejected.
I read your paper. It’s not science. No equations. No computations. No mathematical modeling of physical processes. No description of real experiments and their results. No statistical analyses of actual data. It’s just a narrative of your own opinion about the climate, radiation and heat flow. Worse, your opinion is wrong .. " (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/03/global-warming-as-cargo-cult-science/#comment-40018).
FOOTNOTE:
Malcolm Roberts is listed as a key member of John O'Sullivan's CACC-sceptic blog PSI (https://www.desmogblog.com/principia-scientific-international - see also the Desmogblog article on Malcolm, linked in that list). He has enjoyed an element of prominence on the PSI blog (http://principia-scientific.org/tag/malcolm-roberts/)". Malcolm's close relationship with John O'Sullivan goes back at least to early 2010 (https://www.sott.net/article/203222-Climate-debate-heats-up-in-Australian-politics-new-Skeptic-Party-created).
Doug Cotton was at one time " .. proud to be an active member of Principia Scientific International .. " (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/03/global-warming-as-cargo-cult-science/#comment-43391) but even commenters on respected CACC-sceptic blog's have rejected that group, e.g. in:
- March 2012 " .. Isn’t this “paper” in Principia Scientific? Are you suggesting this is a “peer reviewed” scientific journal? .. What a prestigious honor to be published there! .. " (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/03/global-warming-as-cargo-cult-science/#comment-39128),
- August 2012 " .. Neither Mr O’Sullivan nor “his” PSI front has any credibility .. " (http://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2012/08/with-friends-like-these-we-need-no-enemies/#comment-109694),
- Sept. 2014 " .. John O’Sullivan is not what most around here would consider a reliable source .. " (about 11 comments after https://climateaudit.org/2014/09/10/another-porky-from-mann-williams-and-fontaine/#comment-729976).
Now, even PSI has disowned Doug " .. 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/).
The really sad joke is that Doug regards the geosphere (i.e. the global system of atmos-/aqua-/litho-/bio-/cryo-spheres) to be a black body. Because it is anything but a black body (neither absorbing all incoming e/m radiation nor emitting a continuous spectrum in accordance with Planck's Law) it is a misuse of the S-B Law to assume that its dependent and independent variables can be transposed in order to derive the Earth's temperature from the insolation.
In the FOOTNOTES of my recent April Fool's day comment I mentioned Doug's one-time proud membership of John O'Sullivan's PSI blog. Looking through the archives of my "SpotlightOn Principia Scientific International" blog article reminded me of the entry I had about Doug Cotton back in June 2013, when he had become persona non grata at PSI (and numerous other CACC-Sceptic blogs). Readers may find the article of interest (https://web.archive.org/web/20130602081200/http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/spotlighton-principia-scientific.html).
Here are a few extracts from QUOTE: ..
3.14 Member Douglas Jeffrey Cotton
Doug Cotton does not appear to be listed among PSI’s “ .. selection of our valued members .. ” (http://principia-scientific.org/about/why-psi-is-a-private-assoc.html) however last March he declared to meteorologist Dr. Roy Spencer .. that he is " .. proud to be a member of PSI and an author of one of only six selected publications on their site – publications which talk real science, Roy .. ” ..
For many months Doug has been posting comments on the Internet promoting what he refers to as his “papers” and linking to one of his numerous blogs. His arguments are repeatedly rejected by respected scientists such as Dr. Spencer and other bloggers, this comment being representative “ .. I’m not sure what poor Dr Spencer has done in a past life, but he attracts an extraordinary number of cranks to his blog. I suspect Cotton is the crank of all cranks. He must be working his way through every climate blog on the internet until he finally gets banned from them all, just for the nuisance factor alone .. ” ..
On 27th Jan. 2013 Doug warned that the “Slayers” have a ground-breaking, greenhouse SMASHING document coming out soon. I speculate that this new "ground-breaking .. document" will equally soon be emphatically rejected just like Doug's "Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics" article was on Roger Tattersall's "Tallbloke" blog and elsewhere. As David M Hoffer said " .. I HAVE read enough of your paper to know that it is based on so many fallacies that the criticisms would run longer than the paper itself. As gallopingcamel said upthread, it contains many half truths, the debunking of which is often more complex than dealing with an outright lie. But conclusions based on a collection of half truths are, nonetheless, wrong .. " ..
Despite his claims to expertise in Physics and maths there is no evidence of Doug Cotton having had any of his articles peer reviewed and published in any recognised scientific journals but he frequently directs readers to one of his numerous blogs. The more revealing of those are not his "Earth Climate - What Physics says about about CLIMATE CHANGE" but his:
- "Acclaim Dental Software" blog ..
- "OzViews" blog from which " ..
- "TasmaniaHoliday" blog .. or
- "UKEuropeViews" blog ..
If photo's aren't of interest then there are plenty other blogs to visit such as:
- "Slower-Aging" ...
If all of that has been too boring there are always Doug's other sidelines such as:
- "Saved by the Lamb" one part of which might be worth posting to his climate science blog, i.e. " ..FOR THOSE WHO HAVE DOUBTS - I know there will be many reading this site who have doubts about the truth of all this .. " ..
.. UNQUOTE.
4 years on and Doug is still struggling for recognition of his "21st Century New Paradigm Shift in Climate Change Science” (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyB4d9gw4CpI1csZxNFZTEg).
Responding to my comment that " .. Doug refuses to give any consideration whatsoever to the evidence of those measured OLR absorption spectra" Doug said " .. my papers .. explain that the energy merely escapes to Space via another "gate" that being mostly radiation by water vapor .. ". What I would now say is that Doug refuses to give PROPER consideration to the evidence of those measured OLR absorption spectra .. ".
The Guam spectral plot to which I linked (Fig. C at https://skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=76&&n=200#14568) demonstrates quite clearly the "greenhouse effect" of atmospheric water vapour (and carbon dioxide, methane and ozone). Guam is a small island in the Western Pacific which enjoys a warm, wet tropical marine climate. The spectral plot shows the significant absorption of OLR by water between wavenumbers 400 and 550 and from 1350 up (H2O absorbs significantly from about 700 wavenumbers down and 1350 up - see https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/atmospheric_spectral_absorption.png for the combined effect of H2O, CO2 and O3.
Rather than acknowledging that atmospheric water vapour prevents significant surface OLR from returning to space, Doug makes the unscientific claim that " .. the energy merely escapes to Space via another "gate" .. ".
I eagerly await Doug's attempt to define this "gate" and describe how it is opened.
"The calculation of not only the entire troposphere temperature profile by the greenhouse equation, but also the calculation of the temperature profiles of all remaining levels of the entire atmosphere all the way to space at ~100,000 meters, by bootstrapping onto this seminal gravito-thermal model of the 1976 US Standard Atmosphere above the troposphere, will be the topic of the next post in this series.
"Thus, these hundreds of scientists were in effect “deniers” of the man-made CO2 global warming hypothesis that would come much later, and didn’t recognize any “radiative forcing” from any “greenhouse gases” at the time they provided an accurate physically derived & straightforward model of the atmosphere. Hansen’s (falsified) climate models and the CAGW hypothesis scare didn’t arrive until ~30 years later. These atmospheric scientists never once used any radiative calculations of “back-radiation” or “radiative forcing” from IR-active greenhouse gases or clouds, or any absorption/emission spectra from greenhouse gases, all of which are the absolutely essential and critical underpinnings of the entire 33C Arrhenius radiative greenhouse theory a.k.a. the catastrophic man-made CO2 global warming theory. Why not?"
And so, Peter Ridley, "History and Biography Lover" and others who have been brainwashed by climatologists, I suggest you now go and argue on the PSI thread for the above-linked post, for I have wasted enough of my time teaching you about the gravito-thermal effect and correcting your misapprehensions about radiation. You can have it all to yourself because I am banned there at PSI.
When someone proves what Josef Loschmidt published about it in 1876 and what Dr Hans Jelbring (PhD in climatology) published in Energy and Environment in 2003 to be wrong, then there may be a need to publish a counter argument.
When the CSIRO in Australia (or anyone else) can find evidence of the greenhouse gas water vapor actually warming the surface, then maybe my study that showed it cooled may be worth checking or repeating on a larger scale. Do you find any fault with that study?
Meanwhile, as I have said many times, my 2013 paper "Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures" is being subjected to peer-review in open media for five (5) full years with a reward of AU $50,000 offered at https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com where the rest of my response to you may be read.
Over 1,000 peer-reviewed papers find fault in the radiative forcing greenhouse conjecture which violates the laws of physics.
In other words, established physics in reputable journals may be used to prove climatologists like Roy Spencer wrong. Read the latest posts on the effect of gravity at Principia Scientific Internation.
Cheers for the victory of gravity!
Mr. Cotton, there's no such thing as "peer-review in open media." That's not peer-review, that's obfuscation.
Your site says, "REWARD now AU $50,000 for the first to prove me wrong" -- which is impossible, not because you can't be proved wrong, but because no one can be FIRST to prove you wrong, because you've ALREADY been proved wrong over and over. Moreover, since you're made yourself the judge of of your contest to prove yourself wrong, and you never admit to being wrong about anything at all, no matter how elementary your error, nor how conclusively it is proven, your "contest" is a sham, just like your fake physics.
Doug Cotton also wrote, "Over 1,000 peer-reviewed papers find fault in the radiative forcing greenhouse conjecture which violates the laws of physics."
More nonsense. Plenty of scientists have published papers in peer-reviewed journals, which dispute various aspects of climate alarmism. (In fact, I'm one of them.) But there certainly are NOT 1000 papers which claim that the warming effect of GHGs "violates the laws of physics."
That delusion is your own special niche, shared with your former colleagues at PSI, who can't get their rot published in peer-reviewed journals, either.
“Go away Doug! There’s a reason you’re banned from every site, because you pollute every thread with your nonsense. Citing your self in the third person is incredibly bad form.
YOU HAVEN’T DISCOVERED ANY NEW PHYSICS — YOU JUST NEVER REALLY GRASPED HIGH SCHOOL PHYSICS IN THE FIRST PLACE [my emphasis]!"
To reiterate: Loschmidt was talking (incorrectly) about a STATIC equilibrium in a column of gas. The tropospheric lapse rate occurs in a DYNAMIC system (the troposphere). You don’t even try to get the basics right.
PS: No, Loschmidt's conjecture is not a corollary of the second law, it is a violation of it. And, yes, radiative powers do add.
Regarding opinions on the very complicated scientific issue of the processes and drivers of the different global climates, acclaim from ex-high school art teacher, wannabe lawyer/journalist and PSI founding member/CEO John O'Sullivan (see 3.2 below) appears to me to be WORTHLESS.
As for John O'Sullivan's buddy, analytical chemist and PSI founding member/CFO Johannes Cornelis Schreuder (Hans), he may be many things but I have found no evidence that he is a "Dr" in any discipline (see 3.3 below).
My blog article "SpotlightON Principia Scientific International" (https://web.archive.org/web/20130602081200/http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/spotlighton-principia-scientific.html) provides detailed background information about many of the PSI members, including founding members Messrs O'Sullivan and Schreuder, e.g:
- QUOTE: ..
3.2 Co-Founder "CEO and Legal Consultant" John O'Sullivan ..
.. John O'Sullivan claims to have studied at Leicester University, UK from 1995-2000 for a Doctoral Degree in Education Management and Leadership and at State University of New York (SUNY) from 2004-2007 for a Bachelor’s Degree in International and Comparative Law. His wife (who lives in New York State) .. advised that .. they married there on 1st Jan, 1998, John stayed for barely a year, returned to the UK and has not been back to the USA in all those years ..
In his New York County Lawyers Association .. profile John O'Sullivan stated “Law School – University of Surrey/Hill .. Date Graduated - 01/2010 .. ”. There is an Internet-based .. “Hill University” which .. is one of 26 “ .. fake college websites .. ” listed as a “Diploma Mill” (http://www.diplomamillscam.com/fraud/hill-university-reviews) .. John’s wife advised that she had also come across a certificate from Hill University and " .. that is where he obtained a so called Law Degree .. ” ..
Why would someone who had earned a Bachelor’s Degree in International and Comparative Law from SUNY after completing studies there in 2007 claim in his NYCLA profile to have studied Law at University of Surrey/Hill and have qualified in Jan. 2010? ..
.. Not everyone swallowed John O'Sullivan's claims about .. litigating on both sides of the Atlantic as meaning he was a qualified and successful lawyer ..
.. at almost 50 years old John O'Sullivan had no track record of successfully managing any business venture at all. .. his WEBANGLIA.COM Ltd. business had been struck off after 4 years in existence making loss after annual loss ..
.. he said " .. Its indeed a strange world where folk with genuine scientific qualifications and credibility like Postma, Peirs Corbyn and Claes Johnson seem to need a front man without any formal scientific training and who requires name changing from time to time .. " ".
3.3 Co-Founder and "CFO" Johannes Cornelis Schreuder
.. Apart from Hans's numerous blog articles and his chapters in "Slaying the sky dragon" there appears to be no evidence of any peer-reviewed papers or significant scientific research of any sort by him ..
.. THE LONDON GAZETTE MONDAY 5 JULY 1999 announced that " .. SCHREUDER, Johannes Cornells, also known as Hans Schreuder, a Marine Technician .. Date of Bankruptcy Order— 28th June 1999 ..
.. None of these refer to Johannes Cornelis Schreuder as a scientist but simply as a "technician" ..
.. UNQUOTE.
As I have repeatedly opined, Doug's blog articles (or "papers" as he likes to call them) have not been subjected to competent peer review prior to publication in any respected scientific learned society journal.
Just because Doug decrees " .. that it is valid to use S-B to determine the MAXIMUM temperature of ANY body that is warmed only by a SINGLE source of radiation (whether or not that body is a black or grey body) because NOTHING GETS HOTTER THAN A BLACKBODY for any given flux .. " does not make it TRUTH.
As respected CACC-sceptic scientist (real) Dr. Roy Spencer said in March 2012 " ..
Temperature is determined by rates of energy gain and energy loss. It does not matter whether we are talking about the human body, a car engine, a pot of water on the stove, or the climate system. The temperature (and whether it is rising or falling) is determined by the rates of energy gain and energy loss. In the case of the climate system, the Earth receives energy from the sun (primarily at visible wavelengths of light), and loses energy to outer space (primarily at infrared wavelengths). A temperature rise can occur either from (1) increasing the rate of energy gain, or (2) decreasing the rate of energy loss. The greenhouse effect has to do with the 2nd of these possibilities.
.. Infrared absorbing gases reduce the rate at which the Earth loses infrared energy to space. Satellite measurements of the rate at which the Earth loses infrared energy to space have been made as early as the 1970’s, from the NASA Nimbus 4 spacecraft. The following plot (*) shows the IR intensity (vertical axis) as a function of IR wavelength (horizontal axis). The area under the jagged curve is proportional to the rate of energy loss to space. Note that at the wavelengths where water vapor, carbon dioxide, and ozone absorb and emit IR energy, the rate of energy loss by the Earth is reduced .. " (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/03/slaying-the-slayers-with-the-alabama-two-step/).
* Dr. Spencer provided a copy of the Guam spectral plot to which I keep trying to get Doug to pay proper attention.
One thing that I do agree with is Doug's statement that he has " .. wasted enough .. time teaching .. the gravito-thermal effect and correcting .. misapprehensions about radiation .. ". In my opinion, rather than promoting his distorted version of physics Doug would be better spending his time learning about atmospheric radiation, an excellent starting point being "A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation .. For meteorology and climatology students who require an introduction to the principles and practical consequences of atmospheric radiation .. By Grant W. Petty .. Professor of Atmospheric Science in the Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences department at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, where he teaches atmospheric physics and remote sensing to both undergraduate meteorology majors and graduate students. His research specialties include satellite microwave remote sensing of rainfall and other atmospheric variables, as well as radiative transfer modeling in three-dimensional clouds .. (http://www.sundogpublishing.com/shop/a-first-course-in-atmospheric-radiation-2nd-ed/).
At $36 Grant's book is in my opinion excellent value, unlike Doug's "Why It's Not Carbon Dioxide After All" at $20.48.
Good grief, Mr. Cotton. Why do you keep posting this nonsense, over and over, AFTER AHistory&BiographyLover has already explained it to you with such clarity, just one week ago (3/28/2017):
"Actually, Mr. Cotton, if your cheek were a blackbody in empty space (no other radiation source including no back radiation), and one radiator raised its temperature to 42 degree C, 16 radiators would double the absolute temperature of that cheek to 357 degree C. The power the radiators deliver to the cheek are additive. 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?"
Mr. Cotton, are you really incapable of understanding that very simple explanation? Or are you simply unwilling to ADMIT that you understand it, because your PRIDE won't let you ADMIT that you were wrong?
Ref #1:
https://www.amazon.com/review/R3L4RWMLCPUD1O/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?ie=UTF8&asin=1478729228&cdForum=FxGKOKBYP090RE&cdMsgID=Mx3RLKTDBV8B4E4&cdMsgNo=118&cdPage=12&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx1P6O3C1OQHC5J&store=books#Mx3RLKTDBV8B4E4
Ref #2:
“Everyone with a proud heart is detestable to the Lord; be assured, he will not go unpunished.”
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+16:5
"Frequency?" Nobody said anything about frequency. Mr. Cotton, do you really not understand the difference between power and frequency??
Mr. Cotton continued, "...resonating processes wherein some of the incident energy is sometimes converted only to electron energy, not kinetic (thermal) energy..."
That is complete gibberish.
There's no such thing as "electron energy" (in the sense that you're using the term), and the distribution of energy in a warm object among the constituent molecules' various translational, vibrational & rotational modes is no different if the object is heated by one electric heater or sixteen. (Unless the matter undergoes a phase change, of course.)
That's complete gibberish. Radiation doesn't attain "temperature." Radiation has power, wavelength/frequency, direction, polarization, but NOT temperature.
Mr. Cotton continued, "I referred you to Wien's Displacement Law."
That's more proof of your confusion. Wien's Displacement Law has nothing to do with any of this. It describes black body emission spectra, and GHGs do not even slightly resemble black bodies.
Perhaps you are confused because your light bulbs are specified with a "color temperature." That doesn't mean the light from the light bulb is any temperature, it is just a rough indication of the spectral distribution of the light which that bulb produces. It means that the light is supposed to LOOK similar to the human eye to light which WOULD be emitted by a black body of that temperature. Here's a pretty good article:
http://www.soundandvision.com/content/led-vs-cfl-bulbs-color-temp-light-spectrum-and-more
Doug Cotton continued, "Electron (potential) energy is increased when electrons move up through one or more quantum states, you clot!"
Well, of course, but that's not what we were talking about.
IR photons do not "move electrons up through one or more quantum states." The energy associated with electrons making atomic orbital transitions is much higher than the thermal and infrared photon energies we've been talking about. CO2's LWIR is centered around 15,000 nm wavelength, which means that each photon has less than one-twentieth of the energy of a photon in the visible spectrum, and not anywhere near enough energy to elevate electrons to higher orbitals.
Perhaps you've noticed that the atmosphere is transparent in the visible spectrum. That's because the molecules which make up the atmosphere (mainly N2, O2, Ar, CO2, H2O), and the atoms which make up those molecules, do NOT absorb photons in the visible spectrum. When gas does not absorb at a particular wavelength, it means that none of the transitions of which it is capable correspond to the energy of photons at that wavelength.
Most atmospheric gases do not absorb LWIR, either, but CO2 and H2O do. But they do NOT do so via electron transitions to higher atomic orbitals; there's not nearly enough energy in a LWIR photon for that. CO2's 15,000 nm absorption band is due to a molecular bending-mode transition, as illustrated in this diagram:
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/earth/climate/images/carbon.gif
(Note: that diagram is wrong in one respect. It should not show the absorbed IR photon being re-emitted by the same molecule. While that can happen, it's not the usual case. In the troposphere >99.99999% of the LWIR photons which CO2 absorbs are not re-emitted. Instead, the absorbed energy is transferred by collisions with other air molecules, so it just heats the air. That's why the CO2 stays in thermal equilibrium with the rest of the air, even while absorbing very intense IR. It is also why the amount of 15,000 nm IR emitted by atmospheric CO2 depends only on the atmosphere's temperature (and CO2 partial pressure), not on how the air got to that temperature. Whether the ground is very cold and emits little IR, or very warm and emits lots of IR, will not affect the amount of IR emitted by the CO2 in the adjacent atmosphere, except by affecting the temperature of that air.)
Mr. Cotton also wrote, "you have not studied physics to third year Distinction Level in any recognized university, as I have."
Is that supposed to be impressive? I don't even know what a "distinction level" is -- it must be some sort of Australian thing.
I don't find any CV for you on your web sites, either; e.g. there's no mention of your qualifications here:
http://ageslowly.homestead.com/
So, exactly what degree(s) did you earn, and where?
Did you write a dissertation or thesis? Is it published anywhere?
That is such complete nonsense that I think you are lying about having a BS in physics. Nobody with a BS in physics could possibly say something so obviously wrong. When and where do you claim to have been awarded a physics degree? Which year and which university?
Wien's displacement law predicts black body EMISSIONS, not absorption. The TEMPERATURE which a black body reaches has NOTHING at all to do with the peak frequency of the radiation which heats it.
In fact, that is what makes it a black body: the fact that it absorbs ALL incoming radiation, without preference.
Which do you think will heat a black body (or your dinner) to a higher temperature? A 5 mW green laser pointer at 532 nm (563,000 GHz), or an 1100 W microwave oven at 12.5 cm (2.4 GHz)?
Each green photon contains 235,000 times as much energy as each microwave photon! But that doesn't matter at all. What matters is the total amount & rate of energy transferred.
A black body would absorb either photon (green visible or microwave) without preference, so you could heat it equally effectively with green photons or microwave photons. But the microwave oven puts out 220 million times as much energy as the green laser pointer, so the microwave oven would heat a black body 220 million times faster than the green laser pointer (assuming that all the emitted energy reaches the target).
This is VERY elementary. You should not be able to pass a high school physics course without understanding it. I do not believe that either Sydney University or Macquarie University awarded a physics degree to someone who does not understand this.
But tucked away right in the middle of it Mr. Cotton snuck in a bald-faced lie about me: "Burton thinks that carbon dioxide molecules hardly emit ANY radiation."
For the record, I most certainly do NOT think that.
I also notice that Mr. Cotton wrote nearly 1000 words WITHOUT answering my question: When and where, Mr. Cotton, do you claim to have been awarded a physics degree? Which year and which university?
It doesn't surprise me that he didn't answer. I didn't expect an answer, because I doubt that there is one.
The radiative forcing greenhouse conjecture is false because you cannot explain Earth's surface temperature with 168W/m^2 of solar radiation plus an overstated (and impossible) flux of 324W/m^2 of atmospheric radiation.
The Alarmists writing this review and the comments in this thread think physics is just formulas which they misapply because they have not studied physics to degree level and learned to UNDERSTAND it in a recognised university. There is copious empirical evidence proving them wrong, such as real-world data that confirm water vapor cools, as my hypothesis predicts it should.
In contrast to what has become the biggest deceptive scam in history, my hypothesis in my three papers and this book is developed directly from the laws of physics and, more importantly, supported by an abundance of empirical evidence both on Earth and throughout the Solar System. If you think you can fault it there is a reward of AU $50,000 (about US $35,000) offered at http://whyitsnotco2.com but all submissions must be on my blog which is linked and must show evidence of having read the hypothesis.
As for Burton's question, it is answered a third time here ....
Douglas Cotton B.Sc (physics), B.A. (economics), Dip.Bus.Admin
Sydney and Macquarie Universities (1963 to 1972 inclusive)
Awarded four academic scholarships including one by the Physics Dept of the University of Sydney
John Murphy, BSc (hons) Physics from London University a long time ago
Written yesterday
Fake Science is a good description because the Greenhouse Gas Effect (GHE) cannot exist.
Not only that – it is straightforward to prove it doesn’t exist.
How people have got away with this stuff for so long amazes me.
Below are a couple of proofs that the GHE can’t exist. ....
...
The key here is in the “Energy balance at the the Earth’s surface” box.
Here the Solar radiation flux is added to the flux from the Greenhouse gases (Infrared radiation from the atmosphere) to get a total flux – and from there using Boltzmann's (fourth power) relationship the Earth’s temperature is calculated.
Who said you can add fluxes together?
Just because measurements are the in the same units does not mean you can add or aggregate them .
Did anyone test it?
Where are the examples that you can add radiation flux to radiation flux
Who made that assumption – and why don’t students challenge it?
Nobody suggests adding temperatures together – why do they think of adding fluxes together? There is no precedent – it does not happen anywhere else in the known universe.
It would mean (amongst other impossible things) that heat from a source would be added to whatever was there in the first place; heat piling on top of heat.
Straight out of Alice in Wonderland which used to be Literature not Physics.
I like to think that in my day they’d never get away with because it’s completely wrong; you just can’t add fluxes together. It would mean that two or more sources of radiation aimed at the same target would create a higher temperature than either of the sources could acting alone.
And that’s an easily testable property of heat and heat transfer. It is not a property of Climate or Atmosphere – it is a heat-transfer property of heat. It may be necessary for the GHE theory to work – but it is a basic heat property.
It must work everywhere – basic properties are not selective.
Theoretical proof that two or more sources of radiation aimed at the same target do not create a temperature based on adding the individual fluxes together.
Take a high number of electric bar elements (1kw) and surround a block of iron.
Very quickly the block of iron will become much, much hotter than the wire in the elements.
The block of iron will radiate and begin to increase the temperature of the elements – which will then radiate more heat towards the iron block.
(Note that the block of iron can be made as hot as you wish – just add more elements.)
The block of iron will then get even hotter still – and so on ad-infinitum.
The positive feedback effect (actually unknown in nature) would progress at near the speed of light and as there is nothing to slow it down or stop it (convection being far too slow) it would consume the universe.
Not only that, it would do so without energy; no extra energy is needed at the elements for them to get hotter and hotter to infinity.
Completely impossible or Alice in Wonderland – take your pick.
Two or more sources of radiation aimed at the same target do not create a temperature based on adding the individual fluxes together.
Therefore the GHE which relies on the two sources of Solar radiation and GHE radiation to be summed cannot be true.
The Earth’s surface reaches the temperature achieved by either Solar or GHE acting alone – they cannot be added together. (See experimental results for the algebra / arithmetic)
To test it experimentally is fairly straightforward; either do this at home or get your university to do it better: (and you can read the rest with the above link)
Are you talking about that Sydney University 1962 Summer School that you attended with 150 other high school students?
Also, is that John Murphy just another of your many many sock puppets?
I replied, "I most certainly do NOT think that."
Still confused, Mr. Cotton replied, "In a comment below David Burton wrote 'In the troposphere >99.99999% of the LWIR photons which CO2 absorbs are not re-emitted.' Well what is it emitting? Does a carbon dioxide molecule 'know' that a certain portion of its thermal energy came from collisions? Can it distinguish that thermal energy from what it attained via absorption of radiation?"
I'll try to make this as simple as possible, for Mr. Cotton.
When a CO2 molecule absorbs 0.083 eV of energy, corresponding to a molecular bending-mode vibration, it may acquire the energy either by collision(s) with other air molecule(s) or by absorption of a 15,000 nm LWIR photon. It will remain in that excited state until it gives up the energy: again, either by collision with another air molecule, or by emission of a photon.
The relative likelihoods of those two ways of releasing that energy are determined probabilistically, according to the relative mean amounts of time before the energy is lost in the two different ways. So what are those lifetimes?
At one atmosphere air pressure and comfortable air temperatures, it will be only a few nanoseconds, on average, before the IR molecule gives up the energy by collision.
However, it takes, on average, about one second(!!!) for it to give up the energy by emission of an IR photon.
Compared to the time between collisions that is VERY long.
That means when a CO2 molecule is in that excited state, >99.99999% of the time it will give up the energy by collision with another air molecule, rather than by emission of a photon. (Aside: if you count the nines, you may think there aren't enough of them... that's intentional, because I wanted what I wrote to be true for the entire troposphere, not just at sea level.)
However, that does NOT mean "carbon dioxide molecules hardly emit any radiation," because although CO2 molecules are constantly giving up energy by collision with other air molecules, they are also constantly absorbing energy from other air molecules. That continual process of collisional energy transfer between air molecules keeps the constituent gases in the atmosphere in thermal equilibrium. So the amount of IR emitted by CO2 in the air is determined by just two factors: 1. the temperature of the air, and 2. the partial pressure of the CO2.
The answer, if there is one, is NOT a ten-year range of dates, and NOT a list of two schools. It is a single year, and a single university.
I don't expect an answer, because I doubt that there is one. But if I am wrong, Mr. Cotton, and you really DO have a physics degree, then answer the question: in which year was it awarded, and by which university?
The answer, if there is one, is NOT a ten-year range of dates, and NOT a list of two schools. It is a single year, and a single university.
I don't expect an answer, because I doubt that there is one. But if I am wrong, Mr. Cotton, and you really DO have a physics degree, then answer the question: in which year was it awarded, and by which university?
During exchanges in December 2011 with members of the PSI blogging group (which you were proud to be a member of) its front man John O'Sullivan was challenged about his claims to having an accredited Law Degree. In retaliation he accused investigative journalist Andrew Skolnick of lying about having an MSc.
Both were challenged to provide evidence to support their claims. John O'Sullivan never did provide any evidence to refute that he had bought his degree from "Hill University", an on-line diploma mill. On the other hand, Andrew Skolnick quickly provided me with a certified copy of his MSc.
(See my Aug. 2012 comment following the revealing article "Affidavits in Michael Mann Libel Suit Reveal Astonishing Facts About Tim Ball Associate John O'Sullivan" at https://www.desmogblog.com/comment/727946#comment-727946).
Why don't you do what Andrew did and send me a certified copy of your degrees in Physics and Maths so that you can at least get David Burton off your back on this issue.
The correct physics which, in complete contrast, does explain temperatures and the required heat transfers in the atmospheres and sub-surface regions of planets and satellite moons first appeared in my "Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures" in 2013 and that document (on which this book is based) is being subjected to a full five (5) years of review in open media, with a reward of AU $50,000 (about US $35,000) offered at https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com for the first to prove the physics substantially wrong and to produce a counter study to mine that showed the greenhouse gas water vapor cooling, as my hypothesis predicts it should. Carbon dioxide cools for the same reasons, but by less than 0.1 degree.
For a brief summary read my six-page "Comprehensive Refutation of the Radiative Forcing Greenhouse Hypothesis" linked from my website http://whyitsnotco2.com. Any questions or attempted refutations will only be read and answered on my blog that, along with my videos, is also linked from http://climate-change-theory.com. See also my earlier website http://earth-climate.com and join over 100,000 others who have visited my websites or viewed my videos about the breakthrough science that the world will come to understand hopefully within the next twenty years or so.
Douglas Cotton B.Sc (physics), B.A. (economics), Dip.Bus.Admin
Sydney and Macquarie Universities (1963 to 1972 inclusive)
Awarded four academic scholarships including one by the Physics Dept of the University of Sydney
Doubts have been raised about his claim to a BSc in Physics, just as doubts were raised over PSI blog "CEO and Legal Consultant" John O'Sullivan's claim to having a Law Degree from Surrey University/Hill University.
It's puzzling why Doug avoids responding to David Burton's reasonable request for further information. After all, people making false claims about their status is not unheard of, so it is always worthwhile doing some due diligence when important issues are involved.
Come on Doug. Put this one to rest by making available certification of your degree by Sydney University.
During exchanges in December 2011 with members of the PSI blogging group (which you were proud to be a member of) its front man John O'Sullivan was challenged about his claims to having an accredited Law Degree. In retaliation he accused investigative journalist Andrew Skolnick of lying about having an MSc.
Both were challenged to provide evidence to support their claims. John O'Sullivan never did provide any evidence to refute that he had bought his degree from "Hill University", an on-line diploma mill. On the other hand, Andrew Skolnick quickly provided me with a certified copy of his MSc.
(See my Aug. 2012 comment following the revealing article "Affidavits in Michael Mann Libel Suit Reveal Astonishing Facts About Tim Ball Associate John O'Sullivan" at https://www.desmogblog.com/comment/727946#comment-727946).
Why don't you do what Andrew did and send me a certified copy of your degrees in Physics and Maths so that you can at least get David Burton off your back on this issue.
I was aware of the fact John O'Sullivan cannot be trusted. In 2015 O'Sullivan & Pierre Latour blatantly lied on the PSI web site, and also in emails, about Dr. S. Fred Singer's views. The web site article was entitled, "Singer Concurs with Latour: CO2 Doesn't Cause Global Warming."
http://web.archive.org/web/20150117064319/http://www.principia-scientific.org/singer-concurs-with-latour-co2-doesn-t-cause-global-warming.html
In email O'Sullivan wrote, "Fred Singer has now come over to PSI's view that CO2 can only cool. I suggest you contact him."
I forwarded that to Prof. Singer, who was then 90 years old, and asked him:
"Dear Dr. Singer,
Please confirm or deny this allegation.
Warmest regards,
Dave"
Prof. Singer replied:
"denied SFS"
That's what I expected. I forwarded it to O'Sullivan & others, including Dr. Singer's friend, Lord Christopher Monckton, but O'Sullivan STILL refused to to remove the dishonest article from the PSI web site.
Prof. Singer elaborated in a subsequent email:
"Friends, There is a sure way to smoke out deniers like PS [Principia Scientific]
Just ask them if GH models violate the 2nd Law of Thermo ...
These people just won't accept the existence of DWR (downwelling IR from atm to sfc)
-- even if measured empirically
No point wasting more time -- as Jo said
Fred"
After Lord Monckton threatened legal action, PSI finally did edit and tone down the article, making it less flagrantly false. (It now says "Singer Converges on ZERO Climate Carbon Forcing.")
So I knew O'Sullivan was a liar, but I did not know that he also faked his degree. Thank you for educating me.
Strangely enough, Mr. Cotton apparently has that in common with his estranged comrade, Mr. O'Sullivan. As you can see, Mr. Cotton still refuses to reveal what college awarded his supposed physics degree, and still refuses to reveal the year it which it was supposedly awarded. The only possible reason for that which I can think of is that Mr. Cotton knows the information could be verified if true, or refuted if false.
Doubts have been raised about his claim to a BSc in Physics, just as doubts were raised over PSI blog "CEO and Legal Consultant" John O'Sullivan's claim to having a Law Degree from Surrey University/Hill University.
It's puzzling why Doug avoids responding to David Burton's reasonable request for further information. After all, people making false claims about their status is not unheard of, so it is always worthwhile doing some due diligence when important issues are involved.
Come on Doug. Put this one to rest by making available certification of your degree by Sydney University.
Has he claimed that his physics degree was awarded by Sydney University? All I've seen is this:
"Douglas Cotton B.Sc (physics), B.A. (economics), Dip.Bus.Admin / Sydney and Macquarie Universities (1963 to 1972 inclusive)"
That's two different universities, and a ten year range of dates.
They are both large institutions:
http://sydney.edu.au/ (~53,000 students)
https://www.mq.edu.au/ (~40,000 students)
I wonder if his Economics and Business Administration degrees are fake, too?
The correct physics which, in complete contrast, does explain temperatures and the required heat transfers in the atmospheres and sub-surface regions of planets and satellite moons first appeared in my "Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures" in 2013 and that document (on which this book is based) is being subjected to a full five (5) years of review in open media, with a reward of AU $50,000 (about US $35,000) offered at https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com for the first to prove the physics substantially wrong and to produce a counter study to mine that showed the greenhouse gas water vapor cooling, as my hypothesis predicts it should. Carbon dioxide cools for the same reasons, but by less than 0.1 degree.
For a brief summary read my six-page "Comprehensive Refutation of the Radiative Forcing Greenhouse Hypothesis" linked from my website http://whyitsnotco2.com. Any questions or attempted refutations will only be read and answered on my blog that, along with my videos, is also linked from http://climate-change-theory.com. See also my earlier website http://earth-climate.com and join over 100,000 others who have visited my websites or viewed my videos about the breakthrough science that the world will come to understand hopefully within the next twenty years or so.
Douglas Cotton B.Sc (physics), B.A. (economics), Dip.Bus.Admin
Sydney and Macquarie Universities (1963 to 1972 inclusive)
Awarded four academic scholarships including one by the Physics Dept of the University of Sydney
Are you claiming that you received a B.Sc in physics in 1966 from Sydney University, Mr. Cotton?
If not, then when and where were you awarded a B.Sc in physics?
Mr. Cotton, you just asked that very confused question, and I just answered it, Apr 6, 2017, 3:35:11 PM PDT, here:
https://www.amazon.com/review/R3L4RWMLCPUD1O/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?ie=UTF8&asin=1478729228&cdForum=FxGKOKBYP090RE&cdMsgID=Mx8DNTM4TAF2VA&cdMsgNo=164&cdPage=17&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx1P6O3C1OQHC5J&store=books#Mx8DNTM4TAF2VA
.
Mr. Cotton continued, "over 98% of the thermal energy in Earth's atmosphere is in oxygen, nitrogen and argon molecules."
That's true, but irrelevant. The various gases in the atmosphere remain in thermal equilibrium via collisional energy transfer.
.
Mr. Cotton continued, "It is the IR-active (so-called 'greenhouse') molecules that are the only ones cooling the atmosphere by radiating energy back to space: they act like holes in a blanket."
They do, indeed, radiate energy from the upper atmosphere to space. But if they weren't in the atmosphere then LWIR radiation could pass directly from the ground to space.
I don't much like blanket analogies, but if you want to use one, the GHG-laden atmosphere is not like holes in a blanket, it is more like the blanket, itself. A blanket is warmed from the underside by your body, and radiates IR from the top. Even though it radiates IR from the top, it still keeps your body warmer than it otherwise would be.
.
Mr. Cotton continued, "Whatever radiation strikes a warmer target below undergoes resonant (or 'pseudo') scattering and so does not add any thermal energy to that target."
That's absolute nonsense!
When you write, "a warmer target" the question is, "warmer than what?"
A photon has NO temperature.
A photon has NO characteristic which is indicative of the temperature of the molecule which emitted it.
CO2 molecules DO absorb LWIR 15,000 nm photons WITHOUT REGARD to the temperature of the source.
Please, PLEASE find a physicist, ANY physicist, ANYWHERE, and ask him or her about this.
.
Mr. Cotton continued, "As for Burton's question, it is answered here .... Douglas Cotton B.Sc (physics), Sydney University (completed 1966 with graduation ceremony early in 1967)"
Thank you for answering my question!
.
Mr. Cotton continued, "...you cite no references for your assertive claims, as usual."
Here's a very informative lecture by a leading atmospheric physicist, Dr. Wm Happer:
http://www.sealevel.info/Happer_UNC_2014-09-08/
Here's a follow-up email conversation, in which he very generously explained it to me in greater depth:
http://www.sealevel.info/Happer_UNC_2014-09-08/Another_question.html
Note, especially, the email from Prof. Robert G. Brown, of Duke Univ.
Also, near the end of that page you'll find an email from me to Prof. Happer, with a link to an article by Dr. Joshua Halpern (who blogs under the pen name of Eli Rabett). Halpern calculated that 1 in 10^5 rather than 1 in 10^9 IR-stimulated CO2 molecules will give up that energy by re-emission of an IR photon, rather than collision with another air molecule. He gets about the same radiative lifetime as Dr. Happer (approx. one second), but a collisional lifetime of about 10 microseconds rather than one nanosecond, apparently because he failed to consider collisional transfers of energy with N2 and O2 molecules.
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2013/04/this-is-where-eli-came-in.html
.
Mr. Cotton continued, "The portion of the radiation which is pseudo-scattered is re-emitted almost instantaneously, its electro-magnetic energy never having been converted to thermal energy."
That is wrong. This is an excerpt from the email from Prof. Brown, referenced above:
"...CO_2 doesn't 'scatter' LWIR radiation, it absorbs it (typically within a few meters, the mean free path at atmospheric concentrations) and the energy is almost instantly transferred to the surrounding air. That doesn't mean that they don't radiate. It just means that their radiation temperature is in equilibrium in the surrounding air, and it isn't reradiating of a photon it absorbed, it is radiation initiated by e.g. a collision with an air molecule."
.
Mr. Cotton continued, "Collisions... does not necessarily raise an electron through one or more quantum states as a result of the collision, as you appear to think: that is a separate process in preparation for the emission of a photon."
You are confused. 15,000 nm LWIR absorption and emission is NOT associated with electron orbital transitions. The photons associated with those transitions are MUCH shorter wavelength. 15,000 nm photons are absorbed and emitted through CO2 molecular bending mode vibrations.
“As physicists learn and understand in degree-level university physics courses, such as I completed at Sydney University in 1966, we cannot use Stefan-Boltzmann calculations for an input of two or more sources of radiation because that Law is based on the integral of a single Planck function.”
Indeed, the part about Stefan-Boltzmann being the integral of the Plank Law is correct. But this only disproves his whole point. Any mathematician or physicist knows that an integral is a sum of infinitesimal contributions by definition. So, Stefan-Boltzmann is already a sum of infinitesimal powers over wavelength.
Further the integral of a sum is the sum of the individual integrals. So, the power delivered by two spectra is the sum of the power they deliver individually.
It appears that the calculus that physicists have understood and applied since Newton’s time is not one of Mr. Cotton’s strong suits.
As physicists learn and understand in degree-level university physics courses, such as I completed at Sydney University in 1966 and was awarded early in 1967, we cannot use Stefan-Boltzmann calculations for an input of two or more sources of radiation because that Law is based on the integral of a single Planck function. Likewise the temperature is inversely related to the peak wavelength as per Wien's Displace Law which also only applies for a single source of radiation. Yet climatologists do add radiative fluxes (with their self-taught one year course on atmospheric physics) because they could think of no other explanation as to how the necessary thermal energy gets into Earth's surface. In fact, as Dr Roy Spencer admitted, their figure of 324W/m^2 for atmospheric radiation is just a calculated value that gives 288K for the surface temperature as explained here: http://whyitsnotco2.com/PSI.html. It is an overstated and totally impossible flux for the atmosphere to emit, anyway, and virtually all atmospheric radiation impinging on the surface undergoes the process of resonant (or pseudo) scattering that Prof Johnson explained and I cited in my "Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics" in 2012.
The correct physics which, in complete contrast, does explain temperatures and the required heat transfers in the atmospheres and sub-surface regions of planets and satellite moons first appeared in my "Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures" in 2013 and that document (on which this book is based) is being subjected to a full five (5) years of review in open media, with the above-mentioned reward of AU $50,000 (about US $35,000) offered at https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com for the first to prove the physics substantially wrong and to produce a counter study to mine that showed the greenhouse gas water vapor cooling, as my hypothesis predicts it should. Carbon dioxide cools for the same reasons, but by less than 0.1 degree.
For a brief summary read my six-page "Comprehensive Refutation of the Radiative Forcing Greenhouse Hypothesis" linked from my website http://whyitsnotco2.com. Any questions or attempted refutations will only be read and answered on my blog that, along with my videos, is also linked from http://climate-change-theory.com. See also my earlier website http://earth-climate.com and join over 100,000 others who have visited my websites or viewed my videos about the breakthrough science that the world will come to understand hopefully within the next twenty years or so.
Douglas Cotton B.Sc (physics), B.A. (economics), Dip.Bus.Admin
Sydney and Macquarie Universities (1963 to 1972 inclusive)
Awarded four academic scholarships including one by the Physics Dept of the University of Sydney
AH&BL replied, "Am I talking to a spamming ‘bot?"
Well, if so, it's a spam bot who apparently doesn't believe in diesel engines:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+does+a+diesel+engine+work
The spam bot also apparently has never pumped up a car tire with an old fashioned manual tire pump, and then put his hand on the hot tire pump body.
"Friction?" Good grief! You think diesel engines ignite their fuel by "FRICTION," Mr. Cotton?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+does+a+diesel+engine+work
There is, actually. It's called Gay-Lussac's law: for a fixed volume of air, the pressure is proportional to the absolute temperature. So if you heat up a sealed container filled with air, the pressure goes up, and if you cool it down the pressure goes down.
It's part of the Combined Gas Law (of which the Ideal Gas Law is a particular case). The Combined Gas Law is:
PV = kT
Where P is pressure, V is volume, T is absolute temperature, and (as long as the amount of gas being considered doesn't change) k is a constant.
Now, if you change the volume, things get a lot more complicated. If you have a volume of air and compress it to a smaller volume, e.g., with a piston in a diesel engine, you are doing work. That's called "adiabatic compression." At the sub-microscopic scale, the moving piston head accelerates ricocheting gas molecules like a tennis racket accelerates tennis balls, which causes the gas to heat.
https://www.google.com/search?q=temperature+change+from+adiabatic+compression
The amount by which the gas heats is a function of the work done (moving the piston head against pressure), and the specific heat of the gas. The later depends on whether the gas is monatomic, diatomic, triatomic, etc. (Dry atmospheric air is about 99% diatomic and 1% monatomic.)
At this point, we've exceeded the physics I can pull out of the cobwebs in my head. But here's an online calculator:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/adiab.html
(Scroll about halfway down the page to find the calculator.)
For example, if the initial volume is 1 cubic meter of air at about 1 atm pressure and 20°C (=68°F, =293.15K), and you intend to compress it to half the original volume, let's find out what the resulting temperature and pressure will be.
One cubic meter of air at room temperature and 1 Atm pressure is roughly 42 moles.
So using the online calculator you'd enter:
n = 42 (moles)
Vi = 1 (cubic meter, the initial volume)
Vf = 0.5 (one-half cubic meter, the final volume)
Ti = 293.15 (Kelvin, the initial temperature)
The calculator uses the ideal gas law to calculate the approximate initial pressure:
Pi = 102.37 kPa (which is about 1.0103 atm, close enough for gov't work).
Then skip down a couple of lines and enter the Cp/Cv ratio, which is about 1.4 for diatomic gases (N2 & O2). It is higher for monatomic gases like Argon, and lower for triatomic gases like CO2 and H2O, but the atmosphere is mostly N2 and O2 so we'll just use 1.4.
The calculator fills in Cp & Cv values immediately above; you may ignore them.
The calculator then calculates the work W done by compressing the gas to half its volume.
The calculator also then calculates and fills in the final pressure and temperature:
Pf = 270.17 kPa = 2.67 Atm
Tf = 386.81 K = 113.66 °C = 236.59 °F
As you can see, as the volume goes down so does the T/P ratio, which means that as volume goes down AND temperature goes up, pressure goes up as the product of the volume and temperature changes.
Now, for a more realistic example, let's use a compression ratio of 20:1, which is typical for a diesel engine, and 1 liter volume.
1 liter = 1 thousandth of a cubic meter, so:
n = .042
Vi = 0.001
A compression ratio of 20:1 means Vf = Vi/20:
Vf = 0.00005
As before, the intake air is at 20 °C (Ti = 293.15 K)
and Cp/Cv is 1.4
The calculator finds:
Pf = 6786 kPa = 67 Atm = 984 PSI
Tf = 972 K = 700 °C = 1300 °F
That's right: 1300 °F just from compressing the air, BEFORE burning the fuel!
And now you know why, in a pinch, you can burn almost any sort of liquid oil in a diesel engine!
.
Mr. Cotton continued, "This discussion of diesel engines highlights DAVID BURTON'S ignorance. What happens is that the higher pressure lowers the auto-self-ignition (ASI) temperature... For diesel it is around 210°C..." and he cited an article entitled, "Pressure dependence of the auto-ignition temperature of methane/air mixtures."
1. That's wrong. As we've seen above, compression of the air increases its temperature to way above the auto-self-ignition temperature of diesel fuel, which is why the diesel fuel immediately burns when injected into the very hot air in the cylinder.
If you'd bothered to click the link, you could have read any number of sources which explain this. Even Wikipedia gets it right:
"In [the Diesel cycle] fuel is ignited by heat generated during the compression of air in the combustion chamber, into which fuel is then injected."
2. Methane is not diesel fuel. Methane is the main component of natural gas.
3. It is very difficult for me to believe that someone could have a physics or chemistry degree of any sort, yet be unfamiliar with the Gas Laws. That much, at least, is high school material, not college material.
It seems you missed that day in high school shop class. Those things in your diesel engine that you thought were spark plugs were really only glow plugs used to get the engine warm enough to start.
It seems you missed that day in high school shop class. Those things in your diesel engine that you thought were spark plugs were really only glow plugs used to get the engine warm enough to start.
I've been fooling myself for decades thinking that the Ideal Gas Law explained why my bicycle pump became warm if I was in a hurry to get on the road again after repairing a puncture.
A couple of years ago when researching the fractionation of atmospheric gasses in ice (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2010/12/smogbound-on-molecular-fractionation-in.html) I experimented with a CO2 fire extinguisher. I mistakenly though that the IGL also explained why releasing gas from the extinguisher caused dramatic cooling of the air and condensation.
Damn that "skoolboy fissix" from 60 years ago". Hopefully Doug will help future generations by writing an elementary physics text book. - NO, NO, Doug. I'm only joking!!
David Burton said " .. It is very difficult for me to believe that someone could have a physics or chemistry degree of any sort, yet be unfamiliar with the Gas Laws. That much, at least, is high school material, not college material .. ".
Giving credit where it is due, it does appear that when in his final year at Sydney Church of England Grammar School Doug did earn a certificate of merit for maths, a place at Sydney University's summer school in physics and went on to earn a degree in physics/pure maths. Let's not be unkind but make allowance for the fact that that that was over half a century ago. Perhaps Doug has forgotten some of the basics that he was taught at high school.
" .. Research out of Harvard Medical School identifies what researchers call the “four horsemen of forgetfulness” - depression, stress, anxiety, and sleep deprivation .. " (http://www.activebeat.co/your-health/6-times-memory-loss-has-nothing-to-do-with-alzheimers/6/).
If it wasn’t receiving the background 364 W/m**2 from its surroundings, it would have to raised to 357 degree C to emit 16 times what it was emitting at 42 degree C. Similarly, it would have to be raised to 293 degree C to emit 16 times what it was emitting at 10 degree C.
What’s the point? Take away the background 364 W/m**2 from the surroundings in your test case and the fourth power character of S-B is apparent.
(Somebody please check my math. The S-B constant I used was 5.6704e-8 W/m**2/K**4 with degree C = K - 273.)
The actual answer is more like 15 degree C. Pretty darn close for a bunch of estimates.
How does the surface of the earth get hotter than the -18 degree C required to cool the earth/atmosphere system? Well, you guessed it, back radiation from the atmosphere. How much back radiation? That's hard to tell. There is radiation, convection, conduction, and phase change taking place at the surface. How much do you allot to each? You do know that it is radiating 390 W/m**2 (assuming a blackbody), but not how much it is absorbing. I don't know. Anyone help?
"In general, at normal temperatures, air molecules move at about 1,800 Km/hr (or 500m/sec) and, unless the piston actually moves at a significant speed relative to that 500m/sec, it will not significantly increase the mean velocity (and thus temperature) of the molecules. There is no piston moving like that in the troposphere anyway."
and in his reply, Burton writes ...
"At the microscopic scale, the moving piston head accelerates ricocheting gas molecules like a tennis racket accelerates tennis balls, which causes the gas to heat ..."
Yes, well, the speed of the tennis racquet is comparable with that of the ball. Burton still doesn't realize that this relatively small heating effect (due to a piston moving much slower than the molecules) has nothing to do with the Ideal Gas Law (because it depends on the speed of the piston) and is not a general proof that compression always causes warming. That is especially the case in a planet's troposphere because there is no moving piston bumping up the speed of molecules that it collides with. The density and temperature gradients in the troposphere are caused by gravity and the pressure gradient is just a corollary, because the Ideal Gas Law tells us that pressure is proportional to the product of density and temperature and nothing more. The high pressure at the base of the troposphere is neither creating or maintaining the high temperatures found there. Nor is atmospheric radiation helping the solar radiation to do so.
The higher temperatures seen at the base of every planetary troposphere are NOT the result of radiation of any form reaching that region - they are the result of the Second Law process of maximum entropy production operating in a gravitational field. That is why it is about 320K (hotter than Earth's surface) at the base of the nominal troposphere of the planet Uranus, even though the solar radiation can only maintain a temperature of about 60K (-213°C) in the methane layer that absorbs most of the radiation up near the top of the Uranus troposphere. That answers the question that you avoid answering.
Anyone who's ever used a manual tire pump has "confirmed with experiment" that AHistory&BiographyLover is correct, and Mr. Cotton is wrong.
Even though Mr. Cotton QUOTED FROM a lengthy comment in which I showed him how to use an online calculator to CALCULATE from first principles HOW MUCH a gas will HEAT UP when it is compressed, he is STILL unable or unwilling to comprehend or admit that compressing a gas causes it to heat up.
Mr. Cotton says he used to own a diesel car. That means every time he drove his own car, his confusion was "confirmed with experiment," since diesel engines rely on the heat of compressed air to ignite their fuel. In a diesel engine with 20:1 compression, every other stroke of the cylinder heats the air within the cylinder by more than 600 °C. (On alternate strokes the exhaust port is open, to expel exhaust gases.)
Here's a video of another experiment. I particularly like this one, because in it COTTON proves Cotton is clueless! :-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qe1Ueifekg
Here're a couple of others:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EszEbVEcAQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PD15UFiDRyM
Nice demo, eh?
Mr. Cotton wrote, "if even just one experiment shows it is wrong, then you scrap the hypothesis." Well, there's your one experiment, Mr. Cotton. Will you now scrap your hypothesis?
Of course not. Cotton doesn't care about evidence.
Google finds many other videos explaining and/or demonstrating this principle:
https://www.google.com/search?q=adiabatic+compression+temperature&tbm=vid
Mr. Cotton might be able to learn from them, if he were willing to try. But he won't.
"If an honest man is wrong, after it is demonstrated that he is wrong he either stops being wrong or he stops being honest."
- unknown (related by Andre Bijkerk)
Despite abundant proof, Mr. Cotton will STILL insist that compressing a gas does not raise its temperature, because he is not honest.
You can prove ME wrong about you, Mr. Cotton, by admitting that YOU were wrong about the compression heating of gases. But you won't.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qe1Ueifekg
I'd rather have been wrong about him.
BTW, you can buy one of these "fire syringes" on Amazon for less than US$30.
https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?field-keywords=Fire+Syringe
Fire syringes are also sold as survival gear, for starting fires. Those are usually called "fire pistons," and they aren't usually transparent. Amazon sells them, too:
https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?field-keywords="fire+piston"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qe1Ueifekg
I'd rather have been wrong about him.
BTW, you can buy one of these "fire syringes" on Amazon for less than US$30.
https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?field-keywords=Fire+Syringe
Fire syringes are also sold as survival gear, for starting fires. Those are usually called "fire pistons," and they aren't usually transparent. Amazon sells them, too:
https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?field-keywords="fire+piston"
In my comment of 10th April I said " .. I mistakenly though that the IGL also explained why releasing gas from the (CO2 fire) extinguisher caused dramatic cooling of the air and condensation .. ". No doubt in Cottonland such cooling is caused by lanoitcirf conductance, the same mechanism upon which Cottonland Diesel engines and fire syringes depend.
LOL! Mr. Cotton just makes up random nonsense, and states it as fact.
No, Mr. Cotton, cotton does not burst into flame at "just a little above room temperature" under extreme pressure.
Also, high air pressure does not cause "gas" or "fuel in the cotton wool" to be released.
In fact, if you want to draw volatiles out of a substance, it is LOW pressures which will do that, not high pressures.
The cotton IS the fuel. Compressing the air raises its temperature to 400°C or more, which is well above the ~360°C autoignition temperature of cotton. It is that high temperature which causes the cotton to burst into flame.
In a diesel engine with 20:1 compression, compressing the air causes it to reach even higher temperatures -- typically well above 650°C. That's how a diesel engine can start with no spark plug: the fuel injectors spray fuel into the cylinder near the top of the stroke, when the air has been compressed to more than 650°C, which causes the diesel fuel to instantly burn.
Here's a fire syringe sold for educational demonstrations which has 72% 4-star & 5-star reviews:
https://www.amazon.com/Carolina-Biological-Supply-Company-Syringe/dp/B0064CPODG/
Here's a fire piston sold as a fire-starter, with 82% five-star reviews:
https://www.amazon.com/CampfirePiston-Campfirepiston-Hickory-Fire-Piston/dp/B00X6L3KG6/
(12.2) If the AIT were not reduced significantly, then the speed of the piston would have to be of the order of over 700 m/sec to accelerate the molecules from about 500 m/sec at ambient temperature to a temperature that is well over double the original temperature, because kinetic energy (and thus temperature) is proportional to the square of the velocity of the molecules between collisions.
(12.3) At the very least you would need to produce actual temperature measurements in experiments using this gadget without any fuel, because once the fuel ignites it is obvious that combustion is raising the temperature of just a very small piece of cotton-wool fuel. The only evidence you have of a hotter temperature is in that small burning piece of cotton wool: not in the air because the glass in the container is touched many times in the video and so does not appear to be warmed much even after a few plunges. I wonder what temperature you would observe if the piston were stopped by, say, a rubber washer, leaving just a small area of highly compressed air in which the temperature could be measured in the absence of ignition. There is no published peer-reviewed paper in a reputable journal to which you have referred me, so I need comment no more.
(12.4) You will note that the small piece of well-aired cotton wool does not ignite if the cylinder is not pushed down fast enough. Supposedly (according to the video) the "heat escapes" if you don't do it very quickly. Well, since when is the temperature supposed to relate to the speed of compression? If the "heat escapes" when you move it marginally slower, then you would expect to feel it warming the glass right through. Watch the video and we don't get the impression that the device is about 400°C when they touch it several times. Suppose you moved the piston only three quarters of the way down. Would you expect about 300°C? Surely the lowest quarter of the glass would then be far too hot to handle, especially after a few such three-quarter compressions. It's all garbage science my friends with a simple explanation; it would make a good magician's trick.
(12.5) I have explained what happens in (11.6) though I accept being misled by one commenter who referred to a small amount of fuel in the gadget he purchased. He may well have been referring to a small amount of cotton wool. If there were a liquid fuel added then it would have been evaporating into the lower air before compression and the piston movement would "blow" it around the whole remaining space as the piston moved down. But it doesn't matter anyway, for apparently the AIT of the cotton wool can be lowered sufficiently below whatever slightly higher temperature may be achieved perhaps even mostly by friction as in a bicycle pump. I refer you back to 11.1.
(12.6) The whole experiment is a red herring because the cotton wool does not ignite when the piston is moved slowly, even though the compression is equivalent.
(12.7) This is all totally irrelevant because their experiment is not adiabatic at all, for their own energy pushing the cylinder down is transferred into the gas, mostly as potential energy as explained in 11.1. There are no such pistons in the troposphere. The tropospheric density gradient forms (and tends to be restored) in perfectly calm conditions at night. The same Second Law of Thermodynamics process of maximum entropy production simultaneously forms (or restores) the temperature gradient, for which climatologists like to use the term "lapse rate" even though there is no lapsing process involved.
(12.8) The commenter in the video is totally and utterly wrong in assuming that "pushing all these air molecules together" raises the temperature, because there is no physics that says that would happen. The mean kinetic energy does not increase due to molecules colliding more often. His lack of knowledge and experience in physics is epitomized by his phrase "an enormous amount of temperature."
(12.9) I quote Ted Hutch at https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-compression-temperature-of-Diesel-engine "Most engines run at between 195F and 220F but the fuel ignites at any temperature that is conducive to the fuel’s flash point. The range is 90F to 220F. Compression ignites the fuel in a diesel engine and the temperature of the cylinder when the fuel is introduced needs to be stable to achieve a clean burn. Enrichment plays a role in how well the engine runs." Go and argue with him about whether fuel can ignite at a mere 90°F!
On 14th June 2014 James Stevens claimed on his "Heat Transfer and Applied Thermodynamics" blog that " .. Compression Heating of a Gas .. An ideal gas, like air, or helium, will tend to heat up when it is compressed. Unless measures are taken to cool the gas during the compression process, this can lead to a pretty large temperature increase for relatively modest pressure increases. If we assume that no cooling takes place (adiabatic) it is easy to calculate the minimum temperature to which the gas is heated from the compression process alone .. " (http://heat-transfer-thermodynamics.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/compression-heating-of-gas.html).
Whereas Doug Cotton has provided only hot air, James Stevens was good enough to provide a T/P graph for several gases.
Some readers of these comments may have difficulty deciding which of these two claims is correct. It may help them to know a bit more about the two individuals who made them:
- Dr. James W Stevens " .. a professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs .. Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering, Brigham Young University , 1991, M.S., Mechanical Engineering, BYU, 1988, B.S., Mechanical Engineering, BYU, 1987, Minor in Mathematics .. " (https://sites.google.com/site/heatxferconsulting/Home/vitae).
- Mr Douglas J Cotton - " .. Retired IT Businessman / Part-time Educator / Now Researcher in Atmospheric & Subterrestrial Physics, Self-employed consultant March 1967 – Present .. " (https://au.linkedin.com/in/douglas-cotton-b794a871) " .. climate change greenhouse effect global warming carbon dioxide carbon tax radiative forcing Christianity Jesus Christ salvation rate of ageing slower aging human aging health heart disease cancer photography landscape photography photos of tasmania photos of UK photos of Europe .. " (http://www.infositeshow.com/sites/douglascotton.com) and goodness knows what else " .. B.Sc (physics), B.A. (economics), Dip.Bus.Admin Sydney and Macquarie Universities (1963 to 1972 inclusive)
Awarded four academic scholarships including one by the Physics Dept of the University of Sydney .. ".
My money's on Dr. Stevens being correct!!
Not really. YOU are confused. But I've given you a link to an online calculator where you can calculate by how much the compression will raise the temperature of a gas:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/adiab.html
I've also given you two examples of how to use that calculator.
.
Mr. Cotton wrote, "(13.2) Read the opening comment by tomtraxler at https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/why-does-temperature-rise-with-pressure.39446/ where he writes ..."
The correct answer to his question was "#5" given on Aug 15, 2004 by "Chi Meson."
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/why-does-temperature-rise-with-pressure.39446/#post-286039
.
Mr. Cotton wrote, "(13.5) So go and buy your fire syringe and feel how hot the glass gets without any cotton wool. At least it will be a highlight at your next kid's party, and not too hot to pass around I would suggest."
Transparent fire syringes are made with thick walls, and they compress very small volumes of air. So you won't feel much heat on the outside. But if you pump up an automobile tire with an old-fashioned manual tire pump, the barrel of the tire pump will, indeed, become too hot to comfortably handle.
.
Mr. Cotton wrote, "(13.6) I don't dispute that internal combustion engines run at high "compression" temperatures, but the temperature has been built up over thousands of cycles as the engine warms up in the first few minutes..."
Wrong. Small marine diesel engines often come with hand cranks, so that they can be started without using the electric starter motor. Such engines should start immediately, when cold.
The starting technique is to first activate the compression release, so that the engine can be manually turned. Then spin the engine as fast as you can with the crank, and deactivate the compression release, so that the momentum of the fly wheel will carry it through the compression stroke. If everything is working properly, the engine will fire immediately, because the compression ALONE drives the air temperature to above 600 °C, even on a cold day, so that when the fuel is injected it will ignite.
The one I'm personally familiar with is my friend's Volvo Penta MD2 (two-cylinder) engine, similar to these:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mu1KDLYUCBM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZ1zbjZ2FS0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KYivg9xTkA
Note that there are no glow plugs, and there is no need to crank the engine "thousands of cycles" before it will run. The compression ratio is 17.5:1, and ONE compression cycle is all that is needed to ignite the fuel and start the engine.
Here's someone starting an MD1 (one-cylinder version) manually. That lever he throws on top is the compression release valve.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAzpeHGmvXg
You didn't understand what he was talking about. He was talking about "the temperature of the CYLINDER," not the temperature of the compressed air.
Diesel fuel does NOT "ignite at a mere 90°F." When the cylinder walls are too cool, fuel that is in contact with the cylinder walls won't burn. That's why you often see black smoke when a diesel engine is starting: because a portion of the injected fuel doesn't burn. On that first stroke, the AIR is hot enough to ignite the fuel which is injected into the air, so the engine fires and develops enough power to come up to speed. But some of the fuel, which is in contact with the cold cylinder walls, doesn't burn, resulting in smoke. When the inside surfaces of the cylinder walls get hot enough to quickly vaporize the fuel, then you get a much cleaner burn.
Read the upvoted answers to that Quora question, by Amrendra Jha and Stephen Carey. Even in relatively low-compression diesel engines, the compressed air temperature approaches 600°C (which is well above the autoignition temperature of diesel fuel).
On 14th June 2014 James Stevens claimed on his "Heat Transfer and Applied Thermodynamics" blog that " .. Compression Heating of a Gas .. An ideal gas, like air, or helium, will tend to heat up when it is compressed. Unless measures are taken to cool the gas during the compression process, this can lead to a pretty large temperature increase for relatively modest pressure increases. If we assume that no cooling takes place (adiabatic) it is easy to calculate the minimum temperature to which the gas is heated from the compression process alone .. " (http://heat-transfer-thermodynamics.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/compression-heating-of-gas.html).
Whereas Doug Cotton has provided only hot air, James Stevens was good enough to provide a T/P graph for several gases.
Some readers of these comments may have difficulty deciding which of these two claims is correct. It may help them to know a bit more about the two individuals who made them:
- Dr. James W Stevens " .. a professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs .. Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering, Brigham Young University , 1991, M.S., Mechanical Engineering, BYU, 1988, B.S., Mechanical Engineering, BYU, 1987, Minor in Mathematics .. " (https://sites.google.com/site/heatxferconsulting/Home/vitae).
- Mr Douglas J Cotton - " .. Retired IT Businessman / Part-time Educator / Now Researcher in Atmospheric & Subterrestrial Physics, Self-employed consultant March 1967 – Present .. " (https://au.linkedin.com/in/douglas-cotton-b794a871) " .. climate change greenhouse effect global warming carbon dioxide carbon tax radiative forcing Christianity Jesus Christ salvation rate of ageing slower aging human aging health heart disease cancer photography landscape photography photos of tasmania photos of UK photos of Europe .. " (http://www.infositeshow.com/sites/douglascotton.com) and goodness knows what else " .. B.Sc (physics), B.A. (economics), Dip.Bus.Admin Sydney and Macquarie Universities (1963 to 1972 inclusive)
Awarded four academic scholarships including one by the Physics Dept of the University of Sydney .. ".
My money's on Dr. Stevens being correct!!
On the energetics of maximum-entropy temperature profiles
R. A. Akmaev
QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY
Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 134: 187–197 (2008)
Published online in Wiley InterScience
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.209/pdf
This is precisely the situation that Loschmidt talked about – static equilibrium in an isolated column of gas. But Loschmidt didn’t finish the solution. If you stand a horizontal isothermal isolated column of gas up vertically you may well get an TRANSIENT temperature gradient because of the gas slumping (compressing in the lower part, expanding in the upper part). If so, the upper and lower parts of the column will then exchange energy (via conduction, radiation, and/or convection) to maximize system entropy by restoring the ISOTHERMAL condition. You cannot maintain a temperature gradient with gravity alone. You must disrupt the isolation of the column somehow to do that.
Once again, the troposphere is a dynamic open system (heat entering at the bottom, exiting at the top, and for many other reasons). Loschmidt, even if he had been correct, doesn't even apply.
“… he became the earliest theoretical scientist in the United States to earn an international reputation and was praised by Albert Einstein as "the greatest mind in American history.”
“Together with James Clerk Maxwell and Ludwig Boltzmann, he created statistical mechanics (a term that he coined), explaining the laws of thermodynamics as consequences of the statistical properties of ensembles of the possible states of a physical system composed of many particles.”
“Unassuming in manner, genial and kindly in his intercourse with his fellow-men, never showing impatience or irritation, devoid of personal ambition of the baser sort or of the slightest desire to exalt himself, he went far toward realizing the ideal of the unselfish, Christian gentleman. In the minds of those who knew him, the greatness of his intellectual achievements will never overshadow the beauty and dignity of his life.”
— H. A. Bumstead, 1903”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josiah_Willard_Gibbs
AHistory&BiographyLover
On 13th April David Burton refuted Doug's theory of how a Diesel engine works. Until then Doug had been firing off comments here as though there would be no tomorrow - now silence!! This is so unlike Doug.
Since February Doug has blasted me with over 150 E-mails but I've had nothing from him since the 19th April. Those of the 18th/19th April are typical QUOTE: ..
18th .. Subj: You can easily rubbish History & Biography Lover
Tell him to half-fill his cylinder with ball bearings and then use the energy when they fall to create his perpetual motion machine (LOL). By the way, Roderich Graeff did H&BL's suggested experiment over 850 times, turning the cylinders upside down and noting that the temperature gradient virtually always formed and re-formed with cooler temperatures at the top.
18th .. Subj: A challenge
Feel free to quote this on Amazon or any blog and try to counter it, smart PR.
The Radiative Forcing Greenhouse Hypothesis is false because there is no valid physics supporting its underlying assumption that the surface temperature can be explained by adding to the solar radiation about twice as much radiation from the colder atmosphere. If climatology physics were correct, then, if one electric bar radiator warmed something to 42°C in an ambient temperature of 10°C, sixteen such radiators would have to warm it to over 200°C, but they don't. The hypothesis in the book is developed directly from a correct statement (and understanding) of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. That law gives only one result in a gravitational field, namely a stable density gradient and stable temperature gradient. I suggest it is time that the reviewer (H&BL) read the rest of the book, especially the study that showed water vapor cools ..
19th .. Subj: Why GREENHOUSE gas COOLS and CANNOT WARM us. There's $50,000 if I'm wrong.
Dear Politicians, Scientists and others .. The Radiative Forcing Greenhouse Hypothesis is false because ... (The remainder was a repeat of Doug's E-mail to me on 18th .. Subj: A challeng) ..
.. UNQUOTE.
Included among Doug Cotton's many questionable pronouncements in his E-mails, blog comments and here are his repeated claims about how the Stefan-Boltzmann Law can be used to determine the temperature of a body that is absorbing electromagnetic radiation.
During E-mail exchanges on 10th Oct. 2011 with members of the PSI blog (see FOOTNOTE 1) and others on the subject of "John O'Sullivan's specious claims" Dr. Grant Petty, Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Wisconson (http://sleet.aos.wisc.edu/~gpetty/wp/?page_id=12) said to Professor Claes Johnson (one of Doug's heroes - see FOOTNOTE 2) " .. the SB law isn't two-way because it is UNDERSTOOD by anyone who actually works with radiation to apply only to the radiation EMITTED by a surface .. This is not climate science. This is routine undergraduate-level physics .. ".
It's a shame that at that time Doug was not included in those exchanges therefore did not benefit from the sound physics that Professor Petty offered to the group. It was several months later, in March 2012 (http://www.webcommentary.com/docs/jo120314.pdf) that Doug became " .. proud to be an active member of PSI and .. in daily email contact with many of these main stream scientists, including professors and PhD’s in various disciplines such as physics, applied mathematics, chemistry, climatology and astro physics .. " (http://www.climate-resistance.org/2012/04/how-to-talk-like-an-oily-dishonest-creep.html#comment-51573).
Never mind, if Doug ever becomes inclined to properly educate himself about the relevant physics then he can always get copies of Professor Petty's text books "A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation" and "A First Course in Atmospheric Thermodynamics". They should remove all of his misconceptions about atmospheric radiation and the SLoT.
FOOTNOTES:
1) The Principia Scientific International (PSI) blog was set up in 2010 by ex-high school art teacher John O'Sullivan. He envisaged establishing PSI as a successful publishing business with himself as CEO and thousands of members, each paying an annual fee of £50 (see https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2012/02/18/the-cotton-war/#comment-71990 and the subsequent exchanges, noting Doug's use of the pseudonym "retiredphysicseducator").
For more information on PSI see https://www.desmogblog.com/principia-scientific-international .
2) Claes Johnson is Professor of Applied Mathematics, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden. He was a prominent contributor to the 2010 booklet "Slaying the sky dragon .. " (https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/customer-reviews/R2VT54CSOB9NNI/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B004DNWJN6) and to the subsequent discussions about John O'Sullivan's proposals for the role and structure of PSI. In March 2012 Doug Cotton said " .. The whole world should acknowledge the work of Claes Johnson .. This .. is the foundation for my writings here .. " (http://principia-scientific.org/publications/psi_radiated_energy.pdf).
On 13th April David Burton refuted Doug's theory of how a Diesel engine works. Until then Doug had been firing off comments here as though there would be no tomorrow - now silence!! This is so unlike Doug.
Since February Doug has blasted me with over 150 E-mails but I've had nothing from him since the 19th April. Those of the 18th/19th April are typical QUOTE: ..
18th .. Subj: You can easily rubbish History & Biography Lover
Tell him to half-fill his cylinder with ball bearings and then use the energy when they fall to create his perpetual motion machine (LOL). By the way, Roderich Graeff did H&BL's suggested experiment over 850 times, turning the cylinders upside down and noting that the temperature gradient virtually always formed and re-formed with cooler temperatures at the top.
18th .. Subj: A challenge
Feel free to quote this on Amazon or any blog and try to counter it, smart PR.
The Radiative Forcing Greenhouse Hypothesis is false because there is no valid physics supporting its underlying assumption that the surface temperature can be explained by adding to the solar radiation about twice as much radiation from the colder atmosphere. If climatology physics were correct, then, if one electric bar radiator warmed something to 42°C in an ambient temperature of 10°C, sixteen such radiators would have to warm it to over 200°C, but they don't. The hypothesis in the book is developed directly from a correct statement (and understanding) of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. That law gives only one result in a gravitational field, namely a stable density gradient and stable temperature gradient. I suggest it is time that the reviewer (H&BL) read the rest of the book, especially the study that showed water vapor cools ..
19th .. Subj: Why GREENHOUSE gas COOLS and CANNOT WARM us. There's $50,000 if I'm wrong.
Dear Politicians, Scientists and others .. The Radiative Forcing Greenhouse Hypothesis is false because ... (The remainder was a repeat of Doug's E-mail to me on 18th .. Subj: A challeng) ..
.. UNQUOTE.
Included among Doug Cotton's many questionable pronouncements in his E-mails, blog comments and here are his repeated claims about how the Stefan-Boltzmann Law can be used to determine the temperature of a body that is absorbing electromagnetic radiation.
During E-mail exchanges on 10th Oct. 2011 with members of the PSI blog (see FOOTNOTE 1) and others on the subject of "John O'Sullivan's specious claims" Dr. Grant Petty, Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Wisconson (http://sleet.aos.wisc.edu/~gpetty/wp/?page_id=12) said to Professor Claes Johnson (one of Doug's heroes - see FOOTNOTE 2) " .. the SB law isn't two-way because it is UNDERSTOOD by anyone who actually works with radiation to apply only to the radiation EMITTED by a surface .. This is not climate science. This is routine undergraduate-level physics .. ".
It's a shame that at that time Doug was not included in those exchanges therefore did not benefit from the sound physics that Professor Petty offered to the group. It was several months later, in March 2012 (http://www.webcommentary.com/docs/jo120314.pdf) that Doug became " .. proud to be an active member of PSI and .. in daily email contact with many of these main stream scientists, including professors and PhD’s in various disciplines such as physics, applied mathematics, chemistry, climatology and astro physics .. " (http://www.climate-resistance.org/2012/04/how-to-talk-like-an-oily-dishonest-creep.html#comment-51573).
Never mind, if Doug ever becomes inclined to properly educate himself about the relevant physics then he can always get copies of Professor Petty's text books "A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation" and "A First Course in Atmospheric Thermodynamics". They should remove all of his misconceptions about atmospheric radiation and the SLoT.
FOOTNOTES:
1) The Principia Scientific International (PSI) blog was set up in 2010 by ex-high school art teacher John O'Sullivan. He envisaged establishing PSI as a successful publishing business with himself as CEO and thousands of members, each paying an annual fee of £50 (see https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2012/02/18/the-cotton-war/#comment-71990 and the subsequent exchanges, noting Doug's use of the pseudonym "retiredphysicseducator").
For more information on PSI see https://www.desmogblog.com/principia-scientific-international .
2) Claes Johnson is Professor of Applied Mathematics, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden. He was a prominent contributor to the 2010 booklet "Slaying the sky dragon .. " (https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/customer-reviews/R2VT54CSOB9NNI/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B004DNWJN6) and to the subsequent discussions about John O'Sullivan's proposals for the role and structure of PSI. In March 2012 Doug Cotton said " .. The whole world should acknowledge the work of Claes Johnson .. This .. is the foundation for my writings here .. " (http://principia-scientific.org/publications/psi_radiated_energy.pdf).
I have a saved copy of this comment thread, from before the Cotton comments were deleted. Email me if you want a copy of it. (If you email me to ask for a copy, then please remind me that I saved it in the "Doug_Cotton" folder under "Downloads.")
I have a saved copy of this comment thread, from before the Cotton comments were deleted. Email me if you want a copy of it. (If you email me to ask for a copy, then please remind me that I saved it in the "Doug_Cotton" folder under "Downloads.")
"So, these are the two questions that we shall try to answer: How are the molecules distributed in space when there are forces acting on them, and how are they distributed in velocity?
It turns out that the two questions are completely independent, and that the distribution of velocities is always the same. We already received a hint of the latter fact when we found that the average kinetic energy is the same, kT/2 per degree of freedom, no matter what forces are acting on the molecules. The distribution of the velocities on the molecules is independent of the forces, because the collision rates do not depend upon the forces."
Herein may lie an explanation of where Loschmidt went wrong. I only have second hand knowledge of his argument, but it seems it was essentially that since a particle of gas in a sparsely populated column will lose kinetic energy (a measure of temperature) as it travels up the column, and gain kinetic energy as it falls, the temperature will rise as you go down the column. He then seemed to have tacitly extrapolated that result to a more densely populated column, ignoring the interaction with other particles. He should have taken an expandable box of particles from bottom to top of the column, and noted the effect of gravity on their average kinetic energy. There is none according to Feynman. Only density and pressure change, and in equal proportions. That cancels the temperature change in the ideal gas law.
I have no idea how he extended his result to liquids and solids. Must be lost in the dustbin of (justly forgotten) history.
PS: Where is Mr. Cotton? He get banned from here too?
"So, these are the two questions that we shall try to answer: How are the molecules distributed in space when there are forces acting on them, and how are they distributed in velocity?
It turns out that the two questions are completely independent, and that the distribution of velocities is always the same. We already received a hint of the latter fact when we found that the average kinetic energy is the same, kT/2 per degree of freedom, no matter what forces are acting on the molecules. The distribution of the velocities on the molecules is independent of the forces, because the collision rates do not depend upon the forces."
Herein may lie an explanation of where Loschmidt went wrong. I only have second hand knowledge of his argument, but it seems it was essentially that since a particle of gas in a sparsely populated column will lose kinetic energy (a measure of temperature) as it travels up the column, and gain kinetic energy as it falls, the temperature will rise as you go down the column. He then seemed to have tacitly extrapolated that result to a more densely populated column, ignoring the interaction with other particles. He should have taken an expandable box of particles from bottom to top of the column, and noted the effect of gravity on their average kinetic energy. There is none according to Feynman. Only density and pressure change, and in equal proportions. That cancels the temperature change in the ideal gas law.
I have no idea how he extended his result to liquids and solids. Must be lost in the dustbin of (justly forgotten) history.
PS: Where is Mr. Cotton? He get banned from here too?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/14/climate-skeptics-behaving-badly/comment-page-1/#comment-2300871
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/14/climate-skeptics-behaving-badly/comment-page-1/#comment-2300871
Never mind. Found it.
PS: I'm not sure if everything I said is justified by what Feynman said.
To me, in a static isolated system, horizontal or vertical, lapse rate should be zero. The hot parts should conduct and radiate more heat energy to the cold parts than visa versa. Temperature (the measure of heat energy) should even out. But when you start adding heat at the bottom and let it escape from the top, you need a temperature gradient to get heat energy moving upward. Adiabatic lapse rate is the gradient which is just on the verge of instability. Dump too much heat in at bottom and convection will start. Dump way too much in at the bottom, and the column will overturn as in a thunder storm. Or else there'll be phase changes. Too complicated for me.
PS: Obviously, I know that's no answer to your question. : )
PPS: I don't think ballistics is supposed to work in a crowded room. You can't pretend all those people aren't there.
PPPS: I guess that's the point you were trying to make.
Never mind. Found it.
PS: I'm not sure if everything I said is justified by what Feynman said.
To me, in a static isolated system, horizontal or vertical, lapse rate should be zero. The hot parts should conduct and radiate more heat energy to the cold parts than visa versa. Temperature (the measure of heat energy) should even out. But when you start adding heat at the bottom and let it escape from the top, you need a temperature gradient to get heat energy moving upward. Adiabatic lapse rate is the gradient which is just on the verge of instability. Dump too much heat in at bottom and convection will start. Dump way too much in at the bottom, and the column will overturn as in a thunder storm. Or else there'll be phase changes. Too complicated for me.
PS: Obviously, I know that's no answer to your question. : )
PPS: I don't think ballistics is supposed to work in a crowded room. You can't pretend all those people aren't there.
PPPS: I guess that's the point you were trying to make.
When discussing David's attempt to deduce the atmospheric lapse rate you said " .. when you start adding heat at the bottom and let it escape from the top, you need a temperature gradient to get heat energy moving upward .. ". Some readers may imagine that:
- your "bottom" and "top" are referring to the Earth's atmosphere,
- the "heat energy" is the result of insolation absorbed by the Earth's surface and
- that heat energy then works its way through the atmosphere before escaping to space (the reverse of Doug's "heat creep" from TOA to surface).
On numerous occasions when debating the CACC issue I have found individuals incorrectly using the terms heat and energy interchangeably instead of drawing a clear distinction between the kinetic energy of molecules and the energy associated with e/m radiation (e.g. See https://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-131952).
Just a clarification - radiated e/m energy (insolation) causes heating of the Earth, which returns e/m energy (not heat) to space via the atmosphere, some components of which (the "greenhouse" gases, mainly water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane and ozone - see the absorption spectrogram at https://earthzine.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/6.1.jpg) absorb and reradiate a portion of that e/m energy in all directions.
(Not the full story but enough of an outline).
When discussing David's attempt to deduce the atmospheric lapse rate you said " .. when you start adding heat at the bottom and let it escape from the top, you need a temperature gradient to get heat energy moving upward .. ". Some readers may imagine that:
- your "bottom" and "top" are referring to the Earth's atmosphere,
- the "heat energy" is the result of insolation absorbed by the Earth's surface and
- that heat energy then works its way through the atmosphere before escaping to space (the reverse of Doug's "heat creep" from TOA to surface).
On numerous occasions when debating the CACC issue I have found individuals incorrectly using the terms heat and energy interchangeably instead of drawing a clear distinction between the kinetic energy of molecules and the energy associated with e/m radiation (e.g. See https://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-131952).
Just a clarification - radiated e/m energy (insolation) causes heating of the Earth, which returns e/m energy (not heat) to space via the atmosphere, some components of which (the "greenhouse" gases, mainly water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane and ozone - see the absorption spectrogram at https://earthzine.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/6.1.jpg) absorb and reradiate a portion of that e/m energy in all directions.
(Not the full story but enough of an outline).
Did Mr. Cotton give up, or was he booted? Seems like the latter.
Did Mr. Cotton give up, or was he booted? Seems like the latter.
After all, he has boasted about how he will be using his "paradigm shift" hypothesis in class actions that will shake the world in 2018.
" .. 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).
QUOTE: ..
Subject: It must really grate on smart Peter Ridley that solid empirical evidence now shows why I have been right all along.
From:Doug Cotton ..
Date:06/05/2017 02:28
To:"peterridley ..
Cc:
To our friend, the smart Peter Ridley (BCC to over 300 others)
Bad Luck, Petey boy ... you backed the wrong horse due to you pathetic lack of understanding of thermodynamics and maximum entropy production, and your gullibility in believing the fictitious fiddled physics of climatology that is entirely based on the false assumption that the brilliant 19th century physicist Josef Loschmidt was wrong about force fields like gravity (and centrifugal force) causing there to be a non-zero temperature gradient - as is seen in every planetary troposphere, every vortex cooling tube, over 850 experiments by Roderich Graeff and as can be correctly explained directly from the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If it did not happen then nobody (not even you) could explain planetary temperatures and heat transfers ..
From: DougCotton ..
Date: 06/05/2017 02:55
To: "peterridley ..
Subj: I don’t normally waste time on you these days, but while it's in my clipboard ....
it seems I must reiterate that there is no valid physics and no empirical evidence that greenhouse gas (like water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane) could possibly warm the surfaces of planets like Earth and Venus. Rain forests are not 50 or more degrees hotter than deserts at similar latitude and altitude, and that tells us the IPCC claim that such “greenhouse” gasses supposed warm the Earth by “33 degrees” at average concentrations is totally false. The correct physics was explained in 1876 by the brilliant physicist Josef Loschmidt, and has never been proven wrong. Now in the 21st century we have solid empirical evidence that his “gravito-thermal” effect is indeed a reality. That single fact is sufficient to refute all the fictitious fiddled physics of climatology.
This comment is continued on my blog at itsnotco2 where you may read (free) my papers including “Comprehensive Refutation of the Radiative Forcing Greenhouse Hypothesis” and “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures” and where you can apply for a reward of tens of thousands if you can prove me wrong
.. UNQUOTE.
QUOTE: ..
Subject: It must really grate on smart Peter Ridley that solid empirical evidence now shows why I have been right all along.
From:Doug Cotton ..
Date:06/05/2017 02:28
To:"peterridley ..
Cc:
To our friend, the smart Peter Ridley (BCC to over 300 others)
Bad Luck, Petey boy ... you backed the wrong horse due to you pathetic lack of understanding of thermodynamics and maximum entropy production, and your gullibility in believing the fictitious fiddled physics of climatology that is entirely based on the false assumption that the brilliant 19th century physicist Josef Loschmidt was wrong about force fields like gravity (and centrifugal force) causing there to be a non-zero temperature gradient - as is seen in every planetary troposphere, every vortex cooling tube, over 850 experiments by Roderich Graeff and as can be correctly explained directly from the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If it did not happen then nobody (not even you) could explain planetary temperatures and heat transfers ..
From: DougCotton ..
Date: 06/05/2017 02:55
To: "peterridley ..
Subj: I don’t normally waste time on you these days, but while it's in my clipboard ....
it seems I must reiterate that there is no valid physics and no empirical evidence that greenhouse gas (like water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane) could possibly warm the surfaces of planets like Earth and Venus. Rain forests are not 50 or more degrees hotter than deserts at similar latitude and altitude, and that tells us the IPCC claim that such “greenhouse” gasses supposed warm the Earth by “33 degrees” at average concentrations is totally false. The correct physics was explained in 1876 by the brilliant physicist Josef Loschmidt, and has never been proven wrong. Now in the 21st century we have solid empirical evidence that his “gravito-thermal” effect is indeed a reality. That single fact is sufficient to refute all the fictitious fiddled physics of climatology.
This comment is continued on my blog at itsnotco2 where you may read (free) my papers including “Comprehensive Refutation of the Radiative Forcing Greenhouse Hypothesis” and “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures” and where you can apply for a reward of tens of thousands if you can prove me wrong
.. UNQUOTE.
I took a trip to the Judith Curry website. Wow, climate debate is a booming industry producing thousands of words, and perhaps little of anything else of value. Seems like Cotton is just the visible tip of the iceberg of confusion.
I took a trip to the Judith Curry website. Wow, climate debate is a booming industry producing thousands of words, and perhaps little of anything else of value. Seems like Cotton is just the visible tip of the iceberg of confusion.
From: its.not.co2@gmail.com
Date: 07/05/2017 13:06
To: <peterridley ..
Subj: I will only comment on my blog ... not Amazon now after they deleted my comments
PR
Insolation of 168 W/m^2 absorbed by Earth's surface CANNOT make the mean surface temperature hotter than 233K .. (followed by more of his previous ranting about the S-B Law) ..
DC
UNQUOTE.
At least we now know that it was Amazon that deleted his comments. It would be interesting to know what inspired Amazon to do that, yet still be happy to sell his nonsense booklet..
From: its.not.co2@gmail.com
Date: 07/05/2017 13:06
To: <peterridley ..
Subj: I will only comment on my blog ... not Amazon now after they deleted my comments
PR
Insolation of 168 W/m^2 absorbed by Earth's surface CANNOT make the mean surface temperature hotter than 233K .. (followed by more of his previous ranting about the S-B Law) ..
DC
UNQUOTE.
At least we now know that it was Amazon that deleted his comments. It would be interesting to know what inspired Amazon to do that, yet still be happy to sell his nonsense booklet..
Thanks,
AH&BL
This is easily refuted. Consider a warm radiator above a cold very fast shutter above a hot surface. According to you radiation will flow from the warm radiator towards the cold shutter. Now open the shutter suddenly. What do you believe will happen to the photons that have already left the radiator but have not yet reached the shutter? Will they change course and follow the shutter? Will the heat from the hot surface turn them around and push them back to where they came from? No, photons just pass through each other.
Or will they simply continue on their way to the hot surface and make Nature very angry?
In case you doubt a shutter could be that fast, consider a cold disk with a thousand radial cuts around its perimeter spinning at 60,000 RPM (a thousand revolutions a second), and consider all radiation from a very large warm surface a thousand feet (one light-microsecond) above the disk to a stationary region just above the disk the size and shape of one cut. (While this is only a very tiny part of all the thermal radiation from the warm radiator it nevertheless contains enough photons to make the point.) The disk will slice each thousand feet of that radiation into one part that hits the cold disk and a second part that passes through a cut and onwards to a hot surface placed below the disk.
According to you the second part had no business leaving the warm radiator during the previous microsecond. But how was it to know?
However with the counterfactual hypothesis of a zero lapse rate in the absence of GH gases it becomes an interesting question as to whether introduction of GH gases would increase the lapse rate above zero. I imagine it would for roughly the same reason that when you connect a variable resistor across a constant-current source, raising the resistance raises the voltage across the resistor. If you define the emissivity of Earth in terms of the temperature at the surface and the radiation to space at top of atmosphere (TOA), then without GH gases Earth's emissivity should be 1, and (according to tables of emissivity of CO2 at a fixed temperature and increasing partial pressure) should decrease with increasing CO2, thereby lowering the radiation at TOA. The resulting imbalance will then require Earth's surface to warm until the radiation at TOA is just enough to balance the absorbed solar irradiance.
"So, these are the two questions that we shall try to answer: How are the molecules distributed in space when there are forces acting on them, and how are they distributed in velocity?
It turns out that the two questions are completely independent, and that the distribution of velocities is always the same. We already received a hint of the latter fact when we found that the average kinetic energy is the same, kT/2 per degree of freedom, no matter what forces are acting on the molecules. The distribution of the velocities on the molecules is independent of the forces, because the collision rates do not depend upon the forces."
Herein may lie an explanation of where Loschmidt went wrong. I only have second hand knowledge of his argument, but it seems it was essentially that since a particle of gas in a sparsely populated column will lose kinetic energy (a measure of temperature) as it travels up the column, and gain kinetic energy as it falls, the temperature will rise as you go down the column. He then seemed to have tacitly extrapolated that result to a more densely populated column, ignoring the interaction with other particles. He should have taken an expandable box of particles from bottom to top of the column, and noted the effect of gravity on their average kinetic energy. There is none according to Feynman. Only density and pressure change, and in equal proportions. That cancels the temperature change in the ideal gas law.
I have no idea how he extended his result to liquids and solids. Must be lost in the dustbin of (justly forgotten) history.
PS: Where is Mr. Cotton? He get banned from here too?
That sounds fallacious to me. There's a big difference between being carried up 10,000' in the basket of a balloon vs. having to walk up 10,000 one-foot steps under your own steam. When the box of particles is carried up the particles are getting an assist from the rising bottom of the box: even if the box itself is weightless the particles inside are not, and work is being done by an outside agent to raise the particles. Why? Well, if they depend on their own kinetic energy to rise up then they're going to be converting it to potential energy throughout the rise. If however the parcel inside the box does not cool while expanding, the sum of its potential and kinetic energy is going to rise because the PE is clearly rising while KE by hypothesis does not decrease. Hence under the constant-temperature-inside-the-box hypothesis work must be done to raise the expanding parcel: where else could the energy needed to raise that sum come from?
[An earlier version of this comment did not mention adiabatic expansion and compression. After thinking over my first version I decided that the following argument might make the reasoning clearer. It's still a bit subtle so I wouldn't blame people for wanting to find fault with my reasoning.]
If you take the point of view that at all times this weightless expanding box has neutral buoyancy and therefore no work need be done to raise it, we can analyze that point of view by treating the air inside the box and outside separately. The inside air is undergoing adiabatic expansion against the outside air pressure and is therefore cooling, while the outside air is undergoing adiabatic compression due to the expanding box and is therefore warming, albeit not detectably given the outside air's volume.
Did Feynman really make that argument without mentioning the point that adiabatic expansion cools? I find this very hard to believe. Have people since Feynman been revising his class notes?
That sounds fallacious to me. There's a big difference between being carried up 10,000' in the basket of a balloon vs. having to walk up 10,000 one-foot steps under your own steam. When the box of particles is carried up the particles are getting an assist from the rising bottom of the box: even if the box itself is weightless the particles inside are not, and work is being done by an outside agent to raise the particles. Why? Well, if they depend on their own kinetic energy to rise up then they're going to be converting it to potential energy throughout the rise. If however the parcel inside the box does not cool while expanding, the sum of its potential and kinetic energy is going to rise because the PE is clearly rising while KE by hypothesis does not decrease. Hence under the constant-temperature-inside-the-box hypothesis work must be done to raise the expanding parcel: where else could the energy needed to raise that sum come from?
[An earlier version of this comment did not mention adiabatic expansion and compression. After thinking over my first version I decided that the following argument might make the reasoning clearer. It's still a bit subtle so I wouldn't blame people for wanting to find fault with my reasoning.]
If you take the point of view that at all times this weightless expanding box has neutral buoyancy and therefore no work need be done to raise it, we can analyze that point of view by treating the air inside the box and outside separately. The inside air is undergoing adiabatic expansion against the outside air pressure and is therefore cooling, while the outside air is undergoing adiabatic compression due to the expanding box and is therefore warming, albeit not detectably given the outside air's volume.
Did Feynman really make that argument without mentioning the point that adiabatic expansion cools? I find this very hard to believe. Have people since Feynman been revising his class notes?
And I did concede in my next comment that I had not distinguished between Feynman and my interpretation (“PS: I'm not sure if everything I said is justified by what Feynman said.”). I suspect he wouldn’t be too worried about me usurping his authority if he were still around, but you never know. : )
Show more comments