"The exchange of a single photon from a cold surface to a warm surface will impart a certain amount of energy per photon," <b>This statement is incorrect.</b> and so what follows is also. You people need to read <a href="http://www.csc.kth.se/~cgjoh/blackbodyslayer.pdf" rel="nofollow">Johnson</a>, <a href="http://principia-scientific.org/publications/Absence_Measureable_Greenhouse_Effect.pdf" rel="nofollow">Postma</a> and <a href="http://principia-scientific.org/publications/psi_radiated_energy.pdf" rel="nofollow">my own</a> papers to understand what happens in reality.
<b>The EM energy in radiation from a cooler source is never left in the target. It is immediately re-emitted and cannot be used by the target for any other purpose than immediate re-radiation</b>.
Hence the process is called "pseudo scattering" or in my paper I coined the term "resonant scattering" because of the resonance which Prof Claes Johnson describes. So stop making up your own ideas about what you think happens, because it doesn't and most climatologists spread these incorrect assumptions among themselves and the public, so you all get misled.
Try applying their ideas to one of those plastic bowls you put in your microwave oven. It does not get warmed in a 750 watt MW oven, but it certainly does in front of a 750 watt electric radiator. The radiation intensity is similar. But the big and only difference is the frequenciy of the radiation. In the MW oven low frequency radiation gets scattered by the plastic and some passes right through it following a random path of scattering. It then warms water inside the plastic bowl (not by atomic absorption but by rotating molecules and causing frictional heating) but it does not itself warm the bowl. The bowl only warms by conduction where it is in contact with some water that was warmed first. But it is quite a different story in front of a radiator. Think about it!
Comment on Climate change: no consensus on consensus by Doug Cotton
↧
↧
Comment on Climate change: no consensus on consensus by Doug Cotton
See post above. You are off the track and need to think a bit more about it all – as I have for thousands of hours.
↧
Comment on Climate change: no consensus on consensus by Chief Hydrologist
UV doesn’t cause sunburn and microwave radiation doesn’t heat food? And I am off track? To paraphrase Albert – be as silly as you need to be but no sillier.
↧
Comment on Learning (?) lessons from Sandy by Peter Lang
We can grow our society’s resilience to such events.
Sure can!
Build with steel.
Buy iron and coal from Australia to build more resilient infrastructure. 
↧
Comment on Learning (?) lessons from Sandy by pokerguy
Wow, Joshua. I feel so chastised. What a lesson we’ve learned, and who better to show us the error of our ways than thou, oh holy wise one? And yet. The recent droughts, fires, and storms you mention are no different from the droughts, fires, and storms that are in fact ongoing…if not in our part of the world than almost certainly in other parts. Bottom line, CAGW is dead as a doornail (what is a doornail, anyway?) from a policy standpoint. Do you really not see that? Your harping and carping about “generalizing” and “inaccurate projections” are nothing more than standard issue Joshua mental masturbating.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate change: no consensus on consensus by Chief Hydrologist
The heat in the atmosphere is a measure of the kinetic energy of molecules. Very different to the small proportion of molecules that are actively absorping/emitting photons in the specific frequencies at any one time.
http://www.atmos.illinois.edu/earths_atmosphere/index.html
http://www.heliosat3.de/e-learning/remote-sensing/Lec7.pdf
All heat comes from the sun – and more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere doesn’t change the direction of entropy or even the rate of entropy production. The world does warm however as a result of a decrease in the mean free photon path.
I say this without any real hope that you will see sense – but if you have spent thousands of hours on this you seem to have wasted your time.
↧
Comment on Climate change: no consensus on consensus by Doug Cotton
1. Can’t you take a joke about sunburn?
2. Microwaves don’t heat food – they heat water molecules in the food.
3. In the matters where you are correct you are not teaching me anything after more than 50 years’ of my involvement with physics.
4. When are you going to read those papers?
↧
Comment on Learning (?) lessons from Sandy by Faustino
The phrase “dead as a doornail” dates from before 1350. “William and Mary Morris, in The Morris Dictionary of Word and Phrase Origins, quote a correspondent who points out that it could come from a standard term in carpentry. If you hammer a nail through a piece of timber and then flatten the end over on the inside so it can’t be removed again (a technique called clinching), the nail is said to be dead, because you can’t use it again. Doornails would very probably have been subjected to this treatment to give extra strength in the years before screws were available. So they were dead because they’d been clinched. It sounds plausible, but whether it’s right or not we will probably never know.” http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-dea1.htm
↧
Comment on Learning (?) lessons from Sandy by Tom Anderson
I believe we can and will, eventually, protect the coastline from wind and storm surge, etc.. It does and will make financial sense. And we do have the technology and know how, now!
↧
↧
Comment on Learning (?) lessons from Sandy by jcbmack
Thank you Dr. Curry for not making this an AGW claim or some other unrelated issue. Great job!
↧
Comment on Learning (?) lessons from Sandy by Indur M. Goklany
Yes, FWIW, because peer review does not guarantee “truth”, Goklany’s work has been peer reviewed. The peer reviewed version is available at: http://www.jpands.org/vol14no4/goklany.pdf.
If you don’t trust the results, you can go to the sources which are explicitly listed and reproduce them. Based on these you indeed have a way to conclude whether his results are “impartial”. Go at it — what’s stopping you?
↧
Comment on Climate change: no consensus on consensus by Doug Cotton
I quote from your first link: "Atmospheric greenhouse gases (water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and other gases) trap some of the earth's outgoing (infrared) energy, which causes the atmosphere to retain this heat and warm. " <b>This statement is totally incorrect.</b>
↧
Comment on Learning (?) lessons from Sandy by Faustino
Joshua, I think the change in public opinion in Australia has three main causes.
1: claims of doom have not eventuated; they may have been of the “doom by mid-to-end-century” variety, but people haven’t seen dramatic change in a quite large part of their lifespan, and, indeed, are aware that, in Australia, well-established climate and weather patterns continue and temperatures have not risen perceptibly for a decade.
2: people will go along with things for a number of reasons if they bear no costs; in Australia there is economic uncertainty post GFC and very high electricity price rises, in part because of emissions-reduction measures; and people are less likely to accept tales of far off doom from unobservable (by them) factors and relationships when those longer-term possibilities are costing them short-term money.
3: political factors: PM Kevin Rudd hyped CAGW as “the great moral issue of our time,” then abandoned his ETS because it appeared to have little political traction. He was “stabbed-in-the-back” in the aftermath, his successor Julia Gillard went to an election with an explicit “no carbon tax in my time” promise then, faced with a hung Parliament, promised the Greens a carbon tax/ETS and many other costly anti-emissions measures in order to gain a one-vote majority and support in the Senate.
And I’m not “generalising about public opinion,” many polls show (a) a great drop in support for anti-emissions policies and (b) CAGW dropping way down the list of issues of most concern. There is no longer significant support for the CT/ETS, renewables etc in Australia, I think because reality has struck, the cosy glow of being on the CAGW band-wagon has lost its lustre. And short-termism generally prevails, perhaps because throughout human history life has tended to be “nasty, brutish and short,”
↧
↧
Comment on Learning (?) lessons from Sandy by Faustino
Indur, dherai danyabad.
↧
Comment on Hurricane Sandy: Part n by Tomcat
R Gates <i>Again, you are conflating near surface temperature with “global” warming</i>
Again, these figures are the only really reliable figures we have.
Also, since the mechanism of AGW is warming of GHGs, a prerequisite for heat building up elsewhere (eg oceans) <i>as a result of AGW</i>, is that the atmosphere first warms as as result of the capture of heat by GHGs. So if the atmosphere isn't warming, it cannot be said that an AGW is evident. And if despite no atmospheric warming, warming continues elsewhere (reliably measured), this is <i>necessarily</i> not an aspect of AGW.
All this does though not rule out the possibility that AGW is still occurring, but its effect is small relative to other natural forces, to matter.
↧
Comment on Hurricane Sandy: Part n by Girma
To compare the effect of hurricane Sandy, here are the death tolls from previous hurricanes or cyclones:
Rank 1 => Death Toll=> Event
1 => 500,000 => 1970 Bhola cyclone in Bangladesh
2 => 300,000 => 1839 Indian cyclone
3 => 300,000 => 1737 Calcutta cyclone in India
4 => 210,000 => 1975 Super Typhoon Nina in China
5 => 200,000 => 1876 Great Backerganj Cyclone in Bangladesh
6 => 146,000 => 2008 Nagris cyclone in Myanmar
7 => 138,866 => 1991 Bangladesh cyclone
8 => 100,000 => 1882 Bombay cyclone in India
9 => 60,000 => 1922 Swatow Typhoon in China
10 => 60,000 => 1864 Calcutta cyclone in India
This gives perspective on hurricane Sandy.
↧
Comment on Hurricane Sandy: Part n by omnologos
A question of mine is buried among the comments. I’ll ask again.
How much in % of what is spent annually on climate change would have to be reallocated to short term weather forecasting for the US capabilities to be similar or better than anything available from the rest of the world?
Am asking this because it’s obviously difficult to reallocate from war or social efforts but dead easy between related fields.
↧
↧
Comment on Hurricane Sandy: Part n by Latimer Alder
@lolwot
Only one way I know to demonstrate that something is ‘warming’. And that is to regularly measure its temperature and show that the temperature is increasing.
Whatever may be going with ENSO and El Nino and anything else you can think of doesn’t alter the awkward fact that the temperature ain’t going up.
It isn’t ‘warming’ and it is mendacious to assert that it is.
Unless, of course, you are using a different definition from all the rest of us. Perhaps you are a fan of Lewis Carroll?
‘”When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean”
Would you care to give us your definition of ‘warming’ that does not involve a temperature increase?
↧
Comment on What’s the best climate question to debate? by Tomcat
Stefan
You say global warming is “not possible”, because the atmosphere will expand, release the extra heat, and the system return to the previous equilibrium temperature.
This though was just an empty claim – you haven’t explained WHY this is. WHY will expanding the atmosphere make it release more heat ?
And WHY will this extra amount of heat released, be exactly the amount needed to return the system to the previous equilibrium point?
↧
Comment on Hurricane Sandy: Part n by Alexej Buergin
It is pretty good, except when you are the person concerned. And if Bush had been allowed to make the system more robust, all the crews could work in the counties directly hit.
Are Canadians really union members and allowed to work in the USA?
Concerning Canadians: Read Mark Steyn today, about bomber jackets and robust electricity systems:
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/110212-632060-romney-ryan-will-at-least-try-to-fix-problems.htm?fromcampaign=1
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
