Introduction
This post provides a selection of the E-mail exchanges that took place within a group comprising members of Principia Scientific International/"Slayers" and others (see Note 1 below for some of the participants in or recipients of the E-mails at various stages during these exchanges). More E-mails will be added as appropriate.
UPDATES:
See Appendix for earlier updates
2013-04-05 Added exchanges with Malcolm Roberts and Val Majcus during 29th and 30th May 2012 relating to "SpotlightON - PSI and PSI Acumen Ltd. Section 3.11.
2013-06-07 Added E-mails of 4th/5th Dec. 2012 on PSI and “ .. 9 leading scientists .. ” and on "Claims about membership of PSI".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."
“The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is.”
Winston Churchill
From: Bryan Leyland ...
To: peterridley...
CC: timothyball...; omatumr...; piers...; bastardi...; Nils-Axel.Morner...; . john0sullivan...; houston2000...; PF.SMP...; ...ilovemycarbondioxide...; curryja...; rupertwyndham...; ...; afjacobs...; kalhnd...
Sent: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 3:50
Subject: Re: PSI and “ .. 9 leading scientists .. ”
Peter,
I belong to PSI and I believe I have qualifications relevant to climate science. I have a Masters degree in power system analysis which involves computer modelling of very complex power systems in steady-state and in transient situations.
All computer models must be an accurate representation of the system that they are modelling, they must have accurate input data and theny must have been demonstrated to produce correct answers. As climate science is largely about computer modelling rather than climate itself, I do feel qualified to comment.
What I do know is that no climate model is an accurate representation of the system simply because we do not understand how the climate works.) For instance, none of the climate models can predict El Niño events which are the major periodic climate disturbance. Therefore, we have proof that they cannot accurately represent the system.
In addition, the climate models predict that increasing carbon dioxide will cause warming simply because they are programmed with a "climate sensitivity factor" (in engineering parlance a positive feedback factor) of between two and three. Therefore, the prediction of warming is not because the model has determined that this would happen but it is simply because this is built in to the program code.
How anyone with a knowledge of computer modelling can believe that they can give accurate results is totally beyond me.
Kind regards,
Bryan Leyland
Phone ...
Mobile ...
www.bryanleyland.co.nz
=============
Message Received: Dec 04 2012, 11:51 PM
From: "Vincent Gray" ...
To: "Andrew Skolnick" ..., "Pete Ridley" ...
Cc:
Subject: Fw: Claims about membership of PSI
FYI
Cheers
Vincent Gray
...
---- ----- Original Message ---- ----- ----
From: JOHN OSULLIVAN
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 9:36 AM (4th Dec. 2012 21:36 NZ time?)
To: Vincent Gray
Subject: Re: Claims about membership of PSI
Vincent,
To the best of my recollection nowhere do I or my colleagues state or infer you are a member of PSI. Indeed on our published member list (below) your name is absent. Ridley and Skolnick are well known compulsive liars and smear merchants.
http://www.principia-scientific.org/about/why-psi-is-a-private-assoc.html
Clearly you've become their latest target to harass and bait. Be careful - others have obtained evidence Ridley is a "cyberstalker" and identity faker:
http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2011/02/26/pete-ridleyfsmail-net-is-the-presumed-cyberstalker/
John O'Sullivan
Coordinator
Principia Scientific International
http://principia-scientific.org/
.....
===================
From: peterridley...
To: timothyball...; omatumr...; piers...; bastardi...; bryanleyland...; Nils-Axel.Morner....
CC: john0sullivan...; houston2000...; PF.SMP...; ...ilovemycarbondioxide...; curryja...edu; rupertwyndham...; askolnick...; afjacobs...; kalhnd...; Vincen Gray
Sent: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 16:24
Subject: PSI and “ .. 9 lead ing scientists .. ”
Hi Folks,
There is excessive euphoria in some quarters over those “ .. Nine leading scientists from Principia Scientific International (PSI) .. among the 125-plus signatories of a key open letter last week to UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon .. ” (http://www.principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/75-absence-of-any-greenhouse-gas-warming-dulls-doha-climate-conference.html and http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=10705).
There are only 8 names from that list (http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/11/29/open-climate-letter-to-un-secretary-general-current-scientific-knowledge-does-not-substantiate-ban-ki-moon-assertions-on-weather-and-climate-say-125-scientists/) that I recognise as being claimed as members of PSI (http://principia-scientific.org/about/why-psi-is-a-private-assoc.html).
- Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant and former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
- Oliver Manuel, BS, MS, PhD, Post-Doc (Space Physics), Associate - Climate & Solar Science Institute, Emeritus Professor, College of Arts & Sciences University of Missouri-Rolla, previously Research Scientist (US Geological Survey) and NASA Principal Investigator for Apollo, Cape Girardeau, Missouri, U.S.A.
- Terri Jackson, MSc (plasma physics), MPhil (energy economics), Director, Independent Climate Research Group, Northern Ireland and London (Founder of the energy/climate group at the Institute of Physics, London), United Kingdom
- Nils-Axel Mörner, PhD (Sea Level Changes and Climate), Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
- Piers Corbyn, ARCS, MSc (Physics, Imperial College London)), FRAS, FRMetS, astrophysicist (Queen Mary College, London), consultant, founder WeatherAction long range weather and climate forecasters, American Thinker Climate Forecaster of The Year 2010, London, United Kingdom
- Joe Bastardi, BSc, (Meteorology, Pennsylvania State), meteorologist, State College, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.
- Cornelia Codreanova, Diploma in Geography, Researcher (Areas of Specialization: formation of glacial lakes) at Liberec University, Czech Republic, Zwenkau, Germany
- Bryan Leyland, M.Sc., FIEE, FIMechE, FIPENZ, MRSNZ, consulting engineer (power), Energy Issues Advisor – International Climate Science Coalition, Auckland, New Zealand
It seems to me that referring to all of these individuals as “ .. leading scientists .. ” in the context of the processes and drivers of the different global climates is stretching the imagination somewhat too far.
Also, whoever agreed to the names of anyone who is claimed to be a member of PSI being placed on the list may not realise the impact that has on how seriously the open letter will be taken by supporters and rejectors of the CACC hypothesis alike..
It is even doubtful if all of these 8 are indeed members of PSI because others named as members seem not to be so. A prime example of this is Professor Myron Evans, founder of the Alpha Institute of Advanced Science (AIAS). Despite an unambiguous statement from Professor Evans that " .. Aftet due diligence AIAS has decided not to join PSI .. " (http://drmyronevans.wordpress.com/2012/11/07/aias-has-not-joined-psi/) he and about 20 of his AIAS members are listed as memers of PSI.
Perhaps Dr. Mörner, Piers Corbyn, Joe Bastardi, Cornelia Codreanova and Bryan Leyland would like to comment on whether or not they are indeed members of PSI. .
Please forward this E-mail to those among the list of “ .. 9 leading scientists .. ” who I have overlooked and to anyone else you think may be interested.
Best regards, Pete. Global Political Shenanigans (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/)
========================
From: "ROGER TAGUCHI" ...
To: ....jonicol18@..., ...kalhnd@..., ...peter.ridley@..., ...rtaguchi@...
Cc: ...timothyball@..., ...tom.harris@..., ...bob.carter@..., ...singer@..., ...rlindzen@..., ...jackbarrett273k@..., ...DrRoySpencer..., ...cuibono@..., ...j.harries@..., ...h.brindley@..., ...peter.ridley@...
Message Received: Oct 19 2012, 08:34 AM
Subject: Re: Earth Emission Spectra up to 2700cm-1
7. As for Peter Ridley's argument against Norm's comment about no change in OLR at the Top Of the Atmosphere (TOA), the MODTRAN calculation does show an increase in absorption by CO2 on doubling from 300 to 600 ppm, but it is small (equivalent to a "forcing" of 3.7 W/m^2 according to the IPCC, and 3.3 W/m^2 in the MODTRAN spectrum available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing).
8. It must be understood, however, that the MODTRAN calculations are computer calculations based on line-by-line absorptions for CO2 and other greenhouse gases; they are not empirical results. However, the spectra match actual satellite spectra (empirical data) very well for the 15 micron band for CO2 bond-bending (at 667 cm^-1).
… Norm may be right in saying that this may be beyond the average layman, but I would add that this would be equally true for most whose backgrounds are in biology or environmental science. Thus most commentators on the greenhouse effect are actually not qualified, unless they are willing to learn the basics of molecular spectra. This is something I wrote up in a long article I have sent to others (available to anyone as a pdf file on request).
9. I did not fully understand Norm's point about balancing of energy in = energy out
(at steady state, not equilibrium) … ...
==================
From: peter.ridley@...
To: kalhnd@shaw.ca
CC: Jackbarrett273k@...; rtaguchi@...; philip.halliday57@...; raderandrew@...; ibridger@...; andrew.chaplin@...; Mahdi_Nazemroaya@...; dupj@...; timothyball@...; bob.carter@...; singer@...; rlindzen@...; ...DrRoySpencer...; jonicol18@...; cuibono@...; j.harries@...; h.brindley@...; peter.ridley@...
Sent: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 18:11
Subject: Re: Earth Emission Spectra up to 2700cm-1
Hi Norm,
We have a break-through at last! I’m delighted to see you at last acknowledging that you are “ .. not an academic and .. do not write peer reviewed articles on climate which require proper scientific justification so I can say anything I wish .. ”. That is exactly what I thought when I first came across your proclamations about climate change, confirmed on 25th August when you responded on Roger Taguchi’s excellent scientific analysis “Comments on Grant W. Petty’s ‘A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation, Second Edition’".
Your response included “ .. The critique is excellent but at this technical level it is beyond the comprehension of most of the public .. ” and it seems that it was beyond your comprehension too. Did you even bother trying to read it? It also included your ludicrous statement that “ .. This of course is complete BS because OLR measurements show zero detectable influence on OLR from increased atmospheric CO2 concentration .. ".
Contrary to your misleading claim that I raise “ .. questions all pertaining to (your) personal credibility and none actually referring to data or the meaning of this data .. ” it is your claim about CO2 not influencing OLR that I have repeatedly questioned you on. I have also repeatedly tried to help you get to grips with this, e.g see my E-mail of 3 Oct 2012 21:34. I’ll try once again but suspect that I am wasting my time bothering.
In his analysis Page 15, Section 17f Roger provided a link to Jack Barrett’s blog page 21 “the Hard Bit” (http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page21.htm) which quite clearly shows in the first two MODTRAN generated emission spectra that increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration from 0 to 380ppmv then goes on to show that “ .. The next simulated spectra are those for 380, 760 and 1000 ppmv of CO2 respectively looking down from an altitude of 70 km and hopefully show the slight broadening of the 'well' that is crucial to the understanding of why more CO2 leads to a little more warming .. ”.
To use your own words “ .. It is inconceivable that (you) cannot comprehend such a simple concept! .. ”.
Of course, since I, like you, am not a scientist I could be wrong here but as you say “ .. Remarkably to date no one has ever demonstrated anything that I stated to be false so either I am correct in what I say or people are just being polite .. ”.
(Come on Roger, Jack, John, etc. is Norm right or wrong when saying that “ .. OLR measurements show zero detectable influence on OLR from increased atmospheric CO2 concentration .. "?)
Regarding your “ .. Peter Ridley has some motivation other than the interests of pure science .. ”, I’m motivated to find out as much as I can about the CACC hypothesis and about the motivations of those who support it and those who reject it. The impression that I have so far, after researching the issue for over 5 years, is that most of those who shout loudest about it, whether for or against, have interests in anything but pure science.
Best regards, Pete
============
Message Received: Oct 17 2012, 01:17 PM
From: "Norm Kalmanovitch"...
To: Jackbarrett273k@..., peter.ridley@..., rtaguchi@..., philip.halliday57@..., raderandrew@..., ibridger@..., andrew.chaplin@..., Mahdi_Nazemroaya@..., dupj@..., timothyball@..., bob.carter@..., singer@..., rlindzen@..., ...DrRoySpencer..., jonicol18@..., cuibono@..., j.harries@..., h.brindley@..., peter.ridley@...
Cc:
Subject: RE: Earth Emission Spectra up to 2700cm-1
Hi Jack,
All science aside the real question comes down to public action that should or should not be taken.
…..……
I am not an academic and I do not write peer reviewed articles on climate which require proper scientific justification so I can say anything I wish and people who read what I write have the prerogative to either accept or reject what I say.
Remarkably to date no one has ever demonstrated anything that I stated to be false so either I am correct in what I say or people are just being polite. The one exception to this is Peter Ridley “It is also noticeable that Norm Kalmanovich has studiously and repeatedly ignored my specific point about his ludicrous claim that “OLR measurements show zero detectable influence on OLR from increased atmospheric CO2 concentration”
It is inconceivable that he cannot comprehend such a simple concept!
The global temperature is the equilibrium temperature at which incoming and outgoing energy balance. If incoming energy is increasing then outgoing energy will also increase so increase in OLR is proof of increase in net incoming energy.
CAGW is predicated on no net increase in incoming energy with the rise in global temperature emanating from the increased insulation supposedly provided by increased CO2 concentration. If this was the case and net incoming energy remained static then OLR would have to remain static as well and this is clearly not the case with OLR and therefore net incoming energy increasing by over 2W/m2 since the launch of weather satellites in late 1978!
It is clear from his questions all pertaining to my personal credibility and none actually referring to data or the meaning of this data that Peter Ridley has some motivation other than the interests of pure science and being wary of his intentions all correspondence from him now goes directly to spam.
You are wise enough to decide for yourself if you should do the same.
Best
Norm K.
================
Message Received: Oct 05 2012, 06:59 PM
From: "Pete Ridley"...
To: Jackbarrett273k@..., peter.ridley@..., timothyball@..., kalhnd@...
Cc: rtaguchi@..., bob.carter@..., singer@..., rlindzen@..., Roy@..., jonicol18@..., cuibono@..., j.harries@..., h.brindley@...
Subject: Re: Earth Emission Spectra up to 2700cm-1
...
Hi Jack,
Thanks for another well-considered and clearly presented response to my questions. As a layman I very much appreciate the time and effort that you, Roger Taguchi, John Nicol and Colin Davidson have expended in moving the Catastrophich Anthropogenic Claime Change (CACC) debate along using sound science rather than dogma. The exchanges that we have all been involved in have been of enormous help to me, particularly those since June.
For those who have not been privy to these exchanges I recommend a visit to http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/ and a careful read of Roger Taguchi’s detailed analysis “Comments on Grant W. Petty’s - A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation, Second Edition ” (just ask for a copy).
One point about your response. CACC supporters might think that your “ .. The John Harries et al. paper showed that the Earth's surface warmed between 1970 and 1997 as might be expected from the increased concentration of CO2 .. ” is in support of their opinion that it was the rising CO2 that caused that increase in temperature. I’d be surprised if that is what you meant to imply.
Hi Professor Harries and Dr. Brindley,
I hope that one of you will be able to spare some time to comment, particulaly with regard to the paper “What is the Major Culprit for Global Warming: CFCs or CO2?” (http://journalofcosmology.com/QingBinLu.pdf) by Dr. Qing-Bin Lu, Associate Professor at the University of Waterloo. Dr. Lu appears to challenge the sampling method used in your interpretation of the satellite OLR measurements as presented in your 2001 “letter to Nature” and subsequent papers.
Dr. Lu states that “ .. These observations and calculations of radiance spectra therefore also provide strong evidence of the saturation in the warming effect of CO2 .. the former calculations significantly underestimated the amplification factor of water vapor feedbacks .. and also overestimated the greenhouse effect of CO2 by assuming a logarithmical increase in radiative forcing of CO2 .. ”. He concludes “ .. But it does show that the warming effect of CO was not the main cause of these climate transitions (Smith et al., 1999; Fischer et al., 1999; Veizer et al., 2000; Caillon et al., 2003; Stott et al., 2007). 2 and other non-CFC gases had most likely saturated and CFCs and HCFCs could account for global warming observed in the late 20th century. A long-term global cooling starting around 2002 is expected to continue for next five to seven decades. .. ”.
Hi Norm,
Are you now prepared to demonstrate a little humility by conceding that your statements:
- “ .. OLR measurements show zero detectable influence on OLR from increased atmospheric CO2 concentration .. ” and
- “ .. The global warming that did occur from 1975 to 1998 was definitely not the result of global CO2 emissions, because quite simply the saturation of the 14.77 micron band of the Earth’s thermal radiation by CO2, makes further ‘CO2 emissions caused global warming’ a physical impossibility .. ”
are flawed?
There is no shame in admitting to having erred. As indicated on the Imperial College London’s Dept. of Earth Sciences and Engineering site your discipline of Geophysics “ ,, is the study of the Earth and Planets by quantitative physical methods .. ” and involves numerous specialist areas (http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/earthscienceandengineering/research/geophysics). No-one is an expert in everything and as “ .. a practicing geophysicist .. operating at a very basic scientific and academic level ..” your area of expertise appears not to have been in in atmospheric physics but in undertaking geophysical surveys for petroleum exploration. As I see it the atmospheric physics specialisation within the discipline of Geophysics is far removed from the day-to-day activites that you, as a petroleum industry practitioner, or Tim Ball, as a Professor of Geography, were involved in.
On the other hand researchers like Professor Harries (http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/people/j.harries/research), Dr. Brindley (http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/people/h.brindley) and Dr. Barrett (http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page2.htm) have decades of experience researching and teaching in this specific area (http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/people/j.harries/publications & http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/people/h.brindley/publications).
We all like to air our opinions about this vexed CACC hypothesis but we ought to acknowledge expertise in others even if we don’t like their arguments. Reading their publications can be very beneficial.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
===============
From: Jackbarrett273k@...
To: peter.ridley@...; timothyball@...; kalhnd@...
CC: rtaguchi@...; tom.harris@...; bob.carter@...; singer@...; rlindzen@...; ...DrRoySpencer...; jonicol18@...; cuibono@...; j.harries@...; h.brindley@...; peter.ridley@...
Sent: Fri, 5 Oct 2012 9:56
Subject: Re: Earth Emission Spectra up to 2700cm-1
The John Harries et al., paper showed that the Earth's surface warmed between 1970 and 1997 as might be expected from the increased concentration of CO2. Their observations are consistent with the temperature increase given by the HADCRUT3 record of 0.418 C and the IPCC formula based on CO2 concentrations of 0.32 C.
Harries et al., based their work mainly in the IR window region which gives information about the surface. The total OLR work does not distinguish the window region from the overall spectrum and is open to varying interpretations. If indeed there was warming in this period (1970-1997) it would be obvious spectrally in the window region. With regard to radiation balance any increase in emission to space in the window region would be balanced by a decreased emission to space in the regions where the GHGs absorb, that is their action. They reduce the emission to space and, in consequence, the system warms up sufficiently to restore radiation balance causing an increased emission to space through the window.
All this is affected additionally by the various cycles, in particular the Atlantic overturning which has a roughly 60 year time, now in its cooling phase and which explains the fairly static global mean temperature. The cooling opposes the warming from the increasing CO2 concentration.
With regard to the saturation of absorption, this depends upon the strength of the absorption (absorption coefficient) at particular frequencies. As a general statement, the stronger absorbing frequencies are 'saturated' in the troposphere and do not contribute to GW. But, they are not saturated in the stratosphere where any increased concentration leads to further cooling in that region. The less strongly absorbing frequencies are not saturated in the troposphere and any increased concentration leads to warming in that region. Changes in OLR total are composed of emissions from a warming troposphere and a cooling stratosphere and these have to be unravelled before conclusions can be made about the effects of GHGs on the surface temperature.
The key to GW for any frequency is to consider that, viewed from the top of the atmosphere the optical density increases with decreasing altitude for any absorber. The emission level to space may be regarded as the altitude where the optical density of the region between the top of the atmosphere and the emission level is ~0.67. That figure approximates to a 50% chance of an upwardly directed photon reaching space, there being an identical chance that it will be absorbed before reaching space. If the concentration of the absorber increases the altitude of the emission level must increase to where the crucial optical density is again 0.67. That applies to all frequencies and ensures that emission level increases in the troposphere lead to warming and emission level increases in the stratosphere lead to cooling. Such conclusions are based upon the negative lapse rate in the troposphere and the positive lapse rate in the stratosphere.
Basically, any arguments about the state of GW must attempt to distinguish between the various warming and cooling influences, the global temperature record being a measurement of their resultant effect.
Jack
===============
From: peter.ridley@...
To: timothyball@...; kalhnd@...
CC: rtaguchi@...; tom.harris@...; bob.carter@...; singer@...; rlindzen@...; jackbarrett273k@...; ...DrRoySpencer...; jonicol18@...; cuibono@...; j.harries@...; h.brindley@...; peter.ridley@...
Sent: Wed, 3 Oct 2012 21:34
Subject: Re: Earth Emission Spectra up to 2700cm-1
I am surprised that someone who was a University lecturer and professor (Note 8) would consider Norm’s responses to my request for evidence to support his contentious statement about OLR measurements (Note 1) to be “convincing” or “pertinent” (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cogent). I recall being reminded many decades ago by my lecturers that no matter how accurate and detailed an answer to an exam question I gave, if it didn’t address the specific question it would attract no credits.
Hi Norm
Your 2nd October E-mail started “ .. It is not me but those who fraudulently proclaimed that catastrophic global warming would result if we did not reduce CO2 emissions who need to justify their claims! .. ”. In my opinion once again you are wrong. The onus is on each of us who purport to have expertise in a subject to justify the claims that we make, particularly for a subject as complex as the one we are debating – the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) hypothesis.
You will recall that this thread started with a 22 August E-mail from me to Roger Taguchi (Note 2), an individual who does have relevant expertise but is also happy to acknowledge when he is mistaken. On 24th August I forwarded to you a copy of Roger Taguchi’s document Comments on Grant W. Petty’s “A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation, Second Edition” (Note 3). Your response on 25th August was “ .. The critique is excellent but at this technical level it is beyond the comprehension of most of the public .. ” before then proceeding to give your own simplified analysis in which you concluded with your contentious statement about OLR measurements and CO2 (Note 1).
Contrary to what Tim thinks, in my opinion your several detailed responses to my repeated requests for you to substantiate that claim about the OLR measurements have been simply evasive. That could be interpreted to mean that the technical level of Roger’s critique is also beyond your comprehension too. Both of the OLR spectra that I pointed you to (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/fig_tab/410355a0_F1.html - black line 1970, grey line 1997) show the significant absorption (and some emission) of IR by CO2, O3 and CH4.
In my humble opinion as a layman those representations of OLR measurements in 1970 and 1997 show quite clearly the significant influence that CO2 has on the OLR. If you look carefully at the spectra that Roger provides in his document and which I attached to my E-mail of 1st October you can clearly see the impact upon OLR of the different greenhouse gases, including CO2.
I find it astonishing that in a thread discussing “Earth Emission Spectra up to 2700cm-1” the key words SPECTRUM and SPECTRA are virtually absent from your lengthy responses. Of your 3,300+ words SPECTRUM appears only twice, in your E-mail of 25 Aug 2012 when you said “ .. Since clouds reflect rather than absorb and redirect radiative energy and do so over the entire spectrum radiated by the Earth we can confidently make the assumption that the energy leaving the Earth is affected by the same ratio of 20 units for clouds and 6 units for the rest of the atmosphere as the albedo .. Water vapour has an effect on the entire thermal radiative spectrum of the Earth .. ”. You made no other mention of it but it is not because you are ignorant of the subject (Note 7) so why did you choose to ignore it?!
Your claim (Note 1) implies that you would expect to see precisely the same OLR spectrum even if none of those gases were present in our atmosphere (but I’m sure that that you didn’t mean that – again see Note 7). If you still stand by that claim then please would you provide your explanation for the differences in those 1970 and 1997 spectra.
In your November 2009 article “Why Copenhagen 2009 is the last chance to save the world” you made another unequivocal but unsubstantiated statement “ .. The global warming that did occur from 1975 to 1998 was definitely not the result of global CO2 emissions, because quite simply the saturation of the 14.77 micron band of the Earth’s thermal radiation by CO2, makes further ‘CO2 emissions caused global warming’ a physical impossibility .. ” (http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=4317).
Once again my immediate question as a layman is where is your evidence that 14.77 micron band is saturated? Does not the evidence in that 2001 letter to Nature by Harries, Brindley et al. (Note 4) that you apparently refuse to read contradict your 2009 claim too? I’m not the only person to draw that conclusion. In the blog article “Is the CO2 effect saturated?” Sceptical Science, that staunch defender of the Catastrophich Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) faith, claims to provide the evidence. It begins “ .. What the science says... If the CO2 effect was saturated, adding more CO2 should add no additional greenhouse effect. However, satellite and surface measurements observe an enhanced greenhouse effect at the wavelengths that CO2 absorb energy. This is empirical proof that the CO2 effect is not saturated .. ”.
That article then goes on to use the evidence presented in the Harries, Brindley, et al. letter and makes reference to more recent peer-reviewed papers claiming confirm that conclusion (Note 5). True to form for a CACC-supporting blog, the article makes no mention of a 2010 paper by Dr. Qing-Bin Lu, Associate Professor at the University of Waterloo (https://uwaterloo.ca/physics-astronomy/people-profiles/qing-bin-lu) which claims to turn upside-down the findings of researchers like Harries, Brindley, Griggs and Chen (Note 6). Although I have found numerous references by CACC sceptics to Dr. Qing-Bin Lu’s paper I haven’t yet found a refutation of it. Perhaps Professor Harries or Dr. Brindley can provide a link to one or even their own reaction to it.
I had forgotten that back in January 2010 I looked at several of your blog submissions. You admitted in the 2005 article “SOME KYOTO BASICS THAT HAVE BEEN MISSED” that you were “ .. a practicing geophysicist .. operating at a very basic scientific and academic level. From this simplistic and pragmatic perspective .. ” (http://antigreen.blogspot.co.uk/2005/06/some-kyoto-basics-that-have-been-missed.html). In your E-mail of 29th September you said “ .. I am a practicing geophysicist and I work with data and never reference peer reviewed studies in my work .. ”. Perhaps that explains why you seem to be finding it so hard to grasp the message presented in “Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997” by Harries, Brindley et al.
With all due respect perhaps you could learn something from some of those peer-reviewed papers that I drew to your attention. The bottom line is that just because people like the members of blogging groups such as “Friends of Science Society” and “Principia Scientific International” declare something to be fact does not make it fact. Lay people like I am need to be sceptical of claims made by those on both sides of this contentious debate and look for the evidence that supports those claims. Where convincing evidence does not exist then we have to form our own opinions based upon the little evidence that we have and those opinions can be just as wrong as those of self-proclaimed “experts”).
My humble opinion as a layman is that the CACC hypothesis will be consigned to the dustbin of antiquity as was the geocentric hypothesis, but much sooner.
NOTES:
1) “ .. OLR measurements show zero detectable influence on OLR from increased atmospheric CO2 concentration .. ”.
2) In that E-mail thread I had drawn Roger’s attention to Figure 3 in an article “"Monitoring of atmospheric composition using the thermal infrared IASI/MetOp sounder" (http://smsc.cnes.fr/documentation/IASI/Publications/ClerbauxACP2009.pdf). Fig. 3. Presents:
- the radiance atmospheric spectrum recorded by IASI/MetOp over West of Australia on 20 December, 2006,
- radiative transfer transmittance simulations to identify the main and minor absorbing gases.
3) This provides a scientific explanation of the form of the OLR from the global system of spheres. Roger introduces his detailed analysis with “ .. “A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation, Second Edition” by Grant W. Petty is a very good introduction to the physics of atmospheric radiation and remote sensing. It ought to be read by anyone who wants to understand the infrared (IR) spectra which show the effect of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), water vapor (H2O) and ozone (O3) on longwave radiation emitted from the surface of the Earth. There is a large and undeniable “greenhouse effect”. The book contains enough mathematical equations to show the rigorous approach taken by physicists, and those with mainly biological or environmental studies as a background can safely assume that they are correct. Prof. Petty not only explains the physical meaning of those equations, but also the limitations, both practical and theoretical when applied to given situations . ”. Roger goes on to identify and correct several misconceptions in th eway that the OLR spectra are interpreted.
A copy of the document is available for anyone wishing to see it.
4) “Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997” by Harries et al. (https://workspace.imperial.ac.uk/physics/Public/spat/John/Increase%20in%20greenhouse%20forcing%20inferred%20from%20the%20outgoing%20longwave%20radiation%20spectra%20of%20the%20Earth%20in%201970%20and%201997.pdf).
5) The Sceptical Science article “Is the CO2 effect saturated?” begins “ .. What the science says... If the CO2 effect was saturated, adding more CO2 should add no additional greenhouse effect. However, satellite and surface measurements observe an enhanced greenhouse effect at the wavelengths that CO2 absorb energy. This is empirical proof that the CO2 effect is not saturated .. This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using the latest satellite data. Griggs 2004 compares the 1970 and 1997 spectra with additional satellite data from the NASA AIRS satellite launched in 2003. Chen 2007 extends this analysis to 2006 using data from the AURA satellite launched in 2004. Both papers found the observed differences in CO2 bands matched the expected changes based on rising CO2 levels. Thus we have empirical evidence that increased CO2 is preventing longwave radiation from escaping out to space.” (http://www.skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm).
6) “What is the Major Culprit for Global Warming: CFCs or CO2?” by Dr. Qing-Bin Lu, states “ .. These observations and calculations of radiance spectra therefore also provide strong evidence of the saturation in the warming effect of CO2 .. the former calculations significantly underestimated the amplification factor of water vapor feedbacks .. and also overestimated the greenhouse effect of CO2 by assuming a logarithmical increase in radiative forcing of CO2 .. ” (http://journalofcosmology.com/QingBinLu.pdf).
7) Your 2010 article “The Effect of a Doubling of the Concentration of CO2 in the Atmosphere as Depicted by Quantum Physics” shows that you are fully aware of the importance of the measured and simulated OLR spectra (http://hawk.ethz.ch/serviceengine/Files/ISN/125711/ipublicationdocument_singledocument/63852979-2690-449a-ac8f-ac4550821c2a/en/58_GEOCANADA_2010_ABSTRACT_Norm_Kalmanovitch.pdf).
8) How long were you a Professor for – was it 32, 28 or 8 years? - http://everything.explained.at/Timothy_F._Ball/)?
Best regards, Pete Ridley
================
From: Tim Ball...
To: Norm Kalmanovitch ...
CC: peter.ridley@...; rtaguchi@...; tom.harris@...; bob.carter@...; singer@...; rlindzen@...; jackbarrett273k@...; ...DrRoySpencer...; jonicol18@...; cuibono@...; j.harries@...; h.brindley@...; peter.ridley@...
Sent: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 15:37
Subject: Re: Earth Emission Spectra up to 2700cm-1
Norm:
Well said and cogently argued.
It is as Melanie Phillips a new era of anti-enlightenment. In her book Age of Irrationality she explains, “all the ideologies so prevalent today in ‘progressive’ circles are deeply reactionary, illiberal and coercive.” It’s achieved “by wrenching evidence to fit a prior idea, is inimical to reason and sacrifices truth to power.”
I notice that Andrew Weaver has announced his candidacy for the Green Party.
Tim Ball
================
Message Received: Oct 02 2012, 03:03 PM
From: "Norm Kalmanovitch" ...
To: peter.ridley@...
Cc: rtaguchi@..., timothyball@..., tom.harris@..., bob.carter@..., singer@..., rlindzen@..., jackbarrett273k@..., ...DrRoySpencer..., jonicol18@..., cuibono@..., j.harries@..., h.brindley@..., peter.ridley@...
Subject: RE: Earth Emission Spectra up to 2700cm-1
Peter;
It is not me but those who fraudulently proclaimed that catastrophic global warming would result if we did not reduce CO2 emissions who need to justify their claims!
“The June 2011 comment in Tom Harris’s Financial Post article “Climate isn’t up for debate” (Note 1) was much more cautious that your bold and contentious " .. OLR measurements show zero detectable influence on OLR from increased atmospheric CO2 concentration .. ".
You are obviously having difficulty understanding what I was asking, which was for a link to data that supports that unequivocal statement about OLR and CO2. In my E-mail of 29th Sept. I said “ .. Please simply provide me with the best link that you are aware of to that evidence, i.e. those specific OLR measurements that show "zero detectable influence". I ask for nothing more and nothing less .. ”. The graph that you provided (attached) is not those “specific OLR measurements” that you use to justify your claim.”
On June 23, 1988 James Hansen stood before Congress warning that unless the world reduced CO2 emissions from fossil fuels the atmospheric CO2 concentration would more than double which according to his Scenario “A” of his climate model projections would result in catastrophic global warming with melting Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and flooding of coastal areas by 2030 according to this from Hansen et al 1988:
Today CO2 emissions are in excess of 34gt/year up substantially from the 22gt/year level of 1988 but instead of the catastrophic global warming predicted by Hansen and his GCM model projections; the world has been cooling since 2002 as demonstrated by this raw monthly HadCRUT3 global temperature graph:
I trust that you are able to recognize that even this HadCRUT3 data demonstrates a cooling trend since 2002, but just in case you have trouble recognizing a negative slope I put in reference lines for 0.4°C and 0.5°C to assist you.
By contrast this slide showing Hansen’s 1988 prediction based on climate models shows only warming, and when physical data does not support model projections science protocol dictates that model projections be discarded but the Kyoto Protocol dictates that all physical data contrary to CAGW conjecture be discarded instead!
With respect to OLR, in his 1988 paper makes no mention of the increase in OLR corresponding to the ten years of warming from 1978 to 1988 as shown below from weather satellites launched by NASA (he clearly had access to this data)
Before one can make projections based on static OLR one must first justify the increasing OLR which demonstrates an alternate explanation for the observed warming.
In the IPCC 2001 TAR the 20th century warming is stated as 0.6°C + 0.2°C over the 100 years so this decade of warming from 1978 to 1988 should average 0.06°C.
In 1978 the CO2 concentration was 335.41ppmv and in 1988 it was 351.56ppmv (ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_annmean_mlo.txt )
According to the CO2 forcing parameter and climate sensitivity factor this should result in
5.35ln (351.56/335.41) = 0.25159W/m2 x 0.75°C/W/m2 = 0.188°C which is about three times greater than the 0.06°C that it should have been.
In 2002 the CO2 concentration was 373.22 and for 2011 the CO2 concentration was 391.57ppmv. from 2002 to 2011 the world cooled but doing the calculation still predicts warming!
5.35ln(391.57/373.22) = 0.25678W/m2 x 0.75°C/W/m2 = 0.193°C
When a model predicts an increase of 0.188°C when the Earth is warming but then predicts an even greater increase of 0.193°C when the world is cooling; science protocol would reject the model as being false.
To carry this argument a step further we can compare model projections for past temperatures based on this graph from the IPCC 2001 TAR
Starting with the approximately 0.3°C of warming from 1910 to 1942 we can use the following graph to depict CO2 concentration of roughly 300ppmv in 1910 and an increase to roughly 315ppmv by 1942.
The calculation 5.35ln(315/300) = 0.2610W/m2 x 0.75°C = 0.196°C which is at least in the ballpark of the 0.3°C actual increase in global temperature as depicted on the composite graph.
When we do the same calculation for 1942 to 1975 using 315ppmv for 1942 and 335ppmv for 1975 we get:
5.35ln(335/315) = 0.3293W/m2 x 0.75°C/W/m2 = 0.247°C of warming when the data shows approximately 0.1°C of cooling over the same period as the model predicts warming!
In all four cases the model demonstrates increased downward forcing and increased resulting temperatures but the real world data shows cooling in two of the periods when the model shows warming and in the other two periods the real world data in one case shows more warming of 0.3°C than the predicted 0.196°C of the model but in the other the claimed trend of 0.06°C is far less than what the model predicts as 0.188°C.
When a model based on static OLR is consistently wrong and projections based on this model are used to make claims of catastrophic global warming that have resulted in the crippling of world economies and a global food crisis from the trillion dollar carbon credit scams; it is not me who has to justify why OLR measurements refute this fraudulent conjecture because it was not me who made these fraudulent claims in the first place.
Hansen claimed a doubling of CO2 by 2030 in his Scenario “A” which would lead to warming in excess of 2°C above the 1988 global temperature. Today the CO2 concentration is 394ppmv and increasing at just 2ppmv/year so in 18 years the CO2 concentration will only be 430ppmv which is far less than the 703ppmv level predicted by Hansen as a doubling of the 1988 level.
The world is currently cooling and we are less than half a degree C warmer than when Hansen made the 2°C warming prediction in 1988. Current solar cycle 24 is mimicking the onset of the Dalton Minimum that brought on an extension of the Little Ice Age and all indications are that solar cycle 25 will follow suit. This means that in all likelihood 2030 will be significantly cooler than today so I challenge you to explain why I must justify my explanations about the meaning of OLR increases instead of those who predict a further 1.5°C of warming in the next 18 years justifying their claim!
In 2002 proper science was barred from the discussion and Kyoto was ratified without any independent scientific verification or due diligence of any kind.
Today after over a trillion dollars has been spent on supposedly reducing emissions to stop global warming global CO2 emissions have increased to over 34gt/year which is in case you are unable to do the math an increase above the 2002 level of 26.3gt/year when Kyoto was ratified without due diligence!
Canada’s contribution to this 7.7gt/year increase was just 0.0064gt/year from .5987 to .6051 so proper due diligence would have identified the fact that with China politically excluded from the Kyoto Protocol even if the scientific basis for reducing emissions had been valid without China reducing emissions it was a disservice to Canadians to ratify Kyoto.
With this HadCRUT3 data confirming the satellite data demonstration of global cooling since 2002; it is also clear that even a cursory attempt at scientific verification of the premise behind the Kyoto Protocol would have uncovered the fraudulent science behind it.
The real issue in this has nothing to do with either science or the environment but the criminal act of blocking proper science from the debate as was done prior to ratification of Kyoto in 2002 by the duplicitous action and conflict of interest of the Under deputy Minister for Environment Canada blocking proper information from the scientists under him to prevent exposure of the faulty science in the IPCC 2001 Third Assessment Report for which he served as a lead author.
The details of this have been made aware to the Prime Minister who by the way was just as adamant as the scientists about having proper scientific verification and due diligence before ratifying Kyoto as demonstrated by this excerpt from Hansard October 24, 2002:
It is important to have some kind of basic grasp of the science. Canadians have to understand that the Kyoto accord simply deals with levels of carbon dioxide. It is not smog. It is not the smog problem in Toronto. It is not acid rain. It is a natural occurring gas we all breathe. Carbon dioxide occurs naturally in the atmosphere. In fact, 95% of all carbon dioxide on the planet occurs naturally. Only 5% is man made.
The Kyoto accord calls for reductions of around 6% over 1990 levels. For all intents and purposes, this amounts at the end of the Kyoto process to a worldwide reduction, if achieved, of less than 1% decrease in man-made carbon dioxide and one-tenth of 1% of naturally occurring carbon dioxide.
The relationship of carbon dioxide to global warming also involves complicated and complex science that is far from settled. It is a matter of significant debate. If I can cite Dr. Lindzen, a professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who said:
But--and I cannot stress this enough--we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to carbon dioxide or to forecast what the climate will be in the future.
We cannot predict the weather tomorrow with absolute accuracy. We certainly cannot predict the climate 100 years from now.
Models have been constructed that suggest there could well be a base line increase of about 2.5°C over 100 years. There is no particular knowledge at the moment whether that relationship has to do with natural or man-made carbon dioxide. Frankly, over the last few years we have failed to see the full rise in global temperatures that the models predict.
When the Prime Minister stands in the House and suggests that somehow Canadians will start dying from extreme heat in 30 years if this agreement is not passed, it is fearmongering. It is not a position that any credible scientist would endorse.
Let me go on with this aspect of the benefits. This is the most serious concern we should have. If we do not achieve even the reductions laid out and instead we go to trading schemes and in particular the international trading scheme, we are not achieving reductions. We are simply transferring wealth to other countries. In most countries this will be a wealth transfer to countries with far worse emissions records and far worse emissions goals than ours.
Sixty-five per cent of emissions in the world are occurring in countries that will not ratify Kyoto or are exempted from any kind of meaningful targets. It is very predictable that all this international trading scheme the government suggests it will cooperate in will do will be to shift jobs and activity and frankly, the production of CO2 emissions outside Canada. It is predictable, if not certain, that global emissions will in fact end up rising because of the structure of the Kyoto accord.
To date the Prime Minister has walked the political tight rope acting in accordance with public opinion on climate change while minimizing the detrimental effects from Kyoto on the Canadian economy which included extricating Canada from Kyoto before the 2012 deadline to prevent $18billion in penalties for not meeting the commitments made by Chretien in 2002.
Most are unaware that there was a senate hearing of presentations by four scientists all demonstrating the fallacies of the CAGW conjecture and this was done to the exclusion of the Environmentalist Lobby so it was limited to proper science without any of the usual defamatory ad hominem attacks aimed at discrediting these scientists.
The PM also has in his possession a personally signed copy of Professor Ian Plimer’s new book “How op get expelled from school A guide to climate change for pupils parents & punters that is endorsed with a forward by Dr. Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic.
For comparison to the IPCC conjecture, the PM was also given a copy of the 2008 (the coldest year since global cooling returned in 2002) book by Dr. Andrew Weaver titled “Keeping our cool Canada in a warming world” with a front cover endorsement by David Suzuki.
These two books side by side provide an open and shut case for misrepresentation of fact by the IPCC which the PM is entirely aware of and it is only a matter of time and more importantly timing when the PM initiates an inquiry into the misdeeds surrounding the ratification of Kyoto and those responsible.
If you were smart instead of demonstrating your support for this global warming scam and demanding that I justify myself for claims I have made; you would be well advised to disassociate yourself from this crowd before the “S” hits the fan with a Government inquiry into the ‘improprieties’ surrounding the ratification of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change.
In any case I am quite sick of your stupid commentary and inability to comprehend even the simplest concept because of your limited knowledge of anything pertaining to this issue that is outside what you are being told by equally unknowledgeable climate modellers.
You can either choose to accept what data says and reject conjecture that is contrary to physical data or continue to accept conjecture and reject data as you are now doing; but either way I have no use for anything you say and no desire to continue to receive this idiotic correspondence from you, so your name has now been added to my spam list.
Those of us concerned with saving the world from this global warming fraud that has scammed a trillion dollars out of the global economy and has dealt hardship to the world’s poor have no time to engage in this type of foolish discussion so in the future send your commentary to someone who cares!
Norm K
==================
From: "Norm Kalmanovitch" ...
To: peter.ridley@...
Cc: rtaguchi@..., timothyball@..., tom.harris@..., bob.carter@..., singer@..., rlindzen@..., jackbarrett273k@..., ...DrRoySpencer..., jonicol18@..., cuibono@..., j.harries@..., h.brindley@..., peter.ridley@...
Subject: RE: Earth Emission Spectra up to 2700cm-1
Figure 7.1 in the IPCC 1990 First Assessment Report shows the global temperature of the Medieval Warm Period to be well below the Holocene Maximum of five thousand years ago, and the current global temperature as we recover from the Little Ice Age to be well below that of the Medieval Warm Period.
To an honest scientist this means that the Earth is on an overall cooling trend leading towards the possibility of another major ice age within the next 5,000 years; to the dishonest, it means that the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age must be removed from the record to keep the failed premise of CAGW (catastrophic anthropogenic global warming) alive.
We call this the Hockey Stick!
Figure 2.20: Millennial Northern Hemisphere (NH) temperature reconstruction (blue) and instrumental data (red) from AD 1000 to 1999, adapted from Mann et al. (1999). Smoother version of NH series (black), linear trend from AD 1000 to 1850 (purple-dashed) and two standard error limits (grey shaded) are shown.
It is not about me or my opinions it is just about the simple fact that climate models don't have any inherent ability to either attribute the forcing from increased CO2 or convert this forcing to temperature without some input parameter for both and both the ‘CO2 forcing parameter’ and the ‘climate sensitivity factor’ used in the IPCC climate models are complete fabrications and have no physical basis for their genesis!
Global temperature is the equilibrium temperature at which incoming and outgoing energy i.e. OLR balance.
This balance can be created by either increased incoming energy which would mean increased matching outgoing energy i.e. increased OLR, or static incoming energy with matching static outgoing energy i.e. static OLR.
The CO2 forcing parameter of the climate models is predicated on static incoming energy matched by static outgoing energy i.e. static OLR. This scenario assumes that thermal radiation from the Earth is increasingly trapped by the increased insulation resulting from increased CO2 to produce downward forcing which does not let the Earth surface cool as much as before. The net effect of this is reduced energy escaping into space creating an imbalance between incoming and outgoing energy. This imbalance of more energy coming in than going out results in less cooling (which is improperly referred to as warming) with the average surface temperature seeing an overall increase. Thermal radiation is a function of absolute surface temperature (proportional to the fourth power of the absolute temperature). As the surface temperature increases as a result of this trapped energy it radiates at higher and higher levels until the level of thermal radiation is sufficient to overcome the increased insulation and the outgoing energy i.e. OLR matches the incoming energy and the temperature stabilizes at this new higher level with incoming and outgoing energy balancing.
Therefore for this scenario to be the one that is actually in effect according to the CO2 forcing parameter used in the climate models the insulation provided 0.782W/m2 of downward forcing which was compensated by the increase in temperature which provided additional radiation of 0.782W/m2 to exactly match the downward forcing computed by the CO2 forcing parameter.
If this was actually the case the outgoing energy would be the same as the incoming energy which in this scenario would be static with increased temperature.
Static OLR would present itself as a horizontal line on a graph of OLR from 1978 to 2011, and the green trend line on this graph of OLR is clearly not horizontal and therefore there is no detectable enhanced greenhouse effect which would have to had at least some representation of a horizontal aspect to this line!
In case your eyesight is not that good I did a horizontal compression of this graph to help you see the trend is clearly not horizontal!
The horizontal black lines represent 230, 232, and 234W/m2 and it is clear that OLR has increased as a result of temperature by over 2W/m2.
By contrast the downward forcing and the compensating increase from the increased temperature in the ‘CO2 scenario’ is only 0.782W/m2.
This means that according to the CO2 forcing parameter the same increase in temperature that produces 2W/m2 when it is caused by increased incoming solar energy only produces 0.782W/m2!
What this means to someone who works with data is that the data overrules conjecture and it is incoming energy at 2W/m2 and not downward forcing of 0.782W/m2.
What this means to someone who believes in fabricated climate model parameters is that physical data must be discarded to perpetuate the CAGW fraud!
This is as simple as I can make it and if you don’t understand this you are wasting both of our time!
Norm K
=============
From: peter.ridley@...
To: kalhnd@...a
CC: rtaguchi@...; timothyball@...; tom.harris@...; bob.carter@...; singer@...; rlindzen@...; jackbarrett273k@...; ...DrRoySpencer...; jonicol18@...; cuibono@...; j.harries@...; h.brindley@...; peter.ridley@...
Sent: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 22:47
Subject: Re: Earth Emission Spectra up to 2700cm-1
ATTACHMENT: Lower_tropo-temp__90N-90S_and...
Hi Norm,
The June 2011 comment in Tom Harris’s Financial Post article “Climate isn’t up for debate” (Note 1) was much more cautious that your bold and contentious " .. OLR measurements show zero detectable influence on OLR from increased atmospheric CO2 concentration .. ".
You are obviously having difficulty understanding what I was asking, which was for a link to data that supports that unequivocal statement about OLR and CO2. In my E-mail of 29th Sept. I said “ .. Please simply provide me with the best link that you are aware of to that evidence, i.e. those specific OLR measurements that show "zero detectable influence". I ask for nothing more and nothing less .. ”. The graph that you provided (attached) is not those “specific OLR measurements” that you use to justify your claim.
I am not the first to ask you to substantiate your claims with data. In response to your June 2011 claim in The PEG that satellite measurements of outgoing longwave radiation “ .. clearly demonstrate that the enhanced greenhouse gas effect from CO2 emissions never actually existed ..” both Dan Burt P.Eng. (Note 2) and John Middleton, P.Eng. (Note 3) asked for the same and made some other worthwhile suggestions that you seem to have chosen to ignore (http://www.apega.ca/Members/Publications/Magazines/ThePEG/2011/September/Sept2011PEG.pdf)
I have no argument with you that if the incoming radiation to the Global system of spheres (Note 4) increases then its outgoing IR radiation (OLR) should also increase, but the system’s temperature must incease for this to happen. Another reason why the system’s temperature would increase is because some of the IR radiation is being prevented from escaping. I asked you what you meant by OLR and pointed you to the spectrum presented in the letter to Nature on “Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997” by Harries et el. (Note 5) because I wanted to be sure that you understood that point. I also hoped that you would reflect upon what those bites out of the Brightness temperature level at 700-800 and 1000-1100 wavenumbers in Fig. 1a might be saying about CO2 and OLR.
I doubt very much if you bothered looking at what Professor Harries, Dr Brindley et al. had to say but here’s an important bit “ .. We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12. Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a signinificant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate .. ” (Note 6). That rather conflicts with your recent E-mail statement and an earlier one that “ .. satellite measurements of OLR which show no detectable change in the greenhouse effect in spite of the 57.1% increase in CO2 emissions since 1979 .. ” (http://judithcurry.com/2012/02/05/climate-and-energy-policies-two-sides-of-the-same-coin/). BTW, a clearer version of Fig. 1 from their paper is included in the attachment.
That paper had me a little puzzled until I found confirmation of an error in Fig. 1 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6832/full/4101124a0.html). I’d have expected at least one of the Ccs to have spotted that error so have to assume that none of them read the letter either. Never mind, surely Professor Harries, Dr. Brindley or one of the other Ccs (all of whom I consider to have much more relevant experience than I’d expect a petroleum industry geophysicist to have) can spare the time to help you out with your still unsubstantiated claim that " .. OLR measurements show zero detectable influence on OLR from increased atmospheric CO2 concentration .. ".
Your E-mail of 30th Sept. gives the impression that you have a very high opinion of yourself as a practicing geophysicist with over 40 years of professional experience, your near encyclopedic knowledge of Earth physics and atmospheric processes, strong background in nuclear and quantum physics, your SAT scores, your overdeveloped sense of logic and common sense and your claim to being an expert in the geological process that shaped the Earth.
In my 40 years as a Chartered Engineer (4 years of which were spent as a Member of Scientific Staff the Bell-Northern Research labs in Ottawa during which I was registered as a PEng. APEO) I encountered few who I would consider to be experts in their field. In marked contrast to you those few were (like me) very modest individuals who left it to others to make that accolade.
I searched for evidence to support those self-aggradising claims of yours but found very little (Note 7). I searched for papers that you were involved in but the few that I found seem to have nothing to do with the atmosphere, OLR or CO2’s contribution to the greenhouse effect (Note 8). Of course you have blogged about these in numerous articles and comments, such as on the blog of PSI’s CFO Johannes (Hans) Cornelis Schreuder when you made another odd claim “ .. it is not possible for CO2 to drive global temperature change because the increase is not cyclic .. ” (http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/archives/final_summary.pdf). Anyone can put their opinions into the blogosphere – after all there is no worthwhile peer review prior to publication.
NOTES:
1) “ .. Calgary geophysicist Norm Kalmanovitch showed how satellite radiation measurements demonstrate that the “enhanced greenhouse effect” from greenhouse gas emissions has never even existed to any measurable extent .. ” (http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/06/07/climate-isnt-up-for-debate/).
2) Burt:- “ .. I would ask Mr. Kalmanovitch to share his sources so that I can review the data myself and see if I
come to a similar conclusion, and to also see if this one measurement or parameter trumps all others in the effort to quantify any potential greenhouse effect .. We disagree - that is fine. In fact it is only through disagreement that the best solutions are found. Perhaps his claims are true and I look forward to reading his references, but the science of (potential?) climate change is far too broad for him to claim that he has “proven” something in the contents of a letter .. ”.
3) Middleton:- “ .. I would like to see him present his views in the standard form: state qualifications, present theory and data, draw conclusions and provide references. This would serve the debate better than a presentation of his opinions. One problem I have with Mr. Kalmanovitch’s letters is that I can’t tell his facts from his opinions. He is a prolific writer. I have read many, possibly all, of his statements. He should have no problem with writing a paper presenting his views that can be subject to peer review .. Convince us, Mr. Kalmanovitch .. ”.
4) Global system of atmos/acqua/geo/bio/cryo/spheres.
5) “Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997” by Harries et al. (https://workspace.imperial.ac.uk/physics/Public/spat/John/Increase%20in%20greenhouse%20forcing%20inferred%20from%20the%20outgoing%20longwave%20radiation%20spectra%20of%20the%20Earth%20in%201970%20and%201997.pdf. BTW. A clearer version of Fig. 1 is provided in the attachment.
6) Much respected but sadly departed CACC sceptic John Daly comented on this in his March 2001 article “A Smoking Pea-Shooter” (http://www.john-daly.com/smoking.htm). John also highlighted that important error in the paper.
7) The little that I found included:
- “ .. Norm Kalmanovitch earned a Bachelor of Science in Geology from McGill University in 1970. Kalmanovitch is a licensed professional geophysicist with The P.Geoph. designation .. ” (e.g. see http://www.webcommentary.com/php/ShowArticle.php?id=tseuga&date=090309 ).
8) The only papers that I could find that you co-authored were “A Seismic Workstation Solution to Bakken AVO” written for a Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists conference and the references therein. (http://www.cspg.org/documents/Conventions/Archives/Annual/2012/025_GC2012_A_Seismic_Workstation_Solution_to_Bakken_AVO.pdf)
================
From: Norm Kalmanovitch...
To: peter.ridley@...
CC: rtaguchi@...; timothyball@...; tom.harris@...; bob.carter@...; singer@...; rlindzen@...; jackbarrett273k@...; ...DrRoySpencer...; jonicol18@...; cuibono@...; peter.ridley@...
Sent: Sun, 30 Sep 2012 15:28
Subject: RE: Earth Emission Spectra up to 2700cm-1
You are a layman and I am a practicing geophysicist with over 40 years of professional experience from which I have gleaned a near encyclopedic knowledge of Earth physics (Geo =Earth and Physics = Physics) and atmospheric processes. I also have a strong background in nuclear and quantum physics from both my somewhat outdated formal education and my continued interest in these physics disciplines.
In addition to this My formal education was also in geology and I am somewhat of an expert on the geological process that shaped the Earth.
My SAT scores placed me in the top 1% in scholastic aptitude in language mathematics and science (chemistry) and unless I have killed off a significant portion of my brain cells I still have something close to this aptitude.
More importantly I have been either blessed or cursed with an overdeveloped sense of logic and common sense; something that you do not seem to possess.
My commentary " Your opinion doesn't appear to be worth much!" stemmed from my sending you this OLR data complete with an explanation of its meaning and your incredulous comment that to make my case I needed to send you evidence!
If OLR increases with increasing temperature as is demonstrated by this graph in means that the increased temperature has been caused by net increasing incoming energy and definitely not from static incoming energy and increased atmospheric insulation from CO2 emissions (or for that matter from any other atmospheric component either) as is falsely claimed by the IPCC in both the 2001 TAR and the 2007 4AR.
If you think I am an idiot, I suggest that you follow the adage “Never argue with an idiot because he will bring you down to his level and beat you with experience” and I will do the same.
Please do not pester me any more with these silly comments.
Norm K
=================
From: peter.ridley@...
To: kalhnd@...
CC: rtaguchi@...; timothyball@...; tom.harris@...; bob.carter@...; singer@...; rlindzen@...; jackbarrett273k@...; ...DrRoySpencer...; jonicol18@...; cuibono@...; peter.ridley@...
Sent: Sun, 30 Sep 2012 13:33
Subject: Re: Earth Emission Spectra up to 2700cm-1
Hi Norm,
As a layman not a scientist I look for evidence of competence in those who offer opinions on this vexed subject of the processes and drivers of the different global climates. With all due respect I am starting to wonder if your opinion is worth very much at all. On 23rd August you left me somewhat lost for words and wondering about your debating style (see Note 1 below). You now give me cause to doubt the basis for your scientific arguments too. In your E-mail of 29th Sept. with “ .. I am a practicing geophysicist and I work with data and never reference peer reviewed studies in my work because I work in the real world.. ”. I recognise that peer review does not guarantee veracity but I don’t consider it sensible to ignore peer-reviewed material.
I remind you that in your E-mail of 25th August you made the unequivocal statement that " .. OLR measurements show zero detectable influence on OLR from increased atmospheric CO2 concentration .. ". So far you have produced no relevant data to support that statement and I suspect that you cannot.
Let me try to help you out by referring you to two scientists with some pedigree in this aspect of the CACC debate, Drs. Roy Spencer or Jack Barrett who are respected scientists with recognised expertise in relevant disciplines. The article “No warming since 1979?!” (http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page6.htm) by Jack Barratt and Dr. David Bellamy offers a different argument to what you do. Unlike you they support their argument that “ .. It seems imprudent to attempt to avoid or hide the obvious general positive trend .. ” by stating the source of the data used as the basis for a graph (http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/userimages/UAH.gif - Note 2) from Dr. Spencer’s blog and even providing information about how those data are obtained (http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page55.htm).
You conceded that “ .. The global temperature anomaly data does however show an overall warming from 1978 to 2012 .. ” but then went on to say “ .. and therefore any increase in OLR will demonstrate that there is a corresponding increase in incoming energy .. ” but does it? What do you mean by “any increase in OLR”?
Let me help you a little more by suggesting the you look at “Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997” by Harries et al. (https://workspace.imperial.ac.uk/physics/Public/spat/John/Increase%20in%20greenhouse%20forcing%20inferred%20from%20the%20outgoing%20longwave%20radiation%20spectra%20of%20the%20Earth%20in%201970%20and%201997.pdf). I appreciate that you are reluctant to read peer-reviewed material but just for once at least take a careful look at Fig. 1 in that article. That should make things clearer for you.
BTW, can any of the Ccs. Provide me with a link to an equivalent peer-reviewed article that covers the period 1970-2011?
NOTES:
1) You said with reference to John O’Sullivan and his team of “Slayers” that “ .. we are all polite professionals and the perpetrators of the CAGW fraud are all rather nasty. What we need on our side is a bit of this nastiness and them Slayers have it in spades, so my intention in this is to get the Slayers working with us and giving the warmist crowd a taste of their own medicine! .. .. I am slowly making headway with the Slayers in getting them to tone down their less than professional rhetoric ..”.
2) A more up-to-date graph is available at Dr. Spencer’s “UAH Global Temperature Update for October 2011: +0.11 deg. C” thread (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2011-0-11-deg-c/)
Best regards, Pete
===============
From: peter.ridley@...
To: kalhnd@...
CC: rtaguchi@...; timothyball@...; tom.harris@...; bob.carter@...; singer@...; rlindzen@...
Sent: Sat, 29 Sep 2012 19:50
Subject: Re: Earth Emission Spectra up to 2700cm-1
Hi Norm,
You have chosen not to respond to my request but in my opinion merely tried to obfuscate.
You previously made the unequivocal statement that " .. OLR measurements show zero detectable influence on OLR from increased atmospheric CO2 concentration .. " which means that you have evidence that this is so. Please simply provide me with the best link that you are aware of to that evidence, i.e. those specific OLR measurements that show "zero detectable influence". I ask for nothing more and nothing less, but the evidence in the link that you provide needs to be from a recognised reliable source of such information not simply from bloggers like you and I are.
That is a simple request that does not require the long-winded response that you gave, which comes across as simply a smokescreen to hide your inability to provide what I asked for.
If I am mistaken then I apologise but until I see that evidence of those measurements that you claimed existed then I have no reason to change my opinion.
On 12th May 2011 PSI's "CEO & Legal Consultant" posted an article "Global Warming Fraud Creates Third World Food Crisis" (in which he referred to you as semi-retired) quoted you extensively saying much of what you said in your response to my E-mail. Included was " .. The satellite measurements of outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) demonstrate that OLR is responding strictly to the fourth power of the Earth’s absolute temperature in perfect accordance to basic physics theory, but is in no way responding to the 57.1% increase in CO2 .. ". Once again no evidence was provided about those measurements showing that the OLR was " .. in no way responding to the 57.1% increase in CO2 emissions from fossil fuels since 1979 .. " (http://redneckusa.wordpress.com/2011/05/12/global-warming-fraud-creates-third-world-food-crisis/ and elsewhere).
In fact you appear to be contradicting what you said on 14th June 2011 in your comment on Judith Curry's thread "Overconfidence in IPCC’s detection and attribution. Part IV"
(http://judithcurry.com/2011/06/14/overconfidence-in-ipccs-detection-and-attribution-part-iv/). QUOTE: .. My abstract for the 2010 GeoCanada Convention http://www.geocanada2010.ca/uploads/abstracts_new/58_GEOCANADA_2010_ABSTRACT_Norm_Kalmanovitch.doc shows the Nimbus 4 satellite data depicting CO2 and ozone as the only clearly identifiable gases affecting the Earth’s radiative spectrum. I also have models showing the exponential decrease in effect from increasing levels of CO2 .. UNQUOTE. Your comment there on 15th June " .. most of the energy in the 14.77micron band that CO2 can affect is already affected and there is not enough energy remaining for even a ten fold increase in CO2 to cause any more than a degree C of further warming .. " also appears to contradict your statement.
Unless you provide the evidence that I have been asking for I'm inclined to agree with musician Fred Moolten's 15th June 2011 response to your comments
Bob Carter described you as " .. a geophysicist with over 35 years of experience, and recently retired from Penn West, a Canadian oil and natural gas energy trust based in Calgary, Alberta .. " (http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2009/10/20/the-way-ahead)
. I'm rather puzzled about how your work involved measuring outgoing long-wave radiation!
Best regards, Pete
==================
From: Norm Kalmanovitch
To: peter.ridley@...
SHOULD HAVE BEEN CC: rtaguchi@...; timothyball@...; tom.harris@...
Sent: Sat, 29 Sep 2012 15:04
Subject: RE: Earth Emission Spectra up to 2700cm-1
Hi Pete,
I am a practicing geophysicist and I work with data and never reference peer reviewed studies in my work because I work in the real world and peer review does not guarantee that what is written even if it is peer reviewed is physically valid. For example Hansen et al 1981 (attached) states:
Carbon dioxide absorbs in the atmospheric "window" from 7 to 14 micrometers which transmits thermal radiation emitted by the earth's surface and lower atmosphere. Increased atmospheric CO2 tends to close this window and cause outgoing radiation to emerge from higher, colder levels, thus warming the surface and lower atmosphere by the socalled greenhouse mechanism (5). The most sophisticated models suggest a mean warming of 2° to 3.5°C for doubling of the CO2 concentration from 300 to 600 ppm (6-8).
SCIENCE, VOL. 213, 28 AUGUST 1981
Etc. etc. etc.
===============
From: peter.ridley@...
To: kalhnd@...
CC: rtaguchi@...; timothyball@...; tom.harris@...
Sent: Sat, 29 Sep 2012 12:41
Subject: Re: Earth Emission Spectra up to 2700cm-1
Hi Norm,
Can you provide links to peer-reviewed research papers that support your " .. OLR measurements show zero detectable influence on OLR from increased atmospheric CO2 concentration .. ". I don't recall ever coming across anything that suggested this and would find any relevant scientific study interesting, as might Roger.
BTW, are you able to cast any light on why Tim Ball chose to join with John O'Sullivan in trying to set up another organisation (Principia Scientific International (Note 1) to fight the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) scam rather than helping to strengthen existing organisations such as Friends of Science or the International Climate Science Coalition (Note 2).
After all, Tim is a member of the ICSC Science Advisory Board and was a close associate of ICSC's Executive Director Tom Harris through the Frontier Centre for Public Policy (Note 3).
I asked Tim about this on 7th Sept. QUOTE: .. I find it puzzling why a prominent CACC sceptic like yourself .. chose in 2010 to get involved in trying to set up the Slayer/PSI group when you were already associated with well-established sceptical organisations .. What possible benefit could there be in trying to set up from scratch another organisation with similar objectives rather than concentrating on strengthening established ones that you were involved with? Surely consolidation into fewer stronger CACC-sceptic groupings is preferable to fragmenting into weak ones. .. What motivated you to support the setting up a new organisation having similar objectives to well-established organisations such as the ICSC, the Heartland Institute, FoSS, etc. etc. etc. What do you consider PSI can more effectively achieve in the fight against the CACC propaganda than those other well-established sceptical organisations? .. You may recall that I raised this point on 18th Jan. 2011 .. the day after John O’Sullivan initiated his second failed attempt to attract sufficient charitable donations to set up PSI as a limited company (http://www.gofundme.com/1v39s) .. UNQUOTE.
I'm disappointed that Tim has so far declined to respond to my E-mail, considering the PSI promotional pages claim to be " .. advocates of transparency and accountability .. " but perhaps Tom Harris can help out.
NOTES:
1) - see http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/spotlighton-principia-scientific.html
2) - see http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=280
3) - see http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1272
Best regards, Pete
---------------
original message
From: Norm Kalmanovitch
To: peter.ridley@talktalk.net; rtaguchi@rogers.com
Sent: Sat, 25 Aug 2012 0:07
Subject: RE: Earth Emission Spectra up to 2700cm-1
Etc. etc. etc. SEE BELOW
===================
Message Received: Sep 07 2012, 06:23 PM
From: "Pete Ridley" ...
To: timothyball@...
Cc: rupertwyndham@..., askolnick@..., denis.rancourt@..., john0sullivan@..., houston2000@..., curryja@..., kgregory@..., contact@friendsofscience.org, crgeditor@..., crm_crg@..., crg.online@..., crgisabelle@..., crgjulie@..., felicityarbuthnot@..., cunninghamfin@..., rwrozoff@..., jimrsimpson@..., provost@ucalgary.ca
Subject: FoSS or FRSP or CC101 or CRG or ICSC or even FOG&T? - but why PSI!
Hi Tim,
It is a shame that Norm Kalmanovitch and Albert Jacobs have opted out of this thread. As members or associates of Friends of Science Society (http://www.friendsofscience.org/ and http://sourcewatch.org/index.php/Friends_of_Science_Society#FoS_Advisor_Tim_Ball_Meets_with_federal_and_Alberta_Conservatives) they might have helped to answer some of my questions, particularly regarding the relationship between FoSS and the Principia Scientific International group (Note 1) of which you are Chairman. Both Albert and Norm have indicated some involvement with PSI (Note 2).
I am also interested in the relationship between FoSS and other organisations that are sceptical of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) hypothesis (Note 3).
I find it puzzling why a prominent CACC sceptic like yourself (Note 4) chose in 2010 to get involved in trying to set up the Slayer/PSI group when you were already associated with well-established sceptical organisations (Note 5). What possible benefit could there be in trying to set up from scratch another organisation with similar objectives rather than concentrating on strengthening established ones that you were involved with? Surely consolidation into fewer stronger CACC-sceptic groupings is preferable to fragmenting into weak ones.
You posted numerous contributions to Friends of Science during 2008-9 (http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=415) and were scientific advisor to the ICSC (http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=280) and Heartland Institute (http://heartland.org/experts). What motivated you to support the setting up a new organisation having similar objectives to well-established organisations such as the ICSC, the Heartland Institute, FoSS, etc. etc. etc. What do you consider PSI can more effectively achieve in the fight against the CACC propaganda than those other well-established sceptical organisations? (Note 6)
You may recall that I raised this point on 18th Jan. 2011 (Note 7) the day after John O’Sullivan initiated his second failed attempt to attract sufficient charitable donations to set up PSI as a limited company (http://www.gofundme.com/1v39s). John responded with QUOTE: .. As for your comparisons of PSI with organizations such as ICSC, CRG and GWPF, I see very substantial differences .. UNQUOTE but you said NOTHING which I find puzzling.
On Xmas day 2010 the questionable claim of PSI was made that “ .. We are poised to deliver a robust, financially strong charitable organization with a remit to use member subscription to file lawsuits on their behalf. I want to complete the job I started and we now need you to help recruit the thousands of paid up members necessary to turn noble words into actions .. ” (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/psi-due-diligence-20102011-selected-e.html) Please will you enlighten us on why you considered it prudent to remain silent during those important discussions about forming a new group to add to the existing fragmented array of organisations that were sceptical of the CACC hypothesis.
On Boxing Day the group was advised that $3000 was needed to get PSI started on its first legal action (against NOAA!!) and on 28th Dec. You responded with “ .. I am in support of this proposal and will make a contribution .. ”. According to my records (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/psi-due-diligence-20102011-selected-e.html) that was your only contribution (as Chairman elect) to the 180+ “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mail exchanges during Dec. 2010/Jan. 2011.
I commented on 4th Jan. 2011 “ .. Of the proposed executive and management team, comprising Dr. Timothy Ball (Chairman), John O’Sullivan (CEO)*, Hans Schreuder (CFO)*, Rev. Philip Foster (Compliance Officer), Dr. Martin Hertzberg, Dr. Claes Johnson*, Joseph A. Olson*, Alan Siddons, Dr. Charles Anderson we have only heard considered views from those marked with * .. ”. Despite my prompt you maintained your silence– in my opinion very odd for someone who was to be the Chairman of a limited company that was appealing for set-
up funds.
The 2009 article “Natural Resources Stewardship Project” (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Natural_Resources_Stewardship_Project) claims that you resigned from FoS’s Science Advisory Board to head up the Natural Resources Stewardship Project with Tom Harris as Executive Director. I find it very puzzling why you chose to get involved setting up PSI rather than join the established international sceptic organisation ICSC with Tom (http://climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=393).
In the spirit of transparency claimed to be so important to PSI (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/spotlighton-principia-scientific.html) would it not be beneficial for you to clear up some of these puzzles? (I remind you of my 30th Sept 2011 comment about those who worship Harpocrates - http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/selected-e-mails-with-slayerspsi.html).
Talking about transparency, I have not been able to find details of FoSS’s funding and current membership (Note 8). I wonder if you or one of the Ccs can provide a link to such information.
As I have said on numerous occasions, if anyone considers that I have misunderstood or misrepresented facts then please provide details of where and how so that I can review what I have said and consider whether or not a retraction or apology are warranted. I have no wish to misrepresent facts or defame anyone but am simply looking for the truth behind the CACC debate, as I hope are we all.
NOTES:
1) The questionable claim is made that PSI is QUOTE: . the world’s first practicable alternative for scientists and members of existing national science associations who feel let down by what appears to be a culture of politicized science .. UNQUOTE (http://principia-scientific.org/).
2) In his E-mail of 5th August Albert acknowledged QUOTE: .. Knowing some of the personages involved among the Dragons .. UNQUOTE when he expressed his concern about being QUOTE: .. distressed to see how this street fight has deteriorated ... look at what you are doing .. before DeSmogBlog et al have a field day with your squabbles to the detriment of us al.. UNQUOTE. I stand by my response that fair-minded individuals need to question the arguments and motives of those on both sides of this debate.
On 23rd August Norm indicating at least a working relationship with PSI members when saying QUOTE: .. I am slowly making headway with the Slayers in getting them to tone down their less than professional rhetoric .. UNQUOTE (E-mail).
3) For example the International Climate Science Coalition (http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/), Climate Change 101 (http://www.climatechange101.ca/ - see also http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/5160), the Global Warming Policy Foundation (http://www.thegwpf.org/), Science and Public Policy Institute (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/).
4) QUOTE: .. Chairman & Founder Member: .. Professor Timothy Ball is a renowned environmental consultant and former .. Professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg. .. has an extensive science background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history .. UNQUOTE (http://principia-scientific.org/index.php/about/why-psi-is-proposed-as-a-cic.html).
5) For example:
- FoSS founded in 2002 (http://deepclimate.org/2009/12/02/in-the-beginning-friends-of-science-talisman-energy-and-the-de-freitas-brothers/) which claims to be QUOTE: .. a non-profit organization run by dedicated volunteers comprised mainly of active and retired earth and atmospheric scientists, engineers, and other professionals. We have assembled a Scientific Advisory Board of esteemed climate scientists from around the world .. UNQUOTE (http://www.friendsofscience.org/) and where you have your own web-page (http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=415),
- the Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG) established in 2001, which claims to be QUOTE: .. a registered non profit organization .. involved in book publishing, support to humanitarian projects as well as educational outreach activities including the organization of public conferences and lectures .. acts as a think tank on crucial economic and geopolitical issues .. UNQUOTE (http://www.globalresearch.ca/about/) and where you have your own web-page (http://www.globalresearch.ca/author/tim-ball/).
6) Until a plausible explanation is given it is difficult to challenge derogatory opinions such as those expressed in Desmogblog (http://www.desmogblog.com/affidavits-michael-mann-libel-suit-reveal-astonishing-facts-about-tim-ball-associate-john-o-sullivan, http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1272, http://www.desmogblog.com/dr-tim-ball-the-lie-that-just-wont-die, http://www.desmogblog.com/canadian-geologists-embarrass-themselves-climate), Sourcewatch (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Tim_Ball), Deep Climate (http://deepclimate.org/2009/12/02/in-the-beginning-friends-of-science-talisman-energy-and-the-de-freitas-brothers/) and those dear Friends of Gin and Tonic (http://friendsofginandtonic.org/page5/page10/page10.html).
7) I asked QUOTE: .. What extra benefits would another separate organisation like PSI bring to this noble cause that is not or cannot be better provided by giving support to established organisations? In my opinion this is simply fragmentation of effort when what is needed is a strong, unified international group .. UNQUOTE (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/psi-due-diligence-20102011-selected-e.html).
8) I tried to find details of the Society on the Industry Canada web-site (https://www.ic.gc.ca/app/scr/cc/CorporationsCanada/fdrlCrpSrch.html?locale=en_CA) but was told .. Corporate Name: Friends of Science 0 results were found, 0 returned .. The most recent that I have been able to locate is for May 2007, provided by Albert Jacobs. It names the FoS Board as of May 1st 2007: Douglas Leahey, Ph.D., President; Eric Loughead, P.Geol, Vice President; Giles Wilderman, Secretary; Lloyd Flood, P.Eng., Treasurer
Other Directors: John Leeson, P.Geol. Leonard Maier, P.Eng. William Howell, Ph.D. Norm Kalmanovitch, P.Geoph. Charles Simpson, Past President .. ” (http://www.sourcewatch.org/images/archive/c/ca/20071130195435!FOS_Email_4.pdf) although I see that Ken Gregory was a Director in Sept. 2011 (http://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FoS_CO2_reduction_plan_Sept2011.pdf – and interesting article although Friends of Gin & Tonic President Derek L. Schweinsgruber was unimpressed http://friendsofginandtonic.org/files/category-fos.html).
FoSS funding has attracted a lot of adverse criticism (e.g. see http://sourcewatch.org/index.php/Friends_of_Science_Society, http://www.desmogblog.com/oil-companies-funding-friends-of-science-tim-ball-takes-the-brunt).
Best regards, Pete Ridley
http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/
PS:
For the benefit of those in the circulation who do not know anything about me, I actively support a similar position to those declared by the Friends of Science Society (http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/FoS%20Position%20Statemen1.pdf) and other like-minded organisations such as the International Climate Science Coalition (http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/ (my introduction to the ICSC was in 2008 through Vincent Gray at the New Zealand arm http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=374&Itemid=1). I reject the scare-mongering arguments of those who promulgate the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) propaganda.
Pete R.
================
From: Norm Kalmanovitch
To: peter.ridley@...; rtaguchi@...
Sent: Sat, 25 Aug 2012 0:07
Subject: RE: Earth Emission Spectra up to 2700cm-1
The critique is excellent but at this technical level it is beyond the comprehension of most of the public.
The key in all this is cloud cover which is addressed as one of the questions in the piece.
There is a very simple logic demonstrated by this diagram that basis the incoming energy on 100 units and divides the albedo into these units for the Earth surface Clouds and the Atmosphere
MISSING DIAGRAM
The total albedo is 30 units but four of these units result from Earth surface reflection leaving 26 units attributable strictly to the atmosphere. Since the outgoing energy is only affected by the atmosphere we can use the ratio of cloud effect to atmosphere effect for these 26 units for the albedo for the ratio for the outgoing radiation from the Earth’s surface.
Since clouds reflect rather than absorb and redirect radiative energy and do so over the entire spectrum radiated by the Earth we can confidently make the assumption that the energy leaving the Earth is affected by the same ratio of 20 units for clouds and 6 units for the rest of the atmosphere as the albedo.
20 units out of 26 units represents 76.9% of the atmospheric portion of the albedo related to cloud cover so in the other sense 76.9% of the reduction in energy leaving the Earth should also be related to clouds leaving only 23.1% of the reduction to water vapour CO2 and all other gases in the atmosphere.
Water vapour has an effect on the entire thermal radiative spectrum of the Earth through its rotational mode of interaction and with water vapour ranging from negligible up to over 40,000ppmv in high humidity areas water vapour clearly has a much more dominant effect than all the other gases in the atmosphere combined.
For the sake of numerical simplicity if we relate 13.1percentage points of the 23.1% to water vapour and ignore the effect from other atmospheric gases we are left with 10% of the reduction effect due to CO2.
The fundamental flaw in the IPCC argument about the effect from CO2 increases and energy balance is that they do not remove the 90% effect from clouds and water vapour and attribute 100% of the effect to so called greenhouse gases when in fact this number should be more on the order of just 10%.
Though not totally accurate all one has to do to correct everything stated by the IPCC and the climate model projections is to shift the decimal point over one digit.
This corrects the 2°C to 5°C of global warming claimed as a result of doubling CO2 to the more realistic value of 0.2°C to 0.5°C and eliminates any possibility of a catastrophic global warming threat resulting from CO2 emissions.
This of course is complete BS because OLR measurements show zero detectable influence on OLR from increased atmospheric CO2 concentration; but since it is far easier to convince the public that the IPCC exaggerated the effect from CO2 by ten times than to convince them that the enhanced greenhouse effect as claimed by the IPCC does not exist at all; it is best to go with this less than perfect explanation.
Best
Norm K.
-----Original Message-----
From: peter.ridley@...
Sent: August-24-12 3:22 PM
To: kalhnd@...; rtaguchi@...
Subject: Fwd: Earth Emission Spectra up to 2700cm-1
Hi Norm,
I hope that you find this of interest, including the attachment.
Hi Roger,
Thanks for the feedback. I'm off on a weeks holiday with famaily including the grand-children so possibly won't be back until Sept.
I've included Norm Kalmanovitch because of his involvement in the debate as an associate of Friends of Science.
Best regards, Pete
===============
Message Received: Aug 24 2012, 09:32 PM
From: "Pete Ridley" ...
To: "Norm Kalmanovitch"
Cc: houston2000@..., vinmary.gray@..., bob.carter@..., singer@..., rlindzen@..., afjacobs@...
Subject: RE: Principia Scientific International blogging group appoints a recruitment officer?
Hi Norm,
What you choose to do is up to you. I choose to discuss both falsehoods and those who promulgate them.
Your comment that QUOTE: .. The fault with the Slayers is that they challenge people’s character and this ad hominem attack has crept into PSI .. UNQUOTE makes no sense to me, after all it was the “Slayers” who founded the PSI blogging group. I find it hard to understand why you are so determined to support them – is it because of your association with PSI’s “Chairman” Tim Ball?
Regarding you QUOTE: .. The bottom line is pick your battles and only engage in those that will be of benefit .. UNQUOTE, perhaps you should consider the merits of adding - pick your allies carefully and don’t fight battles that you can’t win -.
BTW, thanks for attaching your submission to Professor Schneider which contains in Pages 3 & 4 comments that are relevant to curent exchanges which I’ll pass on to others.
Best regards, Pete
===============
Message Received: Aug 24 2012, 07:36 PM
From: "Norm Kalmanovitch" ...
To: peter.ridley@..., "'Andrew Skolnick'"
Cc: houston2000@..., vinmary.gray@..., bob.carter@..., singer@..., rlindzen@..., afjacobs@...
Subject: RE: Principia Scientific International blogging group appoints a recruitment officer?
If this is what you hear that I am saying either I am not properly expressing what I meant or you are not understanding it.
When (The Late) Stephen Schneider opened a challenge to contradict his position on CAGW I submitted the attached and we never heard any more of this challenge.
What I am saying is challenge falsehoods and not the character of the person stating the falsehoods. The fault with the Slayers is that they challenge people’s character and this ad hominem attack has crept into PSI. When you go after PSI in the same way the discussion degrades to ad hominem attack against ad hominem attack with no progress being made in the fight against the CAGW scam which is the real problem.
So what I am saying is not that the end justifies the means but just that there are far better ways of achieving this end by simply not engaging in this divisive rhetoric.
One of my favorite lines from Shakespeare (completely out of context) is “…it is like a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing.” If an idiot says you are wrong when you know you are right should you challenge the comment and come down to the idiot’s level or just ignore it and walk away.
Another good line is “Never argue with an idiot; they will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience”.
The bottom line is pick your battles and only engage in those that will be of benefit.
Best
Norm K.
==============
Message Received: Aug 24 2012, 05:32 PM
From: "Pete Ridley" ...
To: "Norm Kalmanovitch"
Cc: houston2000@..., vinmary.gray@..., bob.carter@..., singer@..., rlindzen@..., afjacobs@...
Subject: RE: Principia Scientific International blogging group appoints a recruitment officer?
Hi Norm,
What I hear you saying is that the end justifies the means but I reject that philosophy. It's the one that Professor Stephen Schneider supported when advocating that scientists use scare-mongering propaganda in order to spread the CACC religion.
As Andrew said QUOTE: .. You really can tell a lot about a person by the friends they keep .. UNQUOTE.
On 14th Jan. 2011 I said to the "Slayers"/PSI group QUOTE ..
Whatever form it eventually takes, if PSI is ever perceived by disciples and followers of the CACC doctrine as a threat to their cause not only PSI but everyone associated with it will be attacked with whatever can be used or invented. Each of us will be carefully researched and any skeletons in cupboards will be dragged out into the open. Any suggestion of past dishonesty or irrationality will be exploited (remember the treatment that Lord Monckton has received, e.g. over his claims to being a member of the Upper House). Several of us have already experienced this sort of treatment but it may be new to some. It can get very unpleasant, even for those who stick to the science. Not that such activity should deter us in pursuing this “noble cause” but what is there about any of us that could seriously undermine PSI’s standing? As I’ve said before, we have to be seen to be squeaky clean. Are we all happy that we can achieve this?
You may recall how Professor Stephen Scheider’s words - To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest - .. (http://www.john-daly.com/schneidr.htm) were turned against him. I doubt if Executive member elect Alan Siddons words - .. I’m just along for the ride .. - are the only ones that can be turned against us by our opponents, whether in the blogosphere or in court. What do others see as PSI’s Achilles Heel and how do we protect it?
UNQUOTE (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/psi-due-diligence-20102011-selected-e.html).
As I said on 23rd Aug. QUOTE: .. In my humble opinion .. it would be in the best interest of getting rid of this CAGW fraud .. if the PSI blogging group vaporised. There are for superior and better respected organisations available to those of us who are sceptical of the CACC hypothesis and the political propaganda that uses it .. UNQUOTE.
Best regards, Pete
=================
Message Received: Aug 24 2012, 04:20 PM
From: "Norm Kalmanovitch"
To: "'Andrew Skolnick'" ...
Cc: peter.ridley@..., houston2000@..., vinmary.gray@..., bob.carter@..., singer@..., rlindzen@..., afjacobs@...
Subject: RE: Principia Scientific International blogging group appoints a recruitment officer?
The issue is a trillion dollar fraud that has crippled world economies and caused a global food crisis from food being used as feedstock for biofuel production so let's stick to attacking the fraud and those perpetrating this fraud and leave all other commentary on people out of the effort because it serves no purpose!
Back in October 26, 2007 Jean Zeigler, Chair of the United Nations Human Rights Council's Advisory Committee, stated ""So it is a crime against humanity -it's a crime against humanity to convert agricultural productive soil into soil.which will be burned into biofuels" making the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change a crime against humanity for allowing biofuel production to be a viable source for carbon credits which are part of this trillion dollar fraud. Anyone, even out of ignorance or perceived moral righteousness, who has ever supported the 'green activism' which created this fraud is complicit in this crime against humanity; so let's not get too involved in "holier than thou" issues and just stick to science and professional, conduct.
Best
Norm K
================
Message Received: Aug 24 2012, 11:07 AM
From: "Pete Ridley" ...
To: "Norm Kalmanovitch"
Cc: houston2000@..., askolnick@..., vinmary.gray@..., bob.carter@..., singer@..., rlindzen@..., afjacobs@...
Subject: RE: Principia Scientific International blogging group appoints a recruitment officer?
Norm, I'm gob-smacked!
Best regards, Pete
=============
Message Received: Aug 23 2012, 08:35 PM
From: "Norm Kalmanovitch"
To: peter.ridley@...
Cc: "'Avril Terri Jackson'" ..., houston2000@..., askolnick@..., vinmary.gray@..., bob.carter@..., singer@..., rlindzen@...
Subject: RE: Principia Scientific International blogging group appoints a recruitment officer?
Our problem is that we are all polite professionals and the perpetrators of the CAGW fraud are all rather nasty. What we need on our side is a bit of this nastiness and them Slayers have it in spades, so my intention in this is to get the Slayers working with us and giving the warmist crowd a taste of their own medicine!
Best
Norm K.
==================
Message Received: Aug 23 2012, 08:07 PM
From: "Pete Ridley" ...
To: "Norm Kalmanovitch"
Cc: "'Avril Terri Jackson'" ..., houston2000@..., askolnick@..., vinmary.gray@..., bob.carter@..., singer@..., rlindzen@...
Subject: RE: Principia Scientific International blogging group appoints a recruitment officer?
Hi Norm,
In my humble opinion " .. at this point it would .. be in the best interest of getting rid of this CAGW fraud .. " if the PSI blogging group vaporised. There are for superior and better respected organisations available to those of us who are sceptical of the CACC hypothesis and the political propaganda that uses it.
As I said to the "Slayers"/PSI group on 18th Jan 2011 QUOTE: .. What special qualities does PSI have that would make it stand out in front of these others when the collection box is presented to attract the attention of potential charitable donors? At present I can see nothing that might attract many of them to PSI. Despite the hype, the Slayers have in my opinion done nothing as yet that sets PSI ahead of organisations like ICSC, CRG and GWPF .. UNQUOTE.
19 months down the line I'm even more convinced that PSI has nothing beneficial to offer those of us who are fighting the CACC scam.
Best regards, Pete
========================================
Message Received: Aug 23 2012, 07:28 PM
From: "Norm Kalmanovitch"
To: peter.ridley@..., "'Avril Terri Jackson'...
Cc:
Subject: RE: Principia Scientific International blogging group appoints a recruitment officer?
Hi Pete,
I am slowly making headway with the Slayers in getting them to tone down their less than professional rhetoric and name calling (such as the term Lukes) with some simple basic physics and accommodating tone of presentation. I have also removed myself from correspondence with Alan Siddons who is the worst of the lot in name calling.
John O'Sullivan is slowly coming onside in focussing his rhetoric on those who deserve it and away from those who don't and at this point it would not be in the best interest of getting rid of this CAGW fraud to bring up past commentary or unwarranted personal attacks.
Best
Norm K
==============
Message Received: Aug 23 2012, 07:05 PM
From: "Pete Ridley" ....
To: "Avril Terri Jackson" ....
Cc: kalhnd@..., normkalm@..., houston2000@..., askolnick@...
Subject: Principia Scientific International blogging group appoints a recruitment officer?
Hi Terri,
I have just been checking up on Canadian geophysicist Norman Kalmanovitch, one of the individuals involved in recent E-mail exchanges between people who understand the difference between thermodynamics and electrodynamics and “Slayers”/PSI Members who seem not to. I have passed a copy of the thread (in Word) to associates who PSI founding member Joe Olson referrs to as “lukes” and I anticipate some helpful feedback. If anyone wants a copy of the thread just ask.
In the process I came across your article “Global Warming Fraud Creates Third World Food Crisis. New Report “ (http://scientificqa.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/global-warming-fraud-creates-third.html) and was reminded that I’d seen your name on the Principia Scientific International web-site.
In April 2012 you were simply mentioned as “ .. Terri Jackson MSc MPhil MInstP is a graduate physicist in Northern Ireland working in various areas of physics, energy and climate. She is active in exposing the green movement deception and insists there is no greenhouse gas effect in Earth’s atmosphere .. ”. Now it reads " .. From August 2012 Terri serves as PSI's specialist in member recruitment .. (http://principia-scientific.org/index.php/about/why-psi-is-proposed-as-a-cic.html). WOW! - promotion to recruitment officer for PSI. Now there’s an honour worth boasting about.
In your 13 May 2011 article you referred to “ .. Leading US lawyer John O`Sullivan .. "??!!?? I know that his claim to have been “ .. litigating for over a decade in the New York State courts and U.S. Federal 2nd Circuit .. ” is littered all over the blogosphere but does that extravagant claim justify your statement? Surely you agree that making unsubstantiated claims based upon what is read elsewhere without first authenticating it undermines ones credibility - or was that just a momentary slip? Of course, you could have been meaning a different John O’Sullivan than PSI’s CEO Legal Consultant (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/john-o-sullivan/19/6b4/84a) but it appears not (http://co2insanity.com/2011/05/12/global-warming-fraud-creates-third-world-food-crisis/ - follow link “Source: John O’Sullivan” following the article).
You may find Andrew Skolnick’s review of “Slaying the Sky Dragon .. ” interesting (http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/RRO7ATY41YBBZ).
You may find it worthwhile having a careful read of my blog entries since May and also Andrew Skolnick’s affidavits. The article “Affidavits in Michael Mann Libel Suit Reveal Astonishing Facts About Tim Ball Associate John O'Sullivan” (http://www.desmogblog.com/affidavits-michael-mann-libel-suit-reveal-astonishing-facts-about-tim-ball-associate-john-o-sullivan?page=1) discusses them and provides a link to the affidavits.
I also remembered that I had included you in my E-mails to “Slayers”/PSI members and numerous others advising of my blog articles about PSI. In response to my E-mail “SpotlightON - Principia Scientific International" - Update 11th July” you asked “ .. Dear Mr Ridley can you please tell me who you are and why you are so interested in PSI? .. ”. You never did follow up after my response – I wonder why.
At that time PSI founding member and CFO Hans Schreuder appeared to have gone into hiding and Norman was good enough to give me an alternative E-mail address for him but that too bounced back. It is surprising that “ .. Dutch born and trained but now retired analytical chemist and international technical contractor Hans Schreuder .. a staunch and highly regarded critic of the greenhouse gas theory and a leading commentator .. ” was not involved in defending the “Slayers” position in those recent E-mail exchanges that Norman was involved in. Is it possible that Hans, like Claes Johnson, has seen the light and now dissociated himself from the “Slayers”/PSI blogging group?
As for your claim about John being a “ .. Leading US lawyer John O`Sullivan .. " on 27th April 2012 I was sent a copy of an E-mail claimed to have been sent by Professor Ball on 26 April 2012 QUOTE: .. I was made aware of the charges against O'Sullivan almost from the start. I checked as much as possible because .. there are a lot of deviously clever people who spin stories knowing that once it is on the web it has legs. My lawyer has also down extensive checks. .. I legally disassociated myself from O'Sullivan very early and though he provided commentary he never acted as legal counsel. I cannot disconnect myself from the book as it is in the public record. .. UNQUOTE (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/professor-judith-curry-threatened-with.html).
Best regards, Pete Ridley
===============
=================
Message Received: May 30 2012, 11:12 PM
From: "Malcolm Roberts" ...
To: "majkus val" ...
Cc: peter.ridley@....
Subject: Fwd: Global Political Shenanigans posts on PSI
Hi Val.
Please excuse the intrusion. I regret answering Pete Ridley's earlier question of me as it has led to dragging you into something to which I have been inadvertently dragged.
I've forwarded to you my earlier reply to Pete's question.
I appreciate very much Val you connecting me with John. Thank you.
As a result I've learned much and developed considerable regard for John and continue to benefit from knowing him.
Malcolm
Pete:
Are you aware that when someone speaks ill of another person I learn more about the speaker than his subject?
Your recent statements seemingly could reflect deep pain. Consequently I'm developing compassion for your plight of preoccupation with John.
It seems to be leading though to you making unwanted intrusions. Sadly, your statements, actions and failure to answer basic questions by Anthony means that you are undermining respect for you.
Answers not slurs is what I seek. In my experience, slurs reveal dearth of answers. Slurs do not substitute for answers.
I have enormous regard for John O'Sullivan. The more you make ugly, regrettable and unproven comments about him the lower is my regard for your statements.
Please cease communicating with me on this topic.
Malcolm
============
From: "Malcolm Roberts" ...
To: "majkus val" ...
CC: peter.ridley@...
Date: May 30 2012, 11:03 PM
Subject: Fwd: Professor Judith Curry threatened with blog closure attempt – Update #3
Dear Val:
Below is what apparently led Pete Ridley to contact you.
In hindsight I should've ignored him.
I regret any inconvenience to you.
Malcolm
===============
From: "Pete Ridley" ...
To: "Malcolm Roberts" ...
Date: May 30 2012, 05:45 PM
Subject: Re: Professor Judith Curry threatened with blog closure attempt – Update #3
Hi again Malcolm,
You commented in your earlier E-mail about “ .. the position championed by Alan and Hans and disseminated so effectively under John's leadership .. ”. Not everyone shares that opinion and I quote several examples from a couple of highly respected CACC sceptics:
- “ .. Like I said in my original blog post on the skydragons, debunking everything that is wrong in that book would take weeks. Not that it is difficult to debunk, but the sheer volume of things that need debunking would take weeks .. ” (Professor Judith Curry on 9th October 2011 in an E-mail),
- “ .. IMO, this group has damaged the credibility of skepticism about climate change and provides a convenient target when people want to refer to “deniers” and crackpots .. ” (Professor Judith Curry on 15th Oct. 2011 “Letter to the dragon slayers”),
- “ .. The so-called "dragon-slayers" are an idiotic distraction and I do not support them or anything they do .. ” (Lord Monckton on 9th March 2012 in an E-mail),
- “ .. the moderators are going to have to do something about the tiresome clique .. It is beginning to look as though the soi-disant “dragon-slayers”, who deny the existence of the greenhouse effect, are intent not on rational, scientific debate but on outright sabotage .. ” (Lord Monckton on 10th March 2012 at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/10/moncktons-schenectady-showdown/).
- “ .. You are right about the undesirability of being seen to be associated with the sky-dragon loonies .. ” (Lord Monckton on 15th April 2012 in an E-mail,
That choice of “soi-disant” (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/soi-disant) by Lord Monckton to describe the “Slayers” would appear to be relevant to John O’Sullivan’s claims about his qualifications and achievements as a litigator.
I anticipate that you will continue to defend the “Slayers”/PSI group but please try reading what is on my blog with an open mind.
Best regards, Pete
===============
From: "Pete Ridley" ...
To: "Malcolm Roberts" ...
Date: May 30 2012, 12:44 PM
Subject: Re: Professor Judith Curry threatened with blog closure attempt – Update #3
Hi Malcolm, thanks for that. I agree that John is a relative newcomer to the CACC debate, going back only to 2009. The earliest E-mail that I have in my files from him was 27th April 2010.
I have been going through all of my E-mails where John is mentioned and see that I became aware of your involvement at about the same time. John mentioned his tie-in with Alan Siddons and you on 1st June 2010 by which time he was also in contact with Hans and Joe Olson (plus John Costella, Maurice Rich, Peggy Balfour, Val Majcus, Vincent Gray, Steve McIntyre, Roy Spencer, Uncle Tom Cobbley and all) but not Tim Ball, who didn’t figure until 26th May.
I’m surprised that you didn’t mention Joe - a leading figure in the formation of the “Slayers”/PSI - or John C, a significant Australian player in the CACC debate.
I’d be interested to know when you first became involved with Hans because I can’t find anything of his involvement in the CACC debate before 2008, although there are some surprising episodes in his earlier activities which I’ll be covering in my article “SpotON – Principia Scientific International”.
You say “ .. In my dealings with John, I've found him to be honest, intelligent, prompt, courteous accurate, clever, savvy and effective. He's also strong and direct, two traits that could upset people of lesser character .. ”. You also say that Hans is “ .. very impressive in .. approach, thinking and commitment to getting to the truth .. ”. I’m all for speaking of as you find and can agree that I have found them both to be all of those when they choose, but that applies to most of us, doesn’t it.
The impression that I get is that you have not bothered to undertake any significant due diligence exercise into the “Slayers”/PSI executive and should benefit from reading my May articles http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/). The comments from Professor Judith Curry’s “Letter to the dragon slayers” (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/professor-judith-currys-letter-to.html), the E-mail exchanges (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/selected-e-mails-with-slayerspsi.html) and the “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mails to be posted soon along with my “SpotON – Principia Scientific International” article should be enlightening for you.
That article will give insight into why it was that John turned his attention to the CACC debate at that time but if you are impatient to find out more then have a read of the ““Letter to the dragon slayers” comments. Alternatively you could have a read of his two factional novels “Vanilla Girl” (http://www.myspace.com/mrdarrk/blog or http://cupboard55vanillagirl.blogspot.co.uk/2008/03/cupboard-55-novel.html) and “Summit Shock” (http://www.webook.com/projects.aspx?pn=JohnAOSullivan) but have a sick-bag handy.
My “beef” as you put it is not with John but with his publishing company PSI although I do take exception to being unfairly accused of defamation and being “ .. a proven liar and a con artist who spends his life trawling the gutter looking for dirt .. ” (E-mail Apr 25 2012, 10:08 AM
From: .. john0sullivan@btinternet.com
To: peter.ridley@fsmail.net
Cc: judith.curry@eas.gatech.edu, askolnick@roadrunner.com, rupertwyndham@gmail.com, houston2000@peoplepc.com
Subject: Re: Response to John O'Sullivan Issues Pre-litigation Defamation Warning to Dr. Judith Curry)
I can understand Val Majcus suggesting that you have a chat with John because she became involved with us at that time (she suggested involving John in an E-mail on 5th April 2010 following an E-mail from Jo Nova on her 2nd April 2010 article http://joannenova.com.au/2010/04/uk-parliamentary-report-busts-all-climate-scientists/). I’ll drop Val an E-mail and ask her how she feels about John now.
Best regards, Pete
==============
Message Received: May 30 2012, 12:37 PM
From: "Pete Ridley" ...
To: v_majkus@....
Cc: "Malcolm Roberts" ...
Subject: Global Political Shenanigans posts on PSI
Hi Val,
It's been a while since we had a chat (well over a year I guess) and I hope that things have settled down OK at home now.
As a result of my recent posts on my blog about the "Slayers"/PSI set-up I have been exchanging E-mails with Malcolm and wonder if you have any comments to make about the organisation. It would be a great help if you could tell me when you first became involved with PSI CEO John O'Sullivan and the other driving founders Hans Schreuder, Joe Olson and Tim Ball.
My records of involvement with them only go back to April 2010 but they have been active in the CACC debate since before then.
Best regards, Pete
==============
From: "Malcolm Roberts" ...
To: peter.ridley@...
Date: May 30 2012, 12:56 AM
Subject: Re: Professor Judith Curry threatened with blog closure attempt – Update #3
Pete:
My experience reveals John as a newcomer.
I first started dealing with Hans and Alan. Both are very impressive in their approach, thinking and commitment to getting to the truth.
John came along later and provided effective support, strong connections and marvellous leadership enabling their research to be disseminated after first doing his due diligence.
As far as I'm concerned your beef with John is of little relevance or interest to the position championed by Alan and Hans and disseminated so effectively under John's leadership.
To answer your question, Pete, from my memory a mature lawyer here in Australia asked me to contact John because she believed my material on another aspect of BS AGW would be well supported by John. Indeed, it was. I have found John a delight to work with. In my dealings with John, I've found him to be honest, intelligent, prompt, courteous accurate, clever, savvy and effective. He's also strong and direct, two traits that could upset people of lesser character.
Malcolm
============
From: "Pete Ridley" ....
To: "Malcolm Roberts" ....
Date: May 29 2012, 09:39 AM
Subject: Re: Professor Judith Curry threatened with blog closure attempt – Update #3
Hi Malcolm,
It's a shame that you found my response to Anthony disappointing but as I am sure you have found, life is full of disappointments - then we die.
Have you had any dealings with John Costella? He was at one time being "courted" by John O'Sulliivan (http://www.climategate.com/thanks-dr-john-costella-the-climate-floodgates-are-opening) but it seems that John wasn't interested. I'd be interested to know how you became involved with John O' because there may be something in that which could fit into my "SpotON - Principia Scientific International" article. Are you prepared to tell me about it? ..
Best regards, Pete.
===================
Message Received: May 05 2012, 03:03 PM
From: "Roger Sowell" ...
To: "peter.ridley@...
Cc:
Subject: Re: FW: Response to "John O'Sullivan Issues Pre-litigation Defamation Warning to Dr. Judith Curry"
Mr. Ridley,
You have my permission to quote my email to you from Friday, May 4, 2012, (NB: May 5, 2012 UK) also this one.
Dr. Pierre Latour adopted a position on AGW that I cannot support, yet he has considerable company among chemical engineers. The American professional society for chemical engineers, AIChE, endorses AGW. I believe they also agree with catastrophic AGW. This is consistent with many professional scientific societies, including American Physical Society.
Many chemical engineers work in the field of sustainability, which is justified at least in part by reducing carbon dioxide emissions. For example, any reduction in energy use is now assigned dual value: energy cost plus a carbon dioxide emission value. The result is capital expenditures that are now justified and implemented where they would not have been without the contribution from carbon dioxide reduction. This applies to reductions in utilities consumption, raw materials, and waste generation. Amazingly, higher transportation and distribution costs are deemed justifiable if a carbon dioxide reduction is found.
There is a split of opinion among chemical engineers on AGW, however those who agree with me do not yet have an organized voice. I am working to obtain that voice. Developing and presenting my recent speech are steps in that effort. I aim to give my presentation as often as possible. Steps are underway to present it to members of the US Congress and Senate.
Best regards,
----------------- ------------ ------------
On Friday, May 4, 2012, Pete Ridley wrote:
Hi Roger, thanks for responding. I too reject the scare-mongering propaganda about our use of fossil fuels threatening to cause catastrophic changes in the different global climates but found "Slaying the sky dragon" to have too many contradictions, not only between the arguments of the different authors but also of established science.
I rejected the invitation to join the PSI group for other reasons which I shall be covering on my blog in "A short history of Principia Scientific International. Considering what you said during the exchanges in Sept/Oct 2011 I am not surprised to hear you rejecting their arguments about the science but I am very surprised that your associate Dr. Pierre Latour is listed as a member of PSI.
I'd appreciate you letting me know when your presentation is available on your blog.
BTW, I always regard one-to-one exchanges as being Private & Confidential between the two parties unless otherwise agreed on specific items. I see nothing in your response that needs to be considere such but please would you let me know if you'd rather I didn't quote anything.
Best regards, Pete
====================
Message Received: May 05 2012, 03:40 AM (NB: May 04 2012, 22:40 AM USA?)
From: "Roger Sowell" ...;
To: "peter.ridley@...
Cc:
Subject: Re: FW: Response to "John O'Sullivan Issues Pre-litigation Defamation Warning to Dr. Judith Curry"
Mr. Ridley,
I did read the book "Slaying the Sky Dragon," including the chapter on legal issues.
I found little to nothing I could support in the book. Chemical engineers make use of the well-known radiative absorptive and emissive properties of carbon dioxide on a routine basis, and have done so for decades when designing fired furnaces. Graphs of this aspect of carbon dioxide are included in the standard reference, Perry's Chemical Engineering Handbook.
Hundreds of millions of such fired furnaces operate daily worldwide.
There is no debate over this, among knowledgeable engineers. Perry's is a reliable, trustworthy source.
Since the authors of the book contradict known egineering principles, I do not support the "Slayers" and will not be counted in their number.
I have no comment on the chapter on legal issues.
My considered view is that the world is cooling. Some portions are cooling rapidly. Within a very few years, the alarm over catastrophic warming will be just a dim memory. I find the position and prediction of Dr. H. Abdussamatov far more persuasive than that of the catastrophic warmists.
Just 17 days ago, I made a two-hour invited presentation on the global warming science and impending cooling, in Long Beach, CA to an audience of chemical engineers. I also discussed legal ramifications. The presentation was well-received and many questions followed. I expect to post the presentation slides and speech on my blog in the next day or two.
I invite you to read that post when it is published.
Best regards,
Roger Sowell
==============
From: peter.ridley@…
To: john0sullivan@…; alan618034@…; claesjohnson@…; houston2000@…; jdssps1@…; jpostma@…; germanclimateblog@…; nasifnahle@…; hanssch@…; omatumr@…; timothyball@…; PF.SMP@…; Charles.R.Anderson@…; ken@…; geraldo@…; Fred@…; piers@…;
sr2@…; rsowell@…; dalker@…; clifftent@…; aaprjohn@…; cuibono@…; rtaguchi@…; jonicol18@…; judith.curry@…; gpetty@…; theosullivanclan@…; askolnick@…
Sent: Jan 09 2012, 09:50 & 52 PM
Subject: Derogatory Claims Against the “Slayers”
Hi folks, you may all recall that in his E-mail to me on 8th Dec 2011 John O’Sullivan described Andrew Skolnick as “ .. a compulsive liar .. You are two peas from the same pod. Among Skolnick's bogus assertions are that he possesses a master's degree .. I don’t recall you asking for any proof from your buddy to disprove the above .. ”.
I didn’t have to ask Andrew for such proof because the next day. Andrew voluntarily offered it to us all, responding to John with “ .. Unlike this humbug, I back up my claims. I'd be happy to mail a request to Columbia University's registrar to send an official certification* to the first 3 people who email me their snail mail address. I'd even have a certified copy sent to the the shameless humbug, if he would ask .. ”
I’m delighted to say that, true to his word, Andrew responded to my request. Today I received from Columbia University’s Office of the Registrar confirmation that Andrew A Skolnick attended their Graduate School of Journalism from Sept. 1980 to May 1981 and on 13th May 1981 was awarded his Master of Science degree. The Registrar said “ .. This letter serves as official certification of the academic record of the above named individual .. ”. That disclosure took only 1 month (despite the Xmas break) and I thank Andrew for voluntarily and quickly providing the evidence requested. That surely is a fine example of transparency, something that is claimed to be so important to John and his publishing company PSI.
Having provided confirmation of his qualification and refuted John’s unfounded accusation that he had lied I think that Andrew is entitled to an apology from John but I suspect that he won’t hold his breath waiting for it. I’m still waiting for mine after John accused me on 26th Sept. of lying about dwindling “slayer” numbers. (It looks as though Martin Hertzberg may have now joined the ranks of those dissociating themselves from the “Slayers” and PSI. He has asked me to remove him from the circulation and maybe he has realised that he is in line for more allegations like those made in 2007 - see http://www.zcommunications.org/the-problem-with-the-global-warming-skeptics-by-joshua-frank .)
After that offer to provide evidence of his Masters Degree Andrew challenged John with “ .. Let's see if John O'Sullivan will ask the University of Surrey registrar to send any of us certification that he attended law school there and earned a degree .. I've been asking .. for proof for the past 6 months .. ”. John still refuses to be transparent about his claimed qualification in law by providing the kind of evidence that Andrew has been happy to provide.
On 11th Dec. I said to John QUOTE .. in response to my requests for you to provide evidence in support of your claims about qualifications, experience and publications you continue to focus on other matters. Your silence regarding the real issues that Andrew Skolnick keeps challenging you over and I keep asking you to resolve is quite deafening. Accredited academics have no qualms about detailing their achievements but in my opinion you are rather vague about some of yours. .. Why is it that people find it so hard to obtain verification of your claims? Maybe they are not looking in the right places so why not provide a link to anything substantial. Maybe that would shut Andrew and others up .. UNQUOTE.
John’s carefully worded response on 12th Dec. was “ .. For the avoidance of doubt, I advise you once more that I have a degree in law. I studied law at the university of Surrey from 1979-82 (as I have long stated on my online web pages) .. ”. That is not the same thing as providing certified evidence of an implied law degree from the University of Surrey in the manner in which Andrew provided the evidence to support his claim to having a Masters Degree from Columbia University.
I studied business administration at Newcastle Polytechnic in 1977/8 at post-graduate level and could easily buy a Master degree, e.g. from Hill University — that bogus, online diploma mill, where anyone can purchase his degree of choice, along with a package of impressive looking academic documents, with “delivery promised in 15 days! .. http://www.hilluniversity.com/Hill/online-degrees/accredited-degree.asp. (as mentioned in my comment of 8th Dec. and also these links http://www.hilluniversity.com/Hill/online-degrees/masters-degree.asp and http://www.geteducated.com/diploma-mill-police/degree-mills-list/hill-university-accreditation). After that I could claim to have a Masters in Business Administration (MBA) and studied business administration at Northumbria University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northumbria_University). Anyone could reasonable accuse me of having lied about my qualifications and although I could deny that accusation I wouldn’t be able to refute it (i.e. prove it wrong with hard evidence, as Andrew has done with John’s accusation that he lied about his Master’s Degree). I would be able to provide a certificate from Hill University (they’ll provide anything as long as it is paid for) but nothing from Northumbria University because it didn’t exist in 1977/8.
In my opinion it is time for John to listen to the advice that he gave to Andrew on 13th December “ .. put up – or shut up .. ”.
As always, if anyone thinks that something that I have said here is untrue or unfair then please let me know so that I can consider whether or not an apology is warranted.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
===============
From: peter.ridley@…
To: nasifnahle@…; askolnick@…; john0sullivan@…; alan618034@…; claesjohnson@…; houston2000@…; jdssps1@…; jpostma@…; germanclimateblog@…; hanssch@…; omatumr@…; timothyball@…; PF.SMP@…; ruthhertzberg@…; Charles.R.Anderson@…; ken@…; geraldo@…; Fred@…; piers@…; sr2@….; rsowell@…; dalker@…; clifftent@…
CC: aaprjohn@…; cuibono@…; rtaguchi@…; jonicol18@…; judith.curry@…; gpetty@…; peter.ridley@…
Sent: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 18:37
Subject: Derogatory Claims Against the “Slayers ”
It was one year ago almost to the day that John was saying to his 12 disciples (Hans, Joe O, Claes, Tim, Martin, Alan, Oliver, Charles, Geraldo, Miso, Ken, and Philip) in his E-mail “ .. Subject: Re: What we need to push our book at Congress - Leadership! .. If we were in any doubt, here's an urgent case for applying our book judiciously via our political contacts in Congress .. ”. It is exactly one year ago that I gave my wholehearted support to Oliver Manuel’s Response “ .. Thank you, John, for leadership! .. ”. That little group of 13 magically became 36 by 17th Jan. (http://www.gofundme.com/1v39s) and filled with great ambitions for “Slaying the Sky Dragon” becoming the first of many best-selling scientific works and PSI winning numerous legal actions against Government agencies like NOAA, etc.
The situation has changed somewhat in one year, with “Slayer” numbers dwindling and “Slaying the Sky Dragon” becoming recognised as being nothing but science fiction. Two things that have remained the same are that PSI is still an insignificant nonentity and most global governments continue to give their support to the UN’s CACC propaganda. As the great Scottish bard “Rabbi” Burns said "The best laid schemes o' mice an' men / Gang aft agley" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_a_Mouse)
On a brighter note in the season of “good will to all men” it was good to see Professor Nahle (a CACC sceptic) when shown to be wrong apologising to Andrew Skolnick (a CACC supporter) and to see the apology accepted graciously rather than the pair of them simply hurling insults to and fro – congratulations.
On 29th Sept. John O’Sullivan said “ .. I won from Skolnick an apology for erring in his facts .. ” and that surely indicates that Andrew Skolnick, like Professor Nahle, is man enough to admit to making a mistake and apologise for it.
Professor Nahle’s asked me on 10th Oct. to remove him from the circulation of these E-mails. In my response to a comment by ex-Slayer Professor Johnson that same day I asked QUOTE: .. as Nasif has asked to be removed from the circulation is he another scientist who is dissociating himself from what appears to me .. to be a dwindling band of "Slayers"? .. UNQUOTE. Professor Nahle left it to “Slayer” and PSI founders Joe Olson and John O’Sullivan to respond on his behalf. Am I correct in assuming that, unlike Professor Johnson (and possibly others) Professor Nahle remains a member and supporter of “the Slayers” and PSI, as indicated on the PSI web-pages “ .. Our Founding Members and stakeholders include: .. Professor Nasif Nahle .. ” (http://principia-scientific.org/about-us/why-psi-is-a-private-assoc ; http://principia-scientific.org/about-us/why-psi-is-a-private-assoc and http://principia-scientific.org/publications/Experiment_on_Greenhouse_Effect.pdf ) as well as on his own blog http://www.biocab.org/Wood_Experiment_Repeated.html and elsewhere (http://climaterealists.com/?id=8073 ; http://tarpon.wordpress.com/2011/07/20/greenhouse-gas-theory-trashed-in-groundbreaking-lab-experiment/)?
The articles from those last two links (and many more at the time of the launch of PSI in July) say “ .. Postma and Nahle join long-standing GHE skeptics, Alan Siddons and Hans Schreuder as they prepare to formally launch a new global research association, Principia Scientific International (PSI) recruiting untold numbers of conscientious scientists sickened by endemic corruption within science .. ”. My impression about PSI recruitment is just the opposite, with many of the original “Slayers” refusing to get involved in these exchanges. I have heard nothing at all from Rev. Philip Foster during the past eventful year and very little from Dr. Ball or Hans Schreuder. Maybe they too have now dissociated themselves from the “Slayers” and PSI.
I remind you all of my words of caution to the “Slayers” in my “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mails in Dec./Jan. e.g. 4th, 14th and Jan 20th. QUOTE: .. each if us must be squeaky clean in what we say and do .. what is there about any of us that could seriously undermine PSI’s standing? As I’ve said before, we have to be seen to be squeaky clean. Are we all happy that we can achieve this? .. PSI must be seen to be “squeaky clean”. No matter the degree of truth behind any such challenges, mud not only sticks when thrown but also splashes whatever is next to the target .. UNQUOTE. Aren’t we often judged by th company that we keep
On 26 Sept. after I had first made that point about the dwindling “Slayers” John O’Sullivan retorted “ .. Also, your unsubstantiated claim ( in effect, a lie) about the Slayers being in decline is laughable and I can only assume to be an unfulfilled wish of yours and Dr. Curry's being that it is your ilk that avidly avoids addressing the GHE science. Your own citing of our prominent new recruits, Latour, Nahle and Postma further exposes your befuddled reasoning. In fact, there are exciting pending applications to join the team which will be announced in due course .. ”.
On 29th Sept. John said “ .. I can say that currently the most active/influential members of the Slayers team are Hans Schreuder, Alan Siddons, Joe Olson, Joe Postma, Dr Nasif Nahle, Dr Tim Ball, Dr Martin Hertzberg, Derek Alker, plus our publishers, Ken Coffman and Philip Foster. .. contributors include Bob Ashworth, Dr Charles Anderson, Miso Alkalaj, Malcolm Roberts, Dr Oliver Manuel, Piers Corbyn, Gabriel Rychert, Tom Richards, Dr Norm Kalmonovich, Mark Schwarz, Dr Matthias Kleepsies, Paul Driessen, Dr Klaus Keiser, John Droz. Jr. and Dr Geraldo Luís Lino. .. Dr. Pierre Latour has very recently joined us. Californian attorney Roger Sowell .. is in discussion with us as a potential new recruit .. ”.
That makes 28 including John and here we are nearly 3 months later and just the opposite to “recruiting untold numbers” seems to be occurring, with more appearing to be dissociating themselves from the “Slayers” and PSI. It is noticeable how far only three “Slayers” have shown support for John in these recent exchanges, i.e. Joe Olson, Joe Postma and Alan Siddons. PSI’s executives Tim Ball (Chairman), Hans Schreuder (CFO) and Rev. Philip Foster (http://principia-scientific.org/about-us/why-psi-is-a-private-assoc) have remained surprisingly silent (but that was not unusual for those three during the PSI & Due Diligence exchanges either).
On 17th Jan. John was claiming a 36-strong team. It would be interesting to know how many of those are still happy to be associated with the “Slayers” and PSI. Perhaps John will be kind enough to provide us with a list of who he claims are members of the current group of “Slayers” - I speculate very few. I also speculate that the Rev. Philip Foster never was (and has no wish ever to be considered to be) a “Slayer”. On 29th Dec. (at 06:59 PM NOT TO BE SENT) John said “ .. I would like to propose we nominate a Compliance Officer asap to oversee the setting up and running of PSI by myself ( as CEO) and Treasurer, Hans Schreuder (CFO). The candidate who, in our opinion, is most qualified and likely to gain the confidence of members is Reverend Philip Foster, a committed skeptic, a scientist and respected in the religious community as a man of principle .. ”.
I fully understand why John wanted to attract someone “respected .. as a man of principle” into the group but I have no record of ever hearing from Rev. Foster during these hundreds of E-mail exchanges with the “Slayers”. Neither can I find anything on the Internet by him that suggests he became involved as John had hoped. I suspect that his only interest was hoping to get some publishing rights for “Slayer” books to help grow St. Mathews Press, just like Ken Coffman for his Stairways Press. As John said in a PSI & Due Diligence E-mail on 2nd Jan. when trying to justify setting up PSI as a “ .. CIC .. to accommodate those who are also compelled to make a living .. Ken Coffman and Philip Foster have simply a commercial contractual agreement via myself .. ”.
In my opinion John still owes me an apology for calling me a liar over the dwindling number of “Slayers” I’ll be very surprised if he does so.
On 17th Sept. John O’Sullivan said “ .. Ridley deserves to be roundly rebuked for dismissing the SSD book .. I'm sure if Ridley has any conscience he will be issuing an apology to all concerned .. ”. I’ve now read the whole book, the opinion that I formed from reading the free chapters hasn’t changed one bit and I’m in good company. Other than from some “Slayers” themselves I haven’t come across any praise for “Slaying the Sky Dragon” from any recognised scientist who is also sceptical of the CACC hypothesis. Of course there is plenty of ridicule coming not only from supporters but even from sceptics of the hypothesis.
Tim Ball could probably have saved himself the hassle and expense of a libel case by simply apologising to Dr. Michael Mann (over his throw-away comment about belonging in “State Pen” (http://www.desmogblog.com/michael-mann-suing-tim-ball-libel) and Professor Andrew Weaver for his unfounded accusations (http://www.desmogblog.com/weaver-sues-tim-ball-libel). Instead of that we see lead “Slayer” and PSI CEO/Legal Consultant John O’Sullivan once again appealing for charitable donations (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/08/help-asked-for-dr-tim-ball-in-legal-battle-with-dr-mann/).
I was involved in the periphery at the time that John O’Sullivan started his project to recruit sceptical scientists and others into his team of “Slayers” (about April 2010). John gradually added names to the list of recipients and eventually invited us to join him in his PSI project. From late Dec. I was involved in serious discussions about his plans to form PSI as a CIC. Only days later (26th Dec.) the talk turned to raising money from those involved and other supporters. That is what prompted me to start my “PSI & Due Diligence” exercise.
Following that exercise my conclusion on 20th Jan. was that I did not wish to contribute any money to PSI and soon afterwards I decided that I did not wish to be associated with the “Slayers” as a group. John’s 26th December call for money from within the group to initiate a legal challenge against NOAA “ .. A typical mandamus petition will ordinarily cost a client $3,000. If we can raise $3,000 I can set the legal wheels in motion. The legal skills and resources are at the ready so now the ball is in our court and that of our supporters to raise the $3,000 .. ” for “ .. the only game in town .. ”) failed miserably.
John then made that ludicrous appeal through gofundme (http://www.gofundme.com/1v39s) on 17th Jan. for $15,000 charitable donations, another failure followed by his April appeal for charitable donations to pay for Tim Ball’s defence against Michael Mann’s libel claim (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/08/help-asked-for-dr-tim-ball-in-legal-battle-with-dr-mann/). It looks as though that too has failed miserably because John has now announced “ .. Official: I Just Bet My House on the Outcome of Science Trial of the Century Wednesday, December 7th 2011, 4:58 PM EST Co2sceptic (Site Admin) No truer headline will you read. Yesterday this author literally wagered his home .. ” (see http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=8796).
According to John “ .. Ball's legal fees could exceed $300,000 .. ” (http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/42475.html) and Dr. Ball says that he has “ .. paid out about $10,000 so far and am rapidly depleting my savings, these are meager .. ” (http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/34877.html). John is reported to have said after his 2004 court case (see the links below) " .. I have been without pay for a year, living on the charity of my family. It has been financially .. devastating .. " (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/SIR+CLEARED+OF+SEX+TXTS.-a0113713467). 7 years later John said “ .. Personally, I'm barely scraping by financially .. I cannot maintain my current level of commitment without some kind of financial remuneration ( especially now that the UK govt has raised tuition fees so drastically and I've 2 ambitious teenagers keen to go to university) .. ”.
That raises another of those many questions about John. Although it makes for an impressive headline, how much has he actually gambled? I speculate - not a lot.
Any individual looking closely into John O’Sullivan’s past might reasonably form the opinion that all of this Summit Shock/Vanilla Girl/Slayer/PSI activity had one simple objective. Kent Clizbe may well have hit the nail on the head when saying to John in his PSI & Due Diligence E-mail of 2nd Jan. 2010 QUOTE: .. Objective: It seems pretty clear that the whole "business" idea springs from the need to provide you with a living .. UNQUOTE.
While looking in my E-mails for anything from Rev. Philip Foster I came across this interesting comment from John O’Sullivan on 3rd Jan. “ .. The issue of registering PSI in the UK rather than the US has never been addressed by the wider group but was discussed between Hans, Joe and me. .. we chose London - .. an international travel hub .. Also we hope we may be able to strike a deal with Piers Corbyn of WeatherAction.com who has offices in London. .. Russia Today .. has its studios nearby. This would be most useful to promote PSI .. In addition, as the only member of the group qualified in law and with experience of UK corporate law and .. having set up UK businesses in the past this seemed logical to me. America wasn't seriously considered because no single city could pull in as many group members as cheaply and effectiively as London .. ”.
It’s surprising then to find that John’s New York County Lawyers Association profile states that PSI is located in Delhi, New York, ZIP Code 13753, Phone’ 607-437-5552 FAX 607-434-4345. It’s equally surprising that the postal address (PO Box 62) John gives is the same as that of Second Nature Construction, Inc. 74 Main Street, P.O. Box 62, Delhi, New York 13753 (http://www.secondnatureconstruction.net/contact-us/). Any of you remaining “Slayers” heard of Second Nature Construction? Would you like to explain this further puzzle John?
As usual, if anyone considers that I have been unfair or unreasonable with these comments then please let me know so that I can consider whether or not an apology is warranted.
Although it appears to me that 2012 will see the demise of the “Slayers” and PSI as an entity I take this opportunity to wish each of you as individuals a very merry Xmas and a happy and healthy 2012.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
===============
Message Received: Dec 19 2011, 06:28 PM
From: peter.ridley@...
To: askolnick@..., john0sullivan@..., etc. etc.
Cc: ...
Subject: Re: Mr. O'Sullivan goes postal
I see that Andrew has just posted a comment on Professor Curry’s “Letter to the dragen slayers” thread (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-151299) saying “ .. If anyone thinks the Sky Dragon Slayer’s “company” Principia Scientific International is anything more than a facade should look at its “Upcoming Events” page: .. ”. That leads nicely into the comment that I was about to post here.
It’s a coincidence (and a shame) that Kent Clizbe has decided that he wants no more E-mails from me. Kent was the first person to realise what was one of my major reservations about subscribing to John O’Sullivan’s plans for PSI. In my E-mail of 12th Oct. I referred to Kent’s PSI & Due Diligence E-mail of Jan. 2nd Jan. in which he said to John QUOTE: .. Objective: It seems pretty clear that the whole "business" idea springs from the need to provide you with a living. If that is the objective, I'd guess that there are not many people who are willing to "subscribe" for that end. .. While I may be wrong, I'd put my money on my being right UNQUOTE.
Kent also said in Jan. that “ .. I learned long ago that when something smells rotten, it's usually because something is rotten .. " and I won’t argue with that. It’s a shame that Kent isn’t interested in being involved in these exchanges. His skills as an ex-CIA staff case officer (http://kentclizbe.com/) may have been of use in obtaining copies of John’s degree certificates.
John Says “ .. I earned my law degree from University of Surrey in 1982. .. The Law School at the University of Surrey provided me with training in English law, not American. I more recently obtained certification in U.S. criminal law ..”. On the other hand Andrew says that John obtained a First Degree in Fine Art from West Surrey College of Art & Design and what appears to be his 2010 Law Degree from Hill University.
There is that bogus University of the same name (http://www.hilluniversity.com despite their counter-claims http://www.hilluniversitylegit.com/) which will sell a “Life Experiences” degree in anything to anyone who is prepared to pay the US499 fee, QUOTE: .. Offering “Bachelors, Masters, MBA and/or Doctorate (PhD)” degrees “24 hours a day 7 days a week” the e-mails usually include a toll free number and promise that “no one will be turned down”…..With names like Hill University, Woodfield University which offers “a degree of your choice in just 15 days” based on an individual’s “life experience” .. UNQUOTE (http://fakecertificatesblog.com/tag/hill-university/”. “ ..Other dubious institutions which are not in recognised accreditation registries include Connaught University, Pacific Western University, American Northeast State University, Western University, European University, Hill University, Rochville University and Buxton University .. ” (http://www.mastersdegree.me/masters-degree/masters-degree-in-education/buy-your-degrees-online/).
As I understand it John obtained a Law degree in 1982 from the University of Surrey, a Fine Arts degree from WSCAD in 1983 and a law certificate from Hill University. Of course I am not saying that John’s Law Degree is from that same Hill University but that’s the only one of that name that I could find. There are those who will jump to conclusions, so come on John, settle this once and for all by providing us with concrete evidence about your degrees. Don’t you owe it to the “Slayers” and all of those individuals who have contributed funds in reponse to you various appeals?
There has been quite a bit of recent toing and froing about the John O. LinkedIn page (http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=64434874&trk=tab_pro). John has claimed that Andrew composed it and has threatened action and vice-versa. This is another puzzling issue because I recall John himself posting that link to us on 29th Sept. When I tried to use it I was surprised to receive the message “ .. You and this LinkedIn user don’t know anyone in common You can only view the profiles of users within your network. However, as you add connections, you may discover people you know in common .. ”.
I had never experienced this problem before so I immediately did a check up on LinkedIn and even put a copy of the page at that time (showing John’s out-of-date photo’ from 10 years ago) in my “JO’S Claims to Fame” folder. Is it possible that John had forgotten that he had started preparing a new LinkeIn profile using the name “John O.” (or whatever it was) and inadvertently sent the wrong link on 29th? After all, there are lots of different web-pages showing John’s old photo’s or other details using different names like John O’Sullivan, John Daley O’Neal (http://www.writers.net/writers/54740 , http://www.myspace.com/mrdarrk/blog and http://blog.myspace.com/mrdarrk) JDaly (http://www.myspace.com/jdaleyoneal)
Best regards, Pete Ridley
=============
From: ... askolnick@...
To: ... john0sullivan@...
CC: ... peter.ridley@... etc. etc.
Sent: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 1:06
Subject: Re: Mr. O'Sullivan goes postal
Mr. O'Sullivan,
Your great reluctance to even say the name "Hill University" suggests you aren't proud of your alma mater.
So I have to wonder, why you thought the New York County Lawyers' Association (NYCLA) would consider a law degree from this bogus diploma mill to be valid.
I guess you found Hill's offer hard to resist: Any degree you want in any subject with a "Promised Free Delivery in Just 15 Days!"
http://www.hilluniversity.com/Hill/online-degrees/online-doctorate.asp
I wonder how long it will take the NYCLA to grow tired of this embarrassment.
-Andrew
============
From: ... askolnick@...
To: ... john0sullivan@...
Cc: ... peter.ridley@... etc. etc.
Sent: Saturday, 17 December 2011, 21:57
Subject: Re: Mr. O'Sullivan goes postal
On 12/17/2011 4:47 PM, JOHN OSULLIVAN wrote: “ ..
Neither. The Law School at the University of Surrey provided me with training in English law, not American. I more recently obtained certification in U.S. criminal law and as such my application to the NYCLA is entirely truthful and accurate. .. ”.
And by that you mean you bought your law degree in Jan. 2010 from the bogus online diploma mill, Hill "University" and claimed that in order to defraud the New York County Lawyers' Association by falsely claiming you received a legitimate degree in Jan. 2010?
Notice how hard it is to get the humbug to tell us WHERE he "recently obtained certification."
Shall I tell everyone where they can go to read for themselves your admission of having bought your "law degree" from that bogus diploma mill or will you finally speak the name of that hilariously funny "university" yourself.
- Andrew
============
From: ... john0sullivan@...
To: ... askolnick@...
CC: peter.ridley@... etc. etc.
Sent: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 21:47
Subject: Re: Mr. O'Sullivan goes postal
Neither. The Law School at the University of Surrey provided me with training in English law, not American. I more recently obtained certification in U.S. criminal law and as such my application to the NYCLA is entirely truthful and accurate.
I provided evidence for clarification of this in a sworn deposition to attorney, Michael Scherr, as part of my evidence submitted to the investigation by the Law School of British Columbia. In that statement (made as per the Court of Protection Rules 2007 (PRACTICE DIRECTION B – STATEMENTS OF TRUTH) I provided full and explicit details that verify the above reply as accurate. I thereby challenge you (as usual) to prove that any of what I have stated is a false.
www.slayingtheskydragon.com
===============
From: askolnick@...
To: .. john0sullivan@....
CC: peter.ridley@... ... etc. etc.
Sent: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 20:59
Subject: Re: Mr. O'Sullivan goes postal
On 12/17/2011 2:03 PM, JOHN OSULLIVAN wrote: "I earned my law degree from University of Surrey in 1982."
Excellent, "counselor!"
It's taken me 7 months to get you to make this statement, but finally we have it.
You say you earned your law degree, not from "WSCAD," or West Surrey College of Art and Design, or University College, Cork, or Hill "University," but from the University of Surrey -- and not in 1910 or 2010, but in 1982.
Now explain to us why your provisional membership application to the New York County Lawyers' Association -- which is ONLY open to recent law school graduates -- says you received your law degree in January 2010.
Were you lying to the New York County Law Association in October or are you lying to us now?
I know the answer, but I'd like your friends and colleagues to hear it from you first.
-Andrew
=============
From: JOHN OSULLIVAN
To: Andrew Skolnick
CC: ..
Sent: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 19:03
Subject: Re: Mr. O'Sullivan goes postal
I earned my law degree from University of Surrey in 1982.
www.slayingtheskydragon.com
============
From: peter.ridley@....
To: john0sullivan@...; alan618034@...; claesjohnson@gmail.com; houston2000@...; jdssps1@...; jpostma@...; germanclimateblog@...; nasifnahle@...; hanssch@...; omatumr@...; timothyball@...; etc. etc.
Sent: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 23:38
Subject: Derogatory Claims Against the “Slayers”
Hi Andrew, I don’t know where John dreamed up the idea that you were my “ .. dear friend .. ” (his comment on 12th Dec.). I think you’ll agree that the best way to look at our relationship is that we called an uneasy truce for a while.
Hi Nasif and Andrew, I thought that there must have been some misunderstanding between you both because I had never seen Andrew make any comments about Nasif on Professor Curry’s threads. Thank goodness that one has been resolved quickly. Congratulations Nasif, it takes a man to admit when he is wrong and apologise for it. What a shame others here aren’t so inclined.
John O’Sullivan continues to refuse to provide evidence of his academic achievements. Although silence is often said to be golden it can also be an indicator of something to hide. Site of that evidence should shut up Andrew and other detractors once and for all on that score. Another example of a disturbing silence is the refusal of either Piers Corbyn or Ken Coffman (the main donor) to clarify why Piers only received $1k of the $10k of what was supposed to be an annual “Ernst-Georg Beck Award for Scientific Integrity and Competence” or why there was no award this year. For an association which claims how important to it transparency is such silence is hardly impressive. It wouldn’t surprise me if it is because there is no money in the PSI coffers. I can’t say that would surprise me one bit.
It’s not like Andrew to listen to what I say but for once he seems to have done so (see my comment of 8th Dec). That’s an interesting profile for John Daley O’Neal that you appear to have found (your comment of 15th Dec. Here’s another along similar lines, but with subtle differences QUOTE: ..
john Daley O'Neal lowestoft, United Kingdom Email: john0sullivan@btinternet.com
Age 46, former schoolteacher now full-time writer. I have lived in both the UK and USA for many years having travelled widely. I am married to an American lawyer and have much experience assisting as a litigant and advocate in both countries. I have collaborated on civil and criminal cases as a researcher and I've profited from the experience in writing my first novel, 'The Secrets of Cupboard 55' a literary crime thriller ( see http://blog.myspace.com/mrdarrk). I am open to consider offers on any project and I am currently looking for an agent/publisher.
Interests: Crime Fiction, literary, Arts, Sports
Published writer: No
Freelance: Yes
UNQUOTE (http://www.writers.net/writers/54740).
John Daley O’Neal/mrdarrk (http://www.myspace.com/mrdarrk) seems to have taken a liking to John’s entire past as well – strange man. The guy looks to have used John’s photo’ and E-mail address without John’s permission (John, please correct me if I’m mistaken about that). John Daley O’Neal seems, like John, to love posting about himself. Those John Daley O’Sullivan profiles are more of those strange coincidences surrounding John and his claims to fame.
Again I remind you of my comment to most of you on 14th January during those “PSI & Due Diligence” exchanges “ .. Whatever form it eventually takes, if PSI is ever perceived by disciples and followers of the CACC doctrine as a threat to their cause not only PSI but everyone associated with it will be attacked with whatever can be used or invented. Each of us will be carefully researched and any skeletons in cupboards will be dragged out into the open. Any suggestion of past dishonesty or irrationality will be exploited (remember the treatment that Lord Monckton has received, e.g. over his claims to being a member of the Upper House). Several of us have already experienced this sort of treatment but it may be new to some. It can get very unpleasant, even for those who stick to the science. Not that such activity should deter us in pursuing this “noble cause” but what is there about any of us that could seriously undermine PSI’s standing? As I’ve said before, we have to be seen to be squeaky clean. Are we all happy that we can achieve this? .. ”.
John has now provided some transparency about one of the issues in his “Cupboard 55” but are there any others still hiding there? Despite repeated requests John still has not substantiated his claim to have a “ .. Bachelors Degree, Law/Fine Art (History) .. ” (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/john-o-sullivan/19/6b4/84a) from Sussex University/WSCAD. John insisted (12th Dec.) that he “ .. studied law at the university of Surrey from 1979-82 ..” but the West Surrey College of Art & Design (now the University for the Creative Arts? – see http://www.annafox.co.uk/work/basingstoke/) appears to be an art college pure and simple.
I couldn’t find any connection between WSCAD and the University of Surrey during the period that John was there (or even now for that matter) but of course I could be totally wrong about that. John does not make it clear what his degree was in and there is doubt about whether that degree from WSCAD was in art or in Law. Andrew Skolnick has claimed that John bought his Law Degree in Jan. 2010 from Hill University (see my comment of 8th Dec.) and says that he does not make claims which he can’t back up with evidence. John could resolve this issue very easily by providing a certified copy of his degree certificate(s).
Neither has John been prepared to provide any details of his work that “ .. features in the 'National Review,’ America's most popular and influential magazine for Republican/conservative news. Among other internationally esteemed publications he has appeared in 'China Daily,' the Number One English portal in China, as well as 'India Times,' the prime source of business news in India .. ” (http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/profile). As I said to John on 11th “ .. . Your silence regarding the real issues that Andrew Skolnick keeps challenging you over and I keep asking you to resolve is quite deafening .. ”.
I cannot speak for Andrew Skolnick but I refute John’s claim that I am “ . merely out to unjustly invade my privacy, inflict stress and anxiety on myself and my family, not in the pursuit of the truth but to merely to further your own agenda .. ”. As I have indicated repeatedly during these exchanges and the PSI & Due Diligence exchanges of Dec./Jan. my objective is to provide the utmost possible transparency that I can about the “Slayers” and their association PSI. My agenda has been the same since I started my “PSI & Due Diligence” activities in Dec. – to research the integrity of those involved with the “Slayers” and their association PSI. Since then the numbers appear to have dwindled, with at least one of those involved early (Professor Claes Johnson) having dissociated himself from the group. Two more recent recruits appear to have also dissociated themselves, one of whom being among the 10 that John named in his E-mail of 29th Sept. as being the most “ .. active/influential members of the Slayers team .. ”. Two of those who dissociated themselves are still being shown as “ .. Founding Members and stakeholders .. “ in PSI (http://principia-scientific.org/about-us/why-psi-is-a-private-assoc), which is misleading.
So far John has been the main (but not the only) focus of attention. I started putting together my records for each of those involved when I started my “PSI & Due Diligence” excercise in Dec./Jan. but what about the rest of those “Slayers” who have not yet dissociated themselves from the group and PSI. Are there any skeletons lurking in their cupboards? On 11th Nov.(see footnote). Maybe investigative journalist Andrew Skolnick will turn his spotlight on other leading “Slayers” and members of the PSI Executive when he has completed his rummaging in John’s “Cupboard 55”.
Very recently some invividuals have been talking a lot of talk about taking legal action (both criminal and civil) but similar exchanges were being made nearly a year ago. On 15th Jan. during the PSI & Due Diligence E-mails John started talking about “ .. 3. PERSONAL SLURS ARE ACTIONABLE UNDER LIBEL LAWS Pete is concerned that PSI founders may be maligned due to our associations with ‘disreputable’ third parties. Pete further maligns me for doing my job as a science writer and legal commentator as if this would bar me from being a director of PSI. He insinuates that I am a member of a racist organisation. For the record, I’m not the ‘John O’Sullivan’ associated with the BNP. Indeed, by contrast I hold libertarian sympathies. But I am not associated with the US Libertarian Party or any political party.
To slur me in that way, or PSI, once it is formed as a legal entity, constitutes defamation and is thus actionable under law. Thus, neither PSI nor I need fear direct personal attack .. ”. (Another example of confusion caused by the coincidence of another John O’Sullivan linked to the “Slayers” and PSI.)
Hi Joe (Olson), what you failed to point out in your E-mail of 12th Dec. is that when Andrew Skolnick was at JAMA as an associate editor under Dr. George Lundberg, editor-in-chief, who was also fired around the same time, JAMA was a highly respected medical journal. For eample QUOTE: .. Dr. Arnold Relman, former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, was quoted in the Chicago Sun-Times reproving the "control a political organization such as the AMA has over its journal." Dr. Lundberg has been credited by some for turning around the fortunes of the JAMA since he took over the editorial reins in 1982. He's also been lauded for the quality of the research published in JAMA.Things changed after those dismissals .. UNQUOTE (http://www.dynamicchiropractic.com/mpacms/dc/article.php?id=35086 see also http://www.bmj.com/content/318/7178/213.1.full). It does help us understand contentious issues if we give due consideration to the alternative opinions and arguments before drawing conclusions.
I appreciate that in his comment of 12 Dec. John O’Sullivan provided some clarity about how he views his wife Barbara’s experience at Summit Shock correction centre and about the court case that apparently ended his teaching career. In that E-mail he also said “ .. I never forgave Barbara for the mess and we have lived apart ever since .. ”. This raises another question, because that court case took place in Lowestoft in 2003/4 so why was John continuing to suggest in 2009 and 2010 that he and Barbara were still living together “ .. John and Barbara O’Sullivan PO Box 65, Delhi, NY 13753 email: john0sullivan@btinternet.com .. ” (e.g. http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/17052/friday-open-thread-110/). (Falconnier’s response is interesting .. You are fabricating lies simply to garner attention for your blog and your “book.” Those who know, know the truth…”.
If I am shown to be wrong about this then I shall appologise, meanwhile I await an appology from John for accusing me of lying about those dwindling numbers).
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Footnote: This was a reference to Andrew Skolnick's comment in "Letter to the dragon slayers" (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/professor-judith-currys-letter-to.html) " .. if Mr. O’Sullivan forces me to take him to court, I will throw my net widely .. " (November 11, 2011 @ 09:43).
==============
From: JOHN OSULLIVAN …
To: Nasif Nahle …
CC: peter ridley …; alan618034@…; claesjohnson@…; houston2000@…; jdssps1@…; jpostma@…; germanclimateblog@…; hanssch@…; omatumr@…; timothyball@…; PF SMP …; ruthhertzberg@…; Charles R Anderson …; ken@…; geraldo@…; Fred@…; piers@…; sr2@…; rsowell@…; … etc. etc. etc. … gpetty@…
Sent: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 14:18
Subject: Re: Derogatory Claims Against the “Slayers ”
Nasif,
I am totally in sympathy with you over this latest malicious and pathetic attempt to smear your good name. I have now published my article exposing how Andrew Skolnick probably committed a crime while perpetrating such slurs.
http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/43274.html
Best,
John
www.slayingtheskydragon.com
==============
From: Nasif Nahle …
To: Andrew Skolnick …
CC: peter ridley …; alan618034@…; claesjohnson@…; houston2000@…; jdssps1@…; omatumr@…; timothyball@…; PF SMP …; ruthhertzberg@…; Charles R Anderson …; ken@…; geraldo@…; Fred@…; piers@…; sr2@…; rsowell@…; etc. etc. etc. … JOHN OSULLIVAN …
Sent: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 1:57
Subject: Re: Derogatory Claims Against the “Slayers”
I read your post at Curry's blog and I was surprised by the tone you used against me.
You say that I am a liar because the results of my experiment don't coincide with your way of thought. I'm sorry, Mr. Skolnick, but I am a scientist and I report only what I find through observation and experimentation, so I consider your comment on me to be libelous and highly offensive.
I urge you to apologize publicly for your unpleasant comment against me that you posted on the referred blog. I am a serious person that have respect for any person, including you, so I demand respect towards me.
Regards,
Nasif Nahle Sabag
Scientific Research Director at Biology Cabinet
P.S. Please, stop sending me your e-mails. I'm not interested in vain discussions that have nothing to do with science. I ask John O'Sullivan to do the same, erase my address from your Cc and BCc; I am not interested in personal lives.
============
From: Andrew Skolnick …
To: JOHN OSULLIVAN …
CC: peter.ridley@…; alan618034@…; claesjohnson@…; houston2000@…; jdssps1@…; jpostma@…; germanclimateblog@…; nasifnahle@…; hanssch@…; omatumr@…; timothyball@…; PF.SMP@…; ruthhertzberg@…; Charles.R.Anderson@…; ken@…; geraldo@…; Fred@…; piers@…; sr2@… rsowell@…; etc. etc. etc. … gpetty@aos.wisc.edu
Sent: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 0:42
Subject: EXTRA! It's now official -- John O'Sullivan is a big fat liarIgnore warning
On Nov. 10, John O'Sullivan published a maliciously false article that claimed the Law Society of British Columbia "has now ruled that green activist Andrew Skolnick’s official complaint concerning Dr. Tim Ball’s libel attorney, Michael Scherr and science writer, John O’Sullivan, was baseless."
That claim and virtually everything that followed was false, defamatory, and written with malicious intent. Not surprisingly, nearly all the crackpot denier web sites that published the article, blocked all comments pointing out the falsehoods.
They and Mr. O'Sullivan are going to have a hard time blocking this. Here is the letter I received from the Law Society of British Columbia's Staff Counsel for Unauthorized Practice on Tuesday. It took me a while to get the Law Society to provide a written statement correcting O'Sullivan's outrageous falsehoods.
http://www.aaskolnick.com/global_deniers/LSBC_2011-12-13-letter-Skolnick.pdf
So I ask, who are you going to believe, a notorious liar and fraud like John O'Sullivan? Or the Staff Counsel at the Law Society of British Columbia?
Sorry to ask such a hard question: I know at least half the people here will likely pick the wrong answer.
Andrew
==============
From: JOHN OSULLIVAN …
To: Andrew Skolnick …
CC: peter.ridley@…; alan618034@…; claesjohnson@…; houston2000@…; jdssps1@…; jpostma@…; germanclimateblog@…; nasifnahle@…; hanssch@…; omatumr@…; timothyball@…; PF.SMP@…; ruthhertzberg@…; Charles.R.Anderson@…; ken@…; geraldo@…; Fred@…; piers@…; sr2@…; rsowell@…; etc. etc. etc. gpetty@…
Sent: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 20:37
Subject: Re: Derogatory Claims Against the “Slayers ”
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=64434874&trk=tab_pro
Again, I recommend that the ‘gehbcaed.png’ imagehe sent us all by email on December 12th 2011 be compared with my genuine profile in the above hyperlink (forconvenience I have a composite of both in the attached file). By comparison itcan be readily determined that the “John O” webpage has clearly been doctored.
Skolnick’s version (a "screenshot" of this mythical "John O" profile he says he found on the Linkedin website) can readily be seen to havea dissimilar, larger font size causing additional text lines, altered linespacing, plus a darker toned background to the text.
Once the website owners have confirmed thatthe ‘gehbcaed.png’ file Skolnick sent to us is a forgery we can move to the nextstep of identifying the forger. All 29 of us received the phony “John O” imagefrom Mr. Skolnick. Whoever createdthat counterfeit image did so to defame and harass me. By impersonating myidentity and fraudulently creating a web page in my name, whoever perpetratedthis malicious act is liable to criminal prosecution as per NY Penal law.
If it were me and not Skolnick now stoodaccused of such a crime I’d be more dignified and allow Linkedin to report ontheir investigations.
Truly, John
www.slayingtheskydragon.com
=========
From: Andrew Skolnick …
To: JOHN OSULLIVAN …
CC: peter.ridley@…; alan618034@…; claesjohnson@…; houston2000@…; jdssps1@…; jpostma@…; germanclimateblog@…; nasifnahle@…; hanssch@…; omatumr@…; timothyball@…; PF.SMP@…; ruthhertzberg@…; Charles.R.Anderson@…; ken@…; geraldo@…; Fred@…; piers@…; sr2@…; rsowell@…; etc. etc. etc. …gpetty@…
Sent: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 19:25
Subject: Re: Derogatory Claims Against the “Slayers”
It's a very simple request that Mr. O'Sullivan refuses to answer: How did HE get the link to the LinkedIn profile he's falsely accusing me of forging?
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=64434874&trk=tab_pro
I know how I got that link -- and how ALL OF YOU got it. He sent it to you and to me 3 days ago, on Monday, Dec. 12. Either he was hoping to snare me in a ridiculous trap, or else he pasted the wrong link into the email by mistake.
Google this link and you will find it nowhere except in an email O'Sullivan sent you on Sept. 29, 2011, with the Subject line: "Fwd: Resolution of conflict between me and Prof. Grant Petty."
So we know the link to his LinkedIn profile without his surname was already in O'Sullivan's possession and that he had sent it to all of you on Sept. 29.
And he still refuses to explain to any of us WHERE he got that link -- if he didn't create it -- and HOW it got pasted into his email to everyone -- on Sept. 29 and again on Dec. 12.
-Andrew
===========
From: JOHN OSULLIVAN …
To: Andrew Skolnick …
CC: peter.ridley@…; alan618034@…; claesjohnson@…; houston2000@…; jdssps1@…; jpostma@…; germanclimateblog@…; nasifnahle@…; hanssch@…; omatumr@…; timothyball@…; .PF.SMP@…; ruthhertzberg@…; Charles.R.Anderson@…; ken@…; geraldo@…; Fred@…; piers@…; sr2@…; rsowell@…; etc. etc. etc. … gpetty@…
Sent: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 16:27
Subject: Re: Derogatory Claims Against the “Slayers ”
Attachment gehbcaed.png_v_REAL_Osull_page.png
My thanks to concernedinterested parties on this thread for bringing to my attentioncompelling physical evidence that Mr. Skolnick is actively engaged incriminally fabricating web pages to use against me to bolster hisbogus claims. His latest effort is clearly more sophisticated than his previous attempt.
Please find attached acopy of a composite image of both the Skolnick ‘gehbcaed.png.’file he sent us all last week alongside a genuine screenshot of my Linkedin account. For the avoidance ofdoubt, the URL that I sent out originally(http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=64434874&trk=tab_pro)came about after I logged into my LinkedIn account, hence the needfor login details.
I then copied the URLthat showed my profile on my computer, unaware that the URL would notbe the same as this one:http://www.linkedin.com/pub/john-o-sullivan/19/6b4/84a.My apologies for any confusion over this.
Thanks to thesharp-eyes of others it was pointed out to me that theattached actual screenshot taken off my pc has glaringdifferences from the version sent out to us in Skolnick’s email ofDec. 12th. His version has larger font sizes causingadditional text lines, differing line spacing, plus a darker toned background to the text.Thus it is has clearly been doctored and is unlike the format of a genuine Linkedin webpage.
Once Linkedin confirmswhether any such account as “John O” ever existed and if so, whoowns the originator’s IP, we will be closer to solving the mystery.I shall await the outcome of the Linkedin investigation before addingfurther comment or submitting this evidence to the police.
Truly,John O'Sullivan
www.slayingtheskydragon.com
============
From: Andrew Skolnick …
To: JOHN OSULLIVAN …
CC: peter.ridley@…; alan618034@…; claesjohnson@…; houston2000@…; jdssps1@…; jpostma@…; germanclimateblog@…; nasifnahle@…; hanssch@…; omatumr@…; timothyball@…; PF.SMP@…; ruthhertzberg@…; Charles.R.Anderson@…; ken@…; geraldo@…; Fred@…; piers@…; sr2@…; rsowell@…; etc. etc. etc. … gpetty@…
Sent: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 15:53
Subject: Re: Derogatory Claims Against the “Slayers”
I just found an authority who confirms the the facts I've reported about John O'Sullivan's true academic and professional credentials. He agrees with me, not with Mr. O'Sullivan of recent vintage.
I just dug up Mr. O'Sullivan's bio on the Helium.com web site. It’s one of the earliest bios of Slayer John I’ve found and it is certainly his most honest:
“J Daley O’Neal is 46 years old and for most of the year resides at Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, England. He is a graduate of the West Surrey College of Art & Design where he obtained a First Degree in Fine Art in 1983 and then subsequently completed his post-graduate studies qualifying as a high school teacher in 1985. He most notably won the WSCAD Creative Writing Award for Excellence for his Bachelor’s dissertation on James Joyce’s Ulysses.’
“For twenty years the author has taught in public schools and colleges throughout England. Since 1998 J Daley O’Neal has been married to a New Yorker, a legal advocate and the couple live between homes in New York and England. In 2004 Daley O’Neal successfully defended himself in a well-publicised criminal case. Since then he has assisted wife in her legal advocacy work in the American civil courts while pursuing his creative writing interests.
“O’Neal enjoys writing about unrequited love, the criminal justice system and dares to apply his literary talents to contentious hot topics such unlawful police practices, sexual harassment and paedophilia.”
http://www.helium.com/users/208604
Glaringly absent from his bio is any claim of a law degree or practice of law. Note especially his admission of earning “a First Degree in Fine Art” from the West Surrey College of Art & Design in 1983 — which is the time he now claims he earned a law degree from the University of Surrey.
Except for the claim that his former prison guard wife is a "legal advocate," these are exactly the facts I've reported. I am grateful that Mr. O’Sullivan agrees — back in June 2007.
Thanks John,
Andrew
============
From: Andrew Skolnick …
To: JOHN OSULLIVAN …
CC: peter.ridley@…; alan618034@…; claesjohnson@…; houston2000@…; jdssps1@…; jpostma@…; germanclimateblog@…; nasifnahle@…; hanssch@…; omatumr@…; timothyball@…; PF.SMP@…; ruthhertzberg@…; Charles.R.Anderson@…; ken@…; geraldo@…; Fred@…; piers@…; sr2@…; rsowell@…; etc. etc. etc. … gpetty@…
Sent: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 21:30
Subject: Re: Derogatory Claims Against the “Slayers”
Mr. O'Sullivan,
You can demand all you want, but if you want me to stop replying to your malicious defamation and baseless threats, then stop making them. I have as much right to answer your threats and libelous attacks as you have to make them.
"Spamming" is the unsolicited sending of bulk commercial emails. My emails to you are replies to emails SENT to me. I welcome you to report me to my ISP for "spamming." I'm sure they could use a good laugh.
You are suffering delusions of grandeur to believe you are "entitled to the last word." When you become the last person left alive in the world, that's when you will be entitled to the last word.
As for the origin of the link to the LinkedIn profile you claim I forged by "stealing your identity," I notice you won't even try to explain how that link got into the email you sent all of us yesterday. You pasted in this wrong link: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=64434874&trk=tab_pro
This is the link to your regular LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=64434874&authType=name&authToken=0rq9&locale=en_US&pvs=pp&trk=ppro_viewmore
I'm still waiting for you to explain, if I stole your identity to create the bogus profile, how did YOU get the link to the bogus profile and why did YOU include it in the email you sent everybody? If you created the bogus profile, it's easy to understand how it could get into the email you sent. You could have pasted the wrong link by accident, or you could have done it deliberately in an asinine attempt to switch the discussion from your pedophilia past to your false accusations of criminal identity theft.
If so, you were a fool to think people wouldn't follow that link right back to the culprit who first sent it.
- Andrew
============
From: JOHN OSULLIVAN …
To: Andrew Skolnick …
CC: …peter.ridley@…; alan618034@…; claesjohnson@…; houston2000@…; jdssps1@…; jpostma@…; germanclimateblog@..." nasifnahle@…; hanssch@…; omatumr@…; timothyball@…; PF.SMP@…; ruthhertzberg@…; Charles.R.Anderson@…; ken@…; geraldo@…; Fred@…; piers@…; sr2@…; rsowell@…; etc. etc. etc. …gpetty@…
Sent: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 17:25
Subject: Re: Derogatory Claims Against the “Slayers ”
Again I demand that you cease and desist insending me emails – they are unwelcome. I’m sure I’m not the onlyrecipient utterly weary of them. Hereinafter, respect all requests you get from any and allon the c.c. list to remove them. Further unsolicited emails to any and allrecipients who have advised you they do not wish to receive them shallconstitute spamming and may be reported to your ISP for breach oftheir T&C’s. Your ISP, in turn, may terminate your account for suchviolations. If your intentions are truly in goodfaith then you not need engage in these vexatious rants and should hold fire and permit the authoritiesto deal with your “evidence.”
ABSOLUTE PROOF OF MALICIOUS IMPERSONATION
But as you are the initiator of thisunwelcome contact I am morally and equitably entitled to the last word. If confirmation wereneeded that you are likely to be fraudulently and thus maliciously andcriminally fabricating evidence against me then such evidence may be adducedfrom your email ofMonday, 12 December 2011 entitled,’ Re: Derogatory Claims Against the“Slayers.”’ A copy went toall 29 recipients on your c.c. list.
With that email you supplied an attached file, ‘gehbcaed.png.’ For ease of reference Iattach the aforesaid file that is your "screen shot" that I assert is a maliciouscounterfeit of my Linkedin profile. One obvious anomaly contained within it isthat my name is changed to ‘John O.’ You then allege in your email that anyone visiting the ‘John O’ page can access a certain link. You write, “ If you click thatlink, you will be taken to my LinkedIn profile. Man, this guy is amalicious sociopath.”
But your claims fall apart upon closeranalysis. You refer to the “John O” page as a “newly created version” of my profile page. But I haven’t seen your version before and I’msure no one else has either. You see, your "screen shot" immediatelybegs the question: How do you or anyone else know it’s “newly created” when itbears no evidence to that effect. You may know this because you created ityourself or, in the alternative, you are regularlymonitoring my actions on Linkedin (stalking?).
Moreover, if as you claim, the image (a)represents a new Linkedin profile created by me then the proprietors of Linkedin will readily confirm such by ascertaining my IP address connected to itand will advise accordingly. However, if it is (b) created by someone else(perhaps another site user with a grudge against me) then that, too, may beapparent from the associated IP address.
But a third possibility (c) also exists; no“newly created” profile named “John O” has ever existed now or in the past andyour screenshot image is fabricated.Thus, if the website proprietor cannotadvise it is (a) or (b) then we may reasonably infer it is (c) and is thus the malicious impersonation of my identity by someone with a grudge.
The most obvious suspect is you, Mr.Skolnick. Either way we will solve the issue. If it turns out (b) or (c) applies then Ihave ample evidence to offer to the police that you have perpetrated a felony against me asper NY Penal Law.
Truly, John O’Sullivan LLB, BA(Hon), PGCE
www.slayingtheskydragon.com
============
From: Andrew Skolnick …
To: JOHN OSULLIVAN …
CC: peter.ridley@…; alan618034@…; claesjohnson@…; houston2000@…; jdssps1@…; jpostma@…; germanclimateblog@…; nasifnahle@…; hanssch@…; omatumr@…; timothyball@…; PF.SMP@…; ruthhertzberg@…; Charles.R.Anderson@…; ken@…; geraldo@…; Fred@…; piers@…; sr2@…; rsowell@…; etc. etc. etc. … gpetty@…
Sent: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 14:19
Subject: Re: Derogatory Claims Against the “Slayers”
If you meant this as a joke, it's not funny.
Do you really think you can frame and defame me with bogus charges that I stole your identity to create a phony LinkedIn profile -- and that I'm not going to reply and notify you that you will be held to account?
As for notifying the proper authorities, I sent a complaint with documentation to the Office of the Attorney General of New York State. Hopefully, they'll put a stop to your fraudulent misconduct -- since merely applying Justice Brandeis' remedy of "sunshine" doesn't seem to deter you one bit.
Did you really think no one would notice that the link to the LinkedIn profile -- which you accused ME of creating by stealing your identity -- was in the email YOU mailed everyone here? You've got to be stupider than screen door on a submarine to have done that. I'm hoping LinkedIn will revoke your privileges for that little scam.
You keep asking why I don't take you to court, and I keep answering that preparing a suit and collecting the necessary exhibits takes time -- as you would know if you were a lawyer. Also, I'm wondering if there's any way I could get the case heard by Justice Elizabeth Garry. I think you know her.
I believe she's the judge you viciously attacked in the scores of rants you published on the Wall Street Journal, New York Daily News, Times Union, and other blogs -- calling her a "criminal," "puppet," and "lesbian scum," because she dismissed your wife's bogus sexual harassment suit. I'm not sure whether she's in the Supreme Court or Appellate Court, but I'm pretty sure one of her colleagues and friends would likely hear the case. And I will be submitting those dozens of vile rants you published as evidence of your compulsion for dishonesty and malicious defamation. Rest assured.
I notice your habit of signing every email and letter "Truly,". Now that's funny. :-)
Andrew
===========
From: JOHN OSULLIVAN …
To: Andrew Skolnick …
CC: … peter.ridley@…; alan618034@…; claesjohnson@…; houston2000@…; jdssps1@…; jpostma@…; germanclimateblog@…; nasifnahle@…; hanssch@…; omatumr@…; timothyball@…; PF.SMP@…; ruthhertzberg@…; Charles.R.Anderson@…; ken@…; geraldo@…; Fred@…; piers@…; sr2@…; rsowell@…; etc. etc. etc. …gpetty@…
Sent: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 11:09
Subject: Re: Derogatory Claims Against the “Slayers ”
Cease and desist in your unwelcome emailsto me. I have made my position clear. You have repeatedly accused me of falsely representing myself as an attorney, a criminal offense in the state in which weboth hold residence (New York). If you truly believe your claims against me are valid then the proper and dignified approach would be to address your concerns directly with NY State police and the Departmental Disciplinary and Grievance Committee via the Appellate Division of the State Supreme Courtpursuant to §90 of the Judiciary Law. My physical address, which you may provide to such authorities is PO Box 65, Main Street, Delhi, NY, 13753.
As such, if matters are as you claim then I will certainly be liable for criminal prosecution in New York as per Article190 of the Penal Law (for example, S190.25 Criminalimpersonation in the second degree; S 190.20 False advertising; S190.78 Identitytheft in the third degree).
I suggest if you have ANY evidence that I have falsely represented myself and in turn, sought to bring injury to you, then put up – or shut up. Your increasingly unhinged ranting serves only to further undermine what little credibility you still have.
Truly, John
www.slayingtheskydragon.com
=================
From: Andrew Skolnick …
To: JOHN OSULLIVAN …
CC: peter.ridley@…; alan618034@…; claesjohnson@…; houston2000@…; jdssps1@…; jpostma@…; germanclimateblog@…; nasifnahle@…; hanssch@…; omatumr@…; timothyball@…; PF.SMP@…; ruthhertzberg@…; Charles.R.Anderson@…; ken@…; geraldo@…; Fred@…; piers@…; sr2@…; rsowell@…; etc. etc. etc. …gpetty@…
Sent: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 3:09
Subject: Re: Derogatory Claims Against the “Slayers”
Man, you are one dumb shtwit to try something so lame -- especially after mailing all of us the smoking gun.
I just thought to myself, where oh where did I get that link to the LinkedIn profile you're accusing me of criminally forging?
I had to think a while, before I remembered. It was in the email YOU SENT TO EVERYONE THIS MORNING asking them to "see" your claimed credentials.
HOW DID YOU GET THE LINK to that dubious profile, Mr. O'Sullivan -- if YOU didn't create it?
Huh?
You're accusing me of criminally impersonating you and creating a false LinkedIn profile page. But none of us ever saw that dubious profile before YOU posted the link to it in YOUR LETTER mailed this morning to EVERYONE here.
How did YOU get that link to the so-called bogus profile if YOU didn't CREATE IT YOURSELF and try to pin it on me?
Did you think this would be a good a smoke screen to help you avoid talking about your writing a confessional account of lusting after school girls after you were acquitted of assaulting and sending obscene messages and soliciting sex from a 16 y.o. girl.
Just look at the link in his email: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=64434874&trk=tab_pro
That's the link to the "bogus" LinkedIn profile for which he tried to frame me.
What a stupid mendacious schmuck.
-Andrew
===========
From: Andrew Skolnick …
To: JOHN OSULLIVAN …
CC: peter.ridley@…; alan618034@…; ClaesJohnson…; houston2000@…; jdssps1@…; joepostma@…; germanclimateblog@…; nasifnahle@…; HansSchreuder…; PF.SMP@…; martin herzberg…; Charles.R.Anderson@…; ken@…; geraldo@…; Fred@…; piers@…; kentkuwait…; sr2@…; Roger Esowell…; etc. etc. etc. …gpetty@…
Sent: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 2:13
Subject: Defamatory charges of criminal conduct
A LinkedIn user named John O'Sullivan has been conducting a campaign of defamation against me, falsely accusing me of getting fired from the Journal of the American Medical Association for falsely claiming a Masters degree in Journalism from Columbia University, and other outrageously false charges.
He is now wrongly accusing me of identify theft, criminal impersonation, and setting up a forged LinkedIn profile made to look like his.
I received a copy of Mr. O'Sullivan's email below, in which he accuses me of these crimes and states that he has asked you to investigate his charges.
I am in the process of collecting evidence for a possible law suit against Mr. O'Sullivan and therefore request a copy of your report, when you have finished investigating his complaint.
The link to the profile in question is:
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=64434874&trk=tab_pro
I note that it has the same exact ID number as Mr. O'Sullivan's LinkedIn profile:
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=64434874&authType=name&authToken=0rq9&locale=en_US&pvs=pp&trk=ppro_viewmore
I look forward to hearing from you.
With regards,
Andrew Skolnick
============
From: JOHN OSULLIVAN …
To: peter.ridley@…
CC: alan618034@…; ClaesJohnson…; houston2000@…; jdssps1@…; joepostma@…; germanclimateblog@…; nasifnahle@…; HansSchreuder…; PF.SMP@…; martin herzberg…; Charles.R.Anderson@…; ken@…; geraldo@…; Fred@…; piers@…; kentkuwait…; sr2@…; Roger Esowell…; etc. etc. etc. …gpetty@…
Sent: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 1:08
Subject: Fw: Member Harassment/Defamation [Ticket: 111212-004947]
Mr Ridley,
Please find below a copy of the formal complaint I have now lodged with the Linkedin web site proprietors regarding my serious concerns that your friend and associate, Mr. Skolnick (December 12, 2011) maliciously sought to impersonate my identity and to fraudulently allege I had harassed him. The accusation is both false and malicious thereby causing me harm thus constituting criminal offenses under Article 190 -Penal Law- New York State (Criminal impersonation in the second degree; Identity theft in the second degree).
Depending on the outcome of the investigations by the Linkedin web site proprietors, if it can be shown that the originator's IP address is that of Mr. Skolnick, then I will not hesitate to place the matter in the hands of New York State police so that they may bring criminal charges against Mr. Skolnick.
Truly,
John O'Sullivan
www.slayingtheskydragon.com
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: LinkedIn Customer Support
To: john0sullivan@btinternet.com
Sent: Tuesday, 13 December 2011, 0:20
Subject: Member Harassment/Defamation [Ticket: 111212-004947]
LinkedIn Customer Support Message
Subject: Member Harassment/Defamation
Thanks for contacting us and we’ll get back to you as soon as possible.
Original Contact:
Member Comment: John O'Sullivan12/12/2011 18:20
Dear Help Center,
Today I received an unwelcome email from a fellow LinkedIn Member, Andrew Skolnick that was c.c.'d to 29 other recipients. The sender alleges I set up an an account, 'John O' for the purpose of harassing him. The accusation is utterly false and malicious and intended to harm my reputation.
I also believe the above constitutes an abuse of the T&C's of this site, as such I would be most grateful if you would investigate this matter and seek to resolve this worrying infringement.
Please find attached a jpg screen shot of the offending email from Mr. Skolnick as evidence. I would be most grateful if you would ascertain whether the 'John O' account, of which I have no priorknowledge, may have been created by Mr. Skolnick from his IP address. If so, please act and advise accordingly.
Yours truly,
John O'Sullivan Esq.
=============
From: Andrew Skolnick …
To: JOHN OSULLIVAN …
CC: peter.ridley@…; alan618034@…; claesjohnson@…; houston2000@…; jdssps1@…; jpostma@…; germanclimateblog@…; nasifnahle@…; hanssch@…; omatumr@…; timothyball@…; PF.SMP@…; ruthhertzberg@…; Charles.R.Anderson@…; ken@…; geraldo@…; Fred@…; piers@…; kent@…; sr2@…; rsowell@…; etc. etc. etc. …gpetty@…
Sent: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:18
Subject: Re: Derogatory Claims Against the “Slayers”
Guys,
There is something disturbingly malignant and psychopathic in Mr. O'Sullivan's behavior. The link he provided below is to a newly created version of his LinkedIn resume, however, his name appears only as "John O." Next to his name is the link "See Full Name." If you click that link, you will be taken to my LinkedIn profile. Man, this guy is a malicious sociopath.
-Andrew
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=64434874&trk=tab_pro
============
From: houston2000 …
To: Joseph E Postma …; 'JOHN OSULLIVAN' …; peter.ridley@…
CC: alan618034@…; claesjohnson@…; houston2000@…; jdssps1@…; germanclimateblog@…; nasifnahle@…; hanssch@…; omatumr@…; timothyball@…; PF.SMP@…; ruthhertzberg@…; Charles.R.Anderson@…; ken@…; geraldo@…; Fred@…; piers@…; kent@…; sr2@…; rsowell@…; etc. etc. etc. …gpetty@…
Sent: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:15
Subject: Re: Derogatory Claims Against the “Slayers”
one further addition to the Skolnick CV....more than 80% of US Medical Doctors disagree with the policy positions of the American Medical Association and their mouthpiece JAMA....
medicine is as infected as climate science with false peer review, government and big pharma abuse....find attached "The Cure for Cosmology's Peptic Ulcer" with opening paragraphs on the couragous Dr Robbin Warren and Dr Barry Marshall in their DECADES LONG fight to cure one of the most common ailments on the planet....and the medical establishment that fought them every step of the way....JAMA has shown no interest in independent research and Skolnick suffers 'confirmation bias' making him equally impaired in the climate debate....
Joe 0
===========
From: Alan Siddons …
To: Joseph E Postma …; 'JOHN OSULLIVAN' …; peter.ridley@talktalk.net
CC: claesjohnson@…; houston2000@…; jdssps1@…; germanclimateblog@…; nasifnahle@…; hanssch@…; omatumr@…; timothyball@…; PF.SMP@…; ruthhertzberg@…; Charles.R.Anderson@…; ken@…; geraldo@…; Fred@…; piers@…; kent@…; sr2@…; rsowell@…; etc. etc. etc. …gpetty@…
Sent: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 15:55
Subject: Re: Derogatory Claims Against th e “Slayers”
Ditto.
Alan Siddons
=============
From: Joseph E Postma …
To: 'JOHN OSULLIVAN' …; peter.ridley@…
CC: alan618034@…; claesjohnson@…; houston2000@…; jdssps1@…; germanclimateblog@…; nasifnahle@…; hanssch@…; omatumr@…; timothyball@…; PF.SMP@…; ruthhertzberg@…; Charles.R.Anderson@…; ken@…; geraldo@…; Fred@…; piers@…; kent@…; sr2@…; rsowell@…; etc. etc. etc. …gpetty@…
Sent: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 15:45
Subject: Re: Derogatory Claims Against th e “Slayers”
The attempt to infringe John O'Sullivan's character, and thusly connect such an attempt to a scientific issue, as Mr. S. and Mr. R. are doing, is the basest form of debate. It is not actually debate, it is simply the attempt to murder someone and throw dirt on them, as a means of implicating said person's acquaintances. As I said, the basest strategy.
Chris Ho-Stuart has summed it up nicely on the ClimateEtc thread where Mr. S. inspired Mr. R. to write his temper tantrum:
"Andrew: Stop focusing on the person. It’s idiotic. Your continued focus on the person — indeed only one person — is a classic case of the purest ad hominem in this more general discussion of the greenhouse effect and backradiation and so on. Furthermore, you have really gone over the edge in bringing up his work as a private tutor, or his marriage. That’s beyond ridiculous. Cut it out."
I found this quote somewhere on the internet long ago and I can't help but find it relevant:
“The last refuge of the inept and the incompetent is always character assassinations and threats. Without any proof or any evidence of any sort to back up their fanciful and unfounded faith based beliefs, fanatics are unable to hold intelligent conversations that are to the point, or that carry any viable solutions to the problems surrounding them. Throughout all of mankind’s history, those with real solutions and real understanding have always had to tolerate and sadly move around such irrational beings and leave them behind in the dust to rave madly and incoherently to themselves and each other. Logical and rational individuals have a hard time understanding the hate and intolerance engendered by those who steadfastly believe in a particular faith, religious or scientific. But interaction with such fanatics does allow the opportunity to see hypocrisy.”
This character assassination attempt on one person, and the attempt to then connect it to an entire group of people, is vile & repulsive, and the lowest class of behaviour.
Peter Ridley: DO NOT send me one single bit of data from yourself for the rest of your life. You do not have permission to ever initiate contact with me. I wish to live completely free of anything it is that you have to present. I do not care WHAT it could be you think you should share with me or give to me: I do not want it, I do not value it, I want it as far from the influence of my life as can be made. Given this is our only point of contact, if you stop sending me your useless diatribes, it will suffice to satisfy me forever. I don't care what you think you know about John O'Sullivan...I don't even care if you are right. It has NOTHING to do with the anti-human & bigoted fraud of alarmist environmentalism based on the greenhouse effect. Take care and enjoy your life.
Same goes for you Andrew.
Failing that, you will be marked as SPAM, and for the rest of time if something is sent from you two to me, it will automatically be bounced back with the headline “SPAM” in the subject line, just to remind you of what it is.
Regards,
Joseph E Postma
M.Sc. Astrophysics
Sky Dragon Slayer
Copernicus Meets the Greenhouse Effect (PDF)
The Model Atmosphere (PDF)
Understanding_the_Atmosphere_Effect.pdf
=================
From: .. john0sullivan@…
To: peter.ridley@…
CC: alan618034@...; claesjohnson@...; houston2000@...; jdssps1@...; jpostma@...; germanclimateblog@...; nasifnahle@...; hanssch@...; omatumr@...; timothyball@...; PF.SMP@...; ruthhertzberg@...; Charles.R.Anderson@...; ken@...; geraldo@...; Fred@...; piers@...; kent@...; sr2@...; rsowell@...; dalker@...; clifftent@...; askolnick@...; aaprjohn@...; cuibono@...; rtaguchi@...; jonicol18@...; judith.curry@...; gpetty@...
Sent: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 15:02
Subject: Re: Derogatory Claims Against the “Slayers ”
Mr Ridley,
Unlike your dear friend and fellow inquisitor, Mr. Skolnick I have never been fired from my employment for misconduct. I regard your persistent and misguided obsession with me as desperation to undermine the advances of the 'Slayers' as you continue to lose the scientific arguments. For the avoidance of doubt, I advise you once more that I have a degree in law. I studied law at the university of Surrey from 1979-82 (as I have long stated on my online web pages). But when I realized how mundane and monotonous a legal career for me would be I opted to go no further and followed my heart, took on an arts degree and then drifted into teaching and lecturing. Friends have told me Skolnick had contacted them via Friendsreunited and they let him in no uncertain terms that my profile is honest and accurate. See here:
I have taught law as well as arts because that is what suited me as I pursued my writing interests. Many times I have told people to go verify these facts for themselves with the relevant institutions (or even via Friendsreunited). I prefer not to give out more information than I have already because dirt diggers like you and Skolnick are merely out to unjustly invade my privacy, inflict stress and anxiety on myself and my family, not in the pursuit of the truth but to merely to further your own agenda.
In 2003 my second wife Barbara (from NY) while we lived together in Beccles, England stupidly started fostering a problem teenager against my wishes because B’s daughter (my step daughter) had already befriended the girl at school. The child was fine early on but then became a nightmare. She was a sociopath who stole from us, smeared our names and made numerous accusations against us. Social services were utterly useless as we tried desperately to get the child re-allocated. As the child's behavior degenerated one of her false allegations was that I made sexual advances to her and she reported it to the police whereupon my first wife, a local police officer still with antipathy towards me after our failed marriage, unduly influenced the investigations.
As a consequence I was maliciously prosecuted for allegedly sending sexual text messages and for allegedly assaulting the girl. The story made the national gutter press. But the whole thing was a pack of lies and was accepted as such in court where I conducted my own defense with the aid of a newly qualified barrister. I was acquitted on all six charges. Nonetheless, by then the matter had ruined my teaching/lecturing career because people often choose to believe there is no smoke without fire. I never forgave Barbara for the mess and we have lived apart ever since. I have been happily in a relationship with Lindsey (from Wales) for the last 5 years.
I successfully prevailed over (almost all) the regional and national gutter press with warnings of libel and online content about the case was withdrawn. I also pursued civil damages myself against the police. But Suffolk Police, although admitting they made “mistakes” in the case fought me every step of the way and I ran out of money 3 years later when I couldn’t find the £20-30,000 I needed to pay a barrister to represent me in the High Court, London.
However, I had utterly proved my innocence in a court of law but we all know that there are zealots out there that revel in such scandals. This why I have such empathy for Tim Ball who similarly ran of funds for his legal claim even though he had a valid claim.
I have written extensively about such government corruption and cover up crimes because writing was always my real passion. I have two unpublished novels (one addresses the appalling events of 2003), the other concerns a multi-million dollar employment harassment lawsuit involving Barbara against her former employers, the State of NY (still ongoing after 16 years). I have a publisher interested in both novels but they are waiting for me to first win the aforementioned court case so I can write my story's ending.
I assisted Barbara with all her cases (and still do - I need the money) and as such I am highly adept in New York law. I don’t know what anyone expects of me other than to do my best for the sake of my family and my own future. I have a son, 20 and daughter 18 from my first marriage and they do not need to see the same old mud thrown at their father all over again. So why must I feel obligated to divulge my private details to you or others when it has NOTHING to do with my science writing??
As the 2004 court ruling at Lowestoft, Suffolk stated: I remain a man of unblemished good character. Indeed, after a formal investigation by the Secretary of State for Education into my case in 2005 affirmed, I did nothing wrong and continue to hold my teaching license.
When Skolnick tried to attack my credentials via his compliant about me to the British Columbia Law Society his evidence was found wanting. Indeed, I provided full details of my qualifications above and beyond what was requested by Tim’s attorney, Michael Scherr. Mr. Scherr unfortunately assumed I was qualified at the Bar because the issue never arose in our conversations being that I have already been acting as Dr. Ball’s personal legal adviser.
I have never claimed to be a licensed attorney and neither you nor Skolnick have provided one iota of evidence that I ever represented myself as such. However, I have acted as an ‘in house’ lawyer under the supervision of licensed attorneys, which I am entirely legally entitled to do as per New York’s code of professional conduct (CPLR). It was under this assumption that I was working with Mr. Scherr. Fortunately, this matter has been dealt with to the satisfaction of Dr. Ball, Mr. Scherr and myself.
If you and Skolnick wish to persist in your personal attacks then be advised that I will not continue to stand by and let my family endure any more crap from scum like you.
Truly,
John O’Sullivan LLB, BA (Hon), PGCE
www.slayingtheskydragon.com
===============
From: peter.ridley@...
To: john0sullivan@btinternet.com; …
CC: alan618034@...; claesjohnson@...; houston2000@...; jdssps1@...; jpostma@...; germanclimateblog@...; nasifnahle@...; hanssch@...; omatumr@...; timothyball@...; PF.SMP@...; ruthhertzberg@...; Charles.R.Anderson@...; ken@...; geraldo@...; Fred@...; piers@...; kent@...; sr2@...; rsowell@...; dalker@...; clifftent@...; askolnick@...; aaprjohn@...; cuibono@...; rtaguchi@...; jonicol18@...; judith.curry@...; gpetty@...
Sent: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 9:55
CC: alan618034@...; claesjohnson@...; houston2000@...; jdssps1@...; jpostma@...; germanclimateblog@...; nasifnahle@...; hanssch@...; omatumr@...; timothyball@...; PF.SMP@...; ruthhertzberg@...; Charles.R.Anderson@...; ken@...; geraldo@...; Fred@...; piers@...; kent@...; sr2@...; rsowell@...; dalker@...; clifftent@...; askolnick@...; aaprjohn@...; cuibono@...; rtaguchi@...; jonicol18@...; judith.curry@...; gpetty@...
Sent: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 9:55
Subject: Derogatory Claims Against the “Slayers ”
Hi John, don’t you think that you are being a little unkind about Andrew’s dismissal from his job as Associate Editor with JAMA? I know from personal experience that the official reasons given for a dismissal are not always the real reasons. Many of us are probably aware of instances where claims made are less that factual.
More importantly, in response to my requests for you to provide evidence in support of your claims about qualifications, experience and publications you continue to focus on other matters. Your silence regarding the real issues that Andrew Skolnick keeps challenging you over and I keep asking you to resolve is quite deafening. Accredited academics have no qualms about detailing their achievements but in my opinion you are rather vague about some of yours. Let’s look at examples of “Slayers” who could be regarded as academics and are happy to give details about themselves that can be easily verified:
- Professor Nasif Nahle Sabag (http://www.biocab.org/Academic_Curriculum.html),
- Professor Claes Johnson (http://www.nada.kth.se/~cgjoh/cvclaes.pdf), although he appears to have now dissociated himself from the Slayers and PSI,
- Dr. Fred Goldberg (http://www.klimatbalans.info/CV_Fred_Goldberg_Eng.pdf).
Why is it that people find it so hard to obtain verification of your claims? Maybe they are not looking in the right places so why not provide a link to anything substantial. Maybe that would shut Andrew and others up.
In my E-mail of 8th Dec. I drew attention to one of Andrew’s latest postings in which he provided a link to writer John Daley O’Neal (http://www.writers.net/writers/54740) and mrdarrk (http://blog.myspace.com/mrdarrk). A former schoolteacher John Daley O’Neal (aged 46 in 2007 so born in 1961 or thereabouts) provides links to a book which describes the illicit interest that a school teacher (Leo) had in an under-age girl (Rebecca).
Leo was an “ .. Occasional supply teacher .. ” in a second marriage, this time to an American called Carla who had a daughter Lita. Leo and Carla had fostered Rebecca. Carla new about the relationship between Leo and Rebecca (who he nicknamed “Vanilla Girl” - Chapter 12, Para.2) but didn’t want to split up from “ .. her trophy husband from England .. ” (Chapter 11).
That’s interesting because there are also QUOTE: .. two factual novels so far penned in the ‘Cupboard 55’ genre: ‘Vanilla Girl’ and ‘Summit Shock’ written by English author, John O’Sullivan .. UNQUOTE (http://cupboard55summitshock.blogspot.com/2008/03/and-what-is-cupboard-55_31.html) as well as a link to “Vanilla Girl” provide by a John O’Sullivan (http://www.blogger.com/profile/01249494027819685623 and http://cupboard55vanillagirl.blogspot.com/). That last Web-page has Leo Bloom saying “ . Then I came past the statue of Britannia that faces inland .. ” (Chapter 1, Para 1). There’s a statue just like that in Gt. Yarmouth, on the East Coast of England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Yarmouth).
Further down the page it says “ .. my new solicitor handed me a three-page document entitled, ‘Crown v Leonard Odysseus Bloom. Formal admissions pursuant to section 10 the Criminal Justice Act 1967: Specimen Charges Under the Telecommunication Act (Amended) 2003.’ .. Please read it carefully, Mr Bloom. I am sure you must now appreciate that securing a conviction against a teacher in a high profile case like this would be significant feathers in the caps of both the police and Crown Prosecution Service .. the crux you should consider is this: shall we say- a sex scandal involving a teacher and a pupil? Every fictional event finds its locus in actuality .. ”.
It is often said that truth is stranger than fiction. While searching for more information about this book I came across a Daily Mirror article about another of those numerous John O’Sullivan’s that there are around the world. It appears that in a criminal trial this particular John O'Sullivan, a supply teacher from Beccles, Suffolk (in the East of England (only about 12 miles west of Gt. Yarmouth) was acquittal on Feb. 27, 2004. The article says QUOTE: .. A TEACHER accused of bombarding a 16-year-old girl with anonymous text messages asking for sex was found not guilty yesterday. Supply teacher John O'Sullivan, 43, had denied three charges of sending offensive messages. It was claimed he set up an internet account in the name of "Sexy hunk" to send the messages.
The girl, who cannot be named, received 36 lewd texts on her mobile in three weeks, some offering money for sex. She texted back asking the sender's name but got no reply. But a girl of 17 told the court she sent them because the 16-year-old, once her friend, had stolen items from her.
Magistrate Gerry Sutton in Lowestoft, Suffolk, told him: "Because of the variance in the evidence we are unable to be ... absolutely sure that you were responsible."
He was also cleared of assaulting the girl after she taped a meeting in a park.
Later Mr O'Sullivan, of Beccles, Suffolk, stood with wife Barbara and said he may sue for malicious prosecution. He said: "I have been without pay for a year, living on the charity of my family. It has been financially and emotionally devastating and I think it is fair that someone should compensate me." .. UNQUOTE (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/SIR+CLEARED+OF+SEX+TXTS.-a0113713467).
That Daily Mirror article tells a story surprisingly like that of Leo Bloom in “Vanilla Girl” by John Daley O’Neal/J O’Sullivan (“ .. A dark horse-not much to tell .. ” - http://cupboard55vanillagirl.blogspot.com/) QUOTE: ..
For the past year I have been suspended from teaching without pay. I have now been forced out of my own home by a vigilante mob looking to lynch a ‘paedophile’ and I have been left with substantial and crippling unpaid debts. .. Even though I am acquitted and found innocent of all charges six months on I am still suspended from teaching .. I am not prepared to give up my fight for justice. Eventually someone will have to compensate me for ruining my life .. Leo Bloom BA Hon PGCE .. ”.
There is just one coincidence after another and I anticipate that because of these many coincidences, including that both you and that other John O’Sullivan were born in 1961 (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/john-o-sullivan/19/6b4/84a) Andrew Skolnick and fellow detractors will try to use that Daily Mirror article, etc. against the “Slayers” and PSI, perhaps claiming that you are that same John O’Sullivan. As I warned the “Slayers” in the PSI & Due Diligence E-mails in Dec./Jan. e.g. 4th, 14th and Jan 20th. QUOTE: .. each if us must be squeaky clean in what we say and do .. what is there about any of us that could seriously undermine PSI’s standing? As I’ve said before, we have to be seen to be squeaky clean. Are we all happy that we can achieve this? .. PSI must be seen to be “squeaky clean”. No matter the degree of truth behind any such challenges, mud not only sticks when thrown but also splashes whatever is next to the target .. UNQUOTE.
There’s another John O’Sullivan, BA (Hons) P.G.C.E. listed as an artist who lived in Carlton Colville, Lowestoft (http://www.misterwhat.co.uk/company/295568-john-osullivan-ba-hons-pgce-lowestoft) but seems to have gone elsewhere. Perhaps he was the one mentioned in the Daily Mirror article, but that won’t deter PSI’s detractors.
Hi Joe (Olson) thanks for another of your carefully considered contributions but your should really provide some evidence to back up your claim that I am a “ .. small, wingless, bloodsucking parasite .. ”. Of course that may simply be another of those unsubstantiated opinions with which you keep plastering the Internet.
Hi Andrew, I hope that I am not too late in asking for a copy of your Columbia University certificate. After all, we can all make wild claims about our achievements when it suits us but you can’t beat hard evidence.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
PS:
I’ve just found that Andrew has already raised the issue of the Beccles John O’Sullivan on Judith Curry’s “Letter to the dragon slayers” thread (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-148855).
John, I think that it would be in the best interests of the “Slayers” and PSI if you could squash that one quickly.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
===============
From: Andrew Skolnick
To: JOHN OSULLIVAN
CC: … etc. etc.
Sent: Fri, 9 Dec 2011 0:41
Subject: Re: Derogatory Claims Against the "Slayers"
Seriously, do any of you believe this shameless liar?
Unlike this humbug, I back up my claims. I'd be happy to mail a request to Columbia University's registrar to send an official certification* to the first 3 people who email me their snail mail address. I'd even have a certified copy sent to the the shameless humbug, if he would ask.
Let's see if John O'Sullivan will ask the University of Surrey registrar to send any of us certification that he attended law school there and earned a degree. Big fat chance. I've been asking the con artist for proof for the past 6 months.
*Academic Certification
An academic certification is an official document provided by the University Registrar verifying dates of attendance, award of degree, and student status (full-time or part-time) by term. It is typically requested for health insurance, visa, employment and credit verification purposes. There is no fee for this service.
O.K., since there's no fee, I'll accept the first 5 to email me their snail mail addresses.
- Andrew
===================
From: JOHN OSULLIVAN
To: peter.ridley@...
CC: .. etc. etc.
Sent: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 23:39
Subject: Re: Derogatory Claims Against the "Slayers"
Peter,
Skolnick’s employers fired him from his journalism job after he was caught making numerous false claims. He's a compulsive liar and I'm delighted that you've pitched in with him. You are two peas from the same pod. Among Skolnick's bogus assertions are that he possesses a master's degree, won two court cases (he didn't) and he laughably was a Pulitzer Prize nominee! I don’t recall you asking for any proof from your buddy to disprove the above.
Nonetheless, Skolnick got his comeuppance after he boasted that his complaint about me to the British Columbia Law Society (including the slurs you list below) was going to expose me as a 'liar.' How wrong he was! Not only did the BCLS dismiss his complaint in it's entirety, butas a consequence of drawing so much attention to himself Skolnick has been comprehensibly exposed as a fraud. The irony is delicious. As to your rambling list of regurgitated slurs below, I won't be dignifying them with a response. You've given it your best shot so now go crawl back under your stone.
Truly,
John
P.S. I'm still waiting for Skolnick to serve me with that libel suit he has repeatedly threatened me with.
www.slayingtheskydragon.com
============
From: houston2000
To: peter.ridley@...; john0sullivan@...; alan618034@...; claesjohnson@...; etc. etc.
Sent: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 22:32
Subject: No way to be Rid of the Ridley FLEA ? ? ?
Hi ALL
i had promised to never again rise to this loons bait....but...since this bait includes his bite....then, add this backstory to the fight....
there is a certain "Andrew Skolnick" listed as associate editor at the Aerican Medical Association Journal....
there is a certain "Andrew Skolnick" who is a constant blogger at Curry's near useless "Climate Etc" blog....
LESS THAN 20% of the MD's in America support the AMA....their publication is constantly accused of being a sock puppet for BIG PHARMA....
if this is the same SKOLNICK serving both roles then it would seem he has misplaced HIS priorites....
he might be advised to address the 80% of MEDICAL DOCTORS who are unhappy with his work....and the multitude of researchers that have opposed JAMA-PHARMA propoganda....
Skolnick should leave THERMODYNAMICS, that he never studied, to the DOCTORS of PHYSICS, CHEMISTRY & ENGINEERING that agree with the Slayers....
those same noted PhD's....disagree with the WITCHDOCTORS of Climatology....
Ridley remains the small, wingless, bloodsucking parasite he will always be....
Joe 0
=============
From: peter.ridley@...
To: john0sullivan@…; alan618034@…; claesjohnson@…; houston2000@…; jdssps1@…; jpostma@…; germanclimateblog@…; nasifnahle@…; hanssch@…; omatumr@…; timothyball@…; PF.SMP@…; ruthhertzberg@…; Charles.R.Anderson@…; ken@…; geraldo@…; Fred@…; piers@…; kent@…; sr2@…; rsowell@…; dalker@…; clifftent@…; askolnick@…
CC: aaprjohn@…; cuibono@…; rtaguchi@…; jonicol18@…; judith.curry@…; gpetty@…
To: john0sullivan@…; alan618034@…; claesjohnson@…; houston2000@…; jdssps1@…; jpostma@…; germanclimateblog@…; nasifnahle@…; hanssch@…; omatumr@…; timothyball@…; PF.SMP@…; ruthhertzberg@…; Charles.R.Anderson@…; ken@…; geraldo@…; Fred@…; piers@…; kent@…; sr2@…; rsowell@…; dalker@…; clifftent@…; askolnick@…
CC: aaprjohn@…; cuibono@…; rtaguchi@…; jonicol18@…; judith.curry@…; gpetty@…
Sent: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 21:54
Subject: Derogatory Claims Against the "Slayers"
Hi John, I see that Andrew Skolnick is still ferreting around for information about your background. He recently send an E-mail with a link to http://www.writers.net/writers/54740 where there is a 2007 entry by QUOTE: .. john Daley O'Neal, lowestoft, United Kingdom .. Age 46, former schoolteacher now full-time writer .. lived in both the UK and USA for many years .. married to an American lawyer and have much experience assisting as a litigant and advocate in both countries. I have collaborated on civil and criminal cases as a researcher and I've profited from the experience in writing my first novel, 'The Secrets of Cupboard 55' a literary crime thriller (see http://blog.myspace.com/mrdarrk). I am open to consider offers on any project and I am currently looking for an agent/publisher .. UNQUOTE. “John Daley O’Neal” even had the cheek to use your Email address and linked to another site where he used your old photograph (http://www.myspace.com/mrdarrk).
I see that you too made reference in 2008 to “ .. the ‘Cupboard 55’ genre .. ” when promoting your book “Summit Shock” (http://cupboard55summitshock.blogspot.com/2008/03/and-what-is-cupboard-5
5_31.html). Isn’t that a coincidence, although I expect that Andrew will claim otherwise. Maybe you should quickly clear up this new uncertainty about your background because I expect that Andrew will be trying to use it in some derogatory way. As I understand it you are/were married to Barbara Jean Bracci, a correction officer, not to an American lawyer, as claimed by “John Daley O’Neal”. Wasn’t “Summit Shock” based upon your wife’s experiences leading to and culminating in her claim (http://www.dhr.state.ny.us/pdf/Court%20Orders/bracci_v_nysdhr.pdf) against the New York State Department of Correctional Services, so it seems that Andrerw has erred in suggesting that you and “John Daley O’Neal” are one and the same.
Andrew has also questioned your legal qualifications and implied that you had QUOTE: .. a “law degree” from Hill University — that bogus, online diploma mill, where anyone can purchase his degree of choice, along with a package of impressive looking academic documents, with “delivery promised in 15 days! .. http://www.hilluniversity.com/Hill/online-degrees/accredited-degree.asp .. He should then explain why O’Sullivan would need to buy a “law degree” from the bogus diploma mill in the beginning of 2010 .. ” (see http://co2insanity.com/2011/11/10/canada-bar-association-rules-%E2%80%98no-misconduct%E2%80%99-by-tim-ball%E2%80%99s-legal-team/ and elsewhere).
That particular “university” proudly states that “ .. The two major accreditations that have been granted to Hill are from the following recognized institutes:
• International Online Education Accrediting Board (IOEAB) Awarded the status of accreditation
• Organization for Online Learning Accreditation (OKOLA) Awarded the status of accreditation .. ” (http://www.hilluniversity.com/Hill/online-degrees/accredited-degree.asp).
Here’s what The Consumers Guide to On-line Colleges has to say QUOTE: .. Consumers Beware - NONE of these accrediting agencies are recognized as college accreditors in the U.S. by the Council on Higher Education Accreditation or the U.S. Department of Education. As such, colleges claiming “accreditation” by these agencies are not accepted as valid providers of online education or degrees and should be approached with great caution if online college credibility is important to you. Remember -- Most diploma mills and degree mills are accredited -- but by fake or phony agencies that the degree mills themselves own and operate! . UNQUOTE
(http://www.geteducated.com/diploma-mills-police/college-degree-mills/204-fake-agencies-for-college-accreditation) then goes on to list about 50, including the two mentioned by Hill “university”.
Andrew also questioned your qualifications on Judith Curry’s “Letter to the Slayers” thread (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comment-140514), saying “ .. The NYCLA is now investigation the credentials O’Sullivan cited in his application. He applied as a “Provisional Member” (no membership fee!). Provisional members are recent law school graduates living or working in NY City who are not yet admitted to the bar. In his latest online bios, he claims he earned his law degree in 1984.
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=64434874&authType=name&authToken=0rq9&locale=en_US&pvs=pp&trk=ppro_viewmore Yet it appears he told NYCLA he graduated in 2010. I’m eager to see the results of NYCLA’s investigation .. ”. I don’t recall hearing anything more from Andrew about this “investigation”. Maybe he had just lost the plot when suggesting that that you had used such a bogus “university” to obtain a Law degree.
You were happy to make public your letter of acceptance to the NYCLA (http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/9557-canada-bar-association-rules-no-misconduct-by-tim-balls-legal-team) so how about also making public your Surrey University and Hill University certificates so that Andrew can be put straight on this further questionable claim of his.
At the same time perhaps you would also clear up the uncertainty about which of your “ .. work features in the 'National Review,’ America's most popular and influential magazine for Republican/conservative news. Among other internationally esteemed publications he has appeared in 'China Daily,' the Number One English portal in China, as well as 'India Times,' the prime source of business news in India .. ”. I recall asking some time ago about this but have had no direct response.
I appreciate how busy you must be, what with defending Dr. Ball and trying to build PSI into an internationally respected scientific association. Despite that, in my opinion it is very important for the “Slayers” and PSI that you shut up Andrew Skolnick and other detractors once and for all by providing the evidence that substantiates your claims, otherwise they will persist in posting their derogatory comments all over the blogosphere. You know full well that investigative jurnalist Andrew is like a bloodhound when he thinks that he is on to a good story and it should only take a few minutes to counter his claims with copies of your certificastes.
You may recall that I warned the “Slayers” about people like Andrew during the PSI & Due Diligence axchanges in Dec./Jan.
BTW, Andrew has just E-mailed me a link to your latest fund-raising efforts
(http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/9657-official-i-just-bet-my-house-on-the-outcome-of-science-trial-of-the-century - also at http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/42475.html and other blogs). Do you really think that this appeal will be any more successful than your gofundme effort (http://www.gofundme.com/1v39s)? – because I don’t. It puzzles me why Dr. Ball “ .. a 72-year-old retiree has already used up his meager life savings .. ” didn’t do the simple thing and apologise to Dr. Mann, as did the Canada Free Press regarding Professor Weaver (http://carbonfixated.com/climatologist-andrew-weaver-sues-tim-ball/).
All of this fuss over the simple throw-away-comment about people “in Penn State” belonging “in State Pen”. What a fuss about nothing.
You may recall that in your Email of 27th May you claimed that “ .. Part of helping Tim defend himself .. has been in raising funds via public donations .. Dr. Ball's supporters have .. donated well over $100,000CAD already in just a few weeks. Thus I'm filled with confidence for the future of PSI when I see such grassroots support for what we envision will be an organization that has high principles in the defense of honest science .. I hope once we have defeated these frivolous lawsuits and won substantial damages for Dr. Ball we will be well placed to resume work on PSI on the back of proven successes here .. ”.
Six months later you are still only talking of “ .. a fighting fund that is now past the $100,000 mark .. ” and “ .. Ball's legal fees could exceed $300,000 .. ”. This is all sounding rather like your gofundme appeal, where you targeted £15,000 and raised only £400.
I asked on 30 Sep “ .. if, as you confidently predict, Dr. Mann loses his claim is Dr. Ball likely to get his costs paid (as well as perhaps getting substantial damages)? If so, what will happen to those funds donated towards the costs of him defending it? Those contributions cannot reasonably be considered as contributions to the PSI start-up fund, can they.
(Dr. Ball, are you prepared to let us know how you would propose to dispose of any surplus donations from that appeal if you recover your costs from Dr. Mann)? .. ”. Again, I don’t recall a direct response ot that question.
I see that in your article that “ .. Donors contributing $10,000 or more will be reimbursed dependent on a favorable court ruling .. ”. In the interests of transparency (so important to PSI) are you prepared to disclose how many of those who donated that $100,000 gave $10,000 or more? I’d be very surprised if many did, but of course I could be mistaken.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
PS:
Hi Roger (Sowell), I take this opportunity to ask if you have now completed your assessment of John’s “Slaying the Sky Dragon” contribution “Legal Fallout from False Climate Alarm” (Chapter 21) along with those Dec./Jan. PSI & Due Diligence E-mails that I made available for you. It would be interestin gto know what your conclusions are.
Hi Piers (Corbyn), you may recall our E-mail exchanges of 10th Nov. about the failure of the “Climate Fools Day” meeting in London to attract any politicians other than Sammy Wilson (who helped set the meeting up in one of the Westminster rooms). I had submitted a comment to your blog including QUOTE: .. The 2010 event included a presentation to you of a $10,000 " .. Award for Scientific Integrity and Competence"
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/oct/25/climate-fools-day-sceptics-parliament which provides a useful description of that PSI extravaganza) but I’ve heard no mention of one this year. Maybe sales of “Slaying the Sky Dragon” were significantly less that expected .. UNQUOTE.
Although you declined to post my comment you did respond and I consequently asked if you'd like to expand on your QUOTE: .. Last year's "$10k" was in fact "$10k of which we are giving $9k to our own things and you can have $1k" .. UNQUOTE. You never did explain this and I wonder if you’d like to do so now.
The award was heralded on numerous Web-sites across the globe, by e.g:
- Scoop Worlds Independent News with QUOTE: .. US publisher, Stairway Press, have chosen the Climate Fools Day gathering in Westminster to make the inaugural presentation of the "Ernst-Georg Beck Award for Scientific Integrity and Competence" (BASIC). Piers Corbyn gets the US$10,000 award for “his untiring efforts both as a climate skeptic and for his outstanding success in long-range weather forecasting” .. UNQUOTE (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO1010/S00355/climate-fools-day.htm).
- Climate Realists with QUOTE: .. John O'Sullivan will inaugurate an annual scientific award: the "Ernst-Georg Beck Award for Scientific Integrity and Competence" (BASIC). .. A cheque for US$10,000.- will be presented to the first recipient of the Award, Mr Piers Corbyn .. The main donor is Ken Coffman .. UNQUOTE (http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6536).
It’s hard to imagine Ken Coffman, John or the other “Slayers” knowingly giving such a false impression to the general public globally so please let us know what you were talking about. After all, it is a bit unusual for an award to be made then the majority of it withheld by trhe donor – and that is the impression that your comment gives.
Hi Andrew, I’ve added you to the circulation because of the claims that you have made against John. When John provides evidence that satisfies you that he and “John Daley O’Neal” are not the same person perhaps you can use your investigative skills to track down the real “John Daley O’Neal”. It would be interesting to know why he chose John’s photo and E-mail address.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
=============
================
From: Joel Shore
To: peter.ridley@talktalk.net
Sent: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 18:15
Subject: RE: John O'Sullivan's specious claims
Peter, Apparently, one can't win with the Slayers. If you come to them from a position of authority, e.g., as someone who has worked in radiative physics, thermodynamics, or statistical mechanics, that doesn't help. And, if you come to them as you did as "an ignorant layman", that just sets you up to be belittled by them for being the only one (besides Vincent Gray) who is saying anything sensible. I think it is hopeless.
Cheers, Joel__
================
From: Alan Siddons ...
To: Dr. Matthias Kleespies ...; peter.ridley@...
CC: hanssch@...; vinmary.gray@...; rsowell@...; claesjohnson@...; houston2000@...; timothyball@...; PF.SMP@...; ruthhertzberg@...; Charles.R.Anderson@...; ken@...; OMATUMR@...; geraldo@...; jerry_oliver@...; Fred@...; piers@...; kent@...; Miso.Alkalaj@...; jpostma@...; sr2@...; etc. etc. etc. .. gpetty@aos.wisc.edu
Sent: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 15:41
Subject: Re: John O'Sullivan's specious claims
Goodness, I thought that this thread had died and wasn’t coming back. Some of this relates to a conversation I had with Vincent Gray a while ago about the implications of Kirchhoff’s findings. You know the rule: a good absorber of a wavelength will also be a good emitter. But this doesn’t imply simultaneity. If our eyes are emitting thermal infrared (which they do) they will be unable to absorb it. As an example I cited pit vipers, whose body temperature is below that of the prey they’re seeking. Pit vipers ARE able to perceive the relevant IR due to this difference. Similarly, IR satellites are equipped with cryogenic coolants in order to detect the cold emissions of their targets. Vincent’s belief, on the other hand, is that absorption occurs irrespective of temperature. Along the same lines, though, I would say that since our eyes are way too cold to radiate short wavelengths, this allows them to absorb light from TVs and stars. In other words, this light does impart some energy. Nerve excitation and thus perception wouldn’t occur otherwise.
Alan
=================
From: houston2000
To: peter.ridley@...; hanssch@...; john0sullivan@...; alan618034@e...;
CC: Phillip Foster
Sent: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 14:05
Subject: Peter Ridley's specious claims....and moments of honesty....
Peter
since you readily admit to being an ignorant layman why don't you practice normal protocall and SHUT THE HELL UP....God gave us two eyes, two ears and ONE mouth for a reason....
so we could spend twice as much time learning and half as much time burdening others with our ignroance....EVERY member of this CC list has spent decades STUDING science....
your ignorant behavior is a real nuience to everyone on the planet...you are an embarrassment, but i will spare the wider CC list from inbox litter stating the obvious....
GO FIND ANOTHER HOBBY SITE...AND ANOTHER GROUP OF TUTORS...
Joe 0
================
From: Hans Schreuder ...
To: Vincent Gray ...; Roger Sowell...; peter.ridley@...
CC: claesjohnson@...; houston2000@...; timothyball@...; PF.SMP@...; ruthhertzberg@...; alan618034@...; Charles.R.Anderson@...; ken@...; OMATUMR@...; geraldo@...; jerry_oliver@...; Fred@...; piers@...; kent@...; Miso.Alkalaj@...; jpostma@...; sr2@...; etc. etc. etc. .. gpetty@aos.wisc.edu
Sent: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 13:12
Subject: Re: John O'Sullivan's specious claims
Dear Vincent,
There has not been any comments about your TV statement, so let me say something about it.
The cool TV emits visible light that our eyes can perceive, it has nil to do with the transmission of thermal radiation.
It has thus nil to do with a cooler object making a less cool object warmer.
It has thus also nil to do with the temperature of our eyes being higher than the TV screen.
I can see the moon even when the sun is not shining on it; the surface temperature at that stage is well below zero C, yet my warm eyes can see it - visible light is not thermal radiation Vincent.
Hint: can you see an ice-cube when you take it from the freezer?
Just like with the refrigerator some time ago, you appear to have little understanding of the world around us.
Such a pity you regard "them" with such low esteem when you prove time and time again not to grasp the first inkling about the movement of energy.
Cheers, Hans
One of "them".
===================
From: Grant W. Petty
To: Joseph Postma
CC: 'ClaesJohnson'
Sent: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 5:01
Subject: My final message to the Slayers
Joe Postma wrote: “In a large way, we are driven to do the research we do because of the myriad and countless other fraudulent claims, presumptions, and sophistries related to climate science. It has become apparent to us that the errors extend to the deepest level of the science.”
To all Slayers:
As one who has no direct professional stake in the science of climate change but who regularly observes my colleagues working hard and sharing ideas to understand real data and to add pieces to the jigsaw puzzle, I am quite confident that you vastly overestimate the role of fraudulent claims and fundamental errors in the science. The nature of real modern science is that fraudulent claims don't go undetected long, because too many people are working on pieces of the same giant jigsaw puzzle, and when pieces don't fit, they look around for the reason. And no one has any incentive to let others get away with bad science - on the contrary, science is very competitive when it comes to getting funding. Do you realize that only a fraction of submitted proposals get funded, and that academic scientists' promotion and tenure depend on their getting funded? Everyone's goal is to show that they can find and patch shortcomings in the science and to answer the unanswered questions so as to improve their own standing. Do you really thing it's some old-boys' club, everyone covering each other's rear? And do you really think climate scientists get rich promoting global warming? Any moderately successful doctor or lawyer makes way more money than most climate scientists, at least in this country.
The models aren't perfect; no one says that they are. But they're a damned sight more grounded in real science and physics than the naive but cocky "proofs" published in blogs by the self-taught, and the blanket unfounded assertions ("there is no two-way exchange of radiation because we say there isn't") that somehow passes for science in this group.
In each of your cases, I predict that one of two things is going to happen down the road: (1) the gaps and contradictions in your own collective understanding of physical and climate science will become so evident that you can no longer ignore them, and you just might even feel a little shame at your roles in aggressively promoting misinformation and distrust of experts among those who aren't equipped to tell science from pseuodoscience; or (2) you will close your eyes to that evidence forever and continue to be the conspiracy theorists who believe that you're modern-day Galileos fighting the evil scientific establishment, and everything you see and hear will be forced to fit into that paranoid world-view no matter how divorced from reality it is. And in your missionary zeal, you'll drag real scientists into court and try to prove that they're frauds and liars, costing them and their families time, money, and personal distress. And in the end, you'll succeed in proving that only in your own eyes, because most or all of them are actually just trying to do good science. And you will continue to let yourself be used, and perhaps financed, by those who do have a major vested interest in sowing doubt about climate change, just like doubt was intentionally fostered concerning the science of cigarettes and asbestos causing cancer and of CFCs destroying ozone.
Some of you have shown yourselves to be hyper-critical, even gleeful, in finding apparent fault with the intelligence and/or knowledge of others, including (or especially) those who actually spend their whole lives doing climate research. I hope to God that some of you, at least, learn how to be a little self-critical as well.
Good luck.
Grant
=================
From: Joseph Postma
To: 'Grant W. Petty'
CC: 'ClaesJohnson'
Sent: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 2:20
Subject: RE: John O'Sullivan's specious claims
QUOTE: Petty: " It is anything but a side-distraction. It goes to your fundamental trustworthiness on even basic questions related to radiative transfer.
I claim that if your understanding of radiative balance in a glass box is found to be fundamentally faulty despite the confidence and persistence with which you have been defending your non-mainstream ideas, then your non-mainstream analyses of the much more complex role of radiation in climate are even more worthless, at least as compared to the opinions of those who do understand a glass box. And if that's the case, we need not even waste our time arguing about the role of "back radiation" in climate.
That's what's at stake with the glass box." UNQUOTE
Well, I can understand that this is a desired position for you to take.
Indeed, if there WERE other experimental evidence for the GHE that we have not already shown to be incorrect, then we would have to deal with that. As it stands, there is no new evidence, and the evidence which has been presented, we have defeated. In our opinion of course. You of course have your own.
QUOTE: Petty: " you have gone way, way out on a limb with your credibility (and so have others here, including John O., Alan, Claes, and others)" UNQUOTE
This is certainly not news to us! I have been involved with the Slayers for over half a year now, and am well aware of the differences we have compared to supposed "mainstream" theory. We think the main-stream is wrong, and this obviously puts us where we are. Most of my work is a distillation of previous work from the "Slayers".
QUOTE: Petty: " You have all made equally bold unequivocal contentions about the validity of mainstream understanding of radiation and climate, which is a vastly more subtle and complex topic than a glass box, do you agree?" UNQUOTE
Yes, it is more complex. This is only a minor reason for why teaching the greenhouse as a glass-box model is fraudulent. The logic is inherently tautologous. And it becomes unnecessary, in point of fact, when you use the instantaneous heat input from the Sun in a proper heat-flow equation, rather than these diluted average values which don't actually physically correspond to what the system responds to in real-time anyway. We will still have this latter fact and independent area of research to explore even if the glass-box GHE is proven to work....as I have basically mentioned previously.
In a large way, we are driven to do the research we do because of the myriad and countless other fraudulent claims, presumptions, and sophistries related to climate science. It has become apparent to us that the errors extend to the deepest level of the science.
Best,
JP
=============
From: Grant W. Petty
To: Joseph Postma
CC: 'JOHN OSULLIVAN'
Sent: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 5:20
Subject: RE: John O'Sullivan's specious claims
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011, Joseph Postma wrote:
" .. Petty: " In particular, it will clearly demonstrate the existence of a GHE in the sense that the interior sphere will be markedly warmer than it would be with the shell removed. ... So the "standard model", if tested in the above laboratory experiment, would be very useful indeed to differentiate between those who have a correct grasp of the role of "back radiation" in thermal equilibrium and those who don't. Do you agree?"
I have an entire section in my paper devoted to describing just how such an experiment could be performed. It's entirely appropriate that you bring it up. According the standard theory, passive reflection or trapping of LWIR should be able to make a glass-box MUCH hotter than the solar insolation upon it. But we don't think it would...the premise is a basic violation of the laws of thermodynamics and heat flow .. "
Okay, let's focus on the above point. I claim that if any single ONE of your lynchpin claims is demonstrably false, then that casts serious doubt on the overall reliability of your claims. Do you agree to the challenge?
If so, state concisely, unambiguously, and using the simplest possible physical scenario what, exactly, would violate the laws of thermodynamics in the case of a glass-box. Start with your exact assumptions and your exact conclusion, and exact the manner in which you claim that it violates thermodynamics.
I will defer replying to anything else you wrote below, because I believe the above point may be sufficient to bring clarity.
The validity of your demonstration depends on there being no wiggle room in the event that I find fault with it.
I know you said you have a section about it, but I don't have your paper here to look for it, and I want you to choose your words carefully anyway, since much rides on it.
Grant
===============
From: Grant W. Petty [mailto:gpetty@...]
Sent: October-13-11 5:00 PM
To: Joseph E Postma
Cc: 'ClaesJohnson'; john0sullivan@btinternet.com[ etc. etc.
Subject: Re: {Spam?} RE: John O'Sullivan's specious claims
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011, Joseph E Postma wrote:
" .. Petty: " Do you agree that if -- God forbid -- it turned out that you're actually wrong about something as fundamental as the nature of radiative energy exchanges between objects, then we shouldn't trust your other inferences about atmospheric radiation either? Including your 45-page document?"
As I have said, I would not agree to all of that. Although I can certainly understand it would be used as such with or without my consent. There are other really important problems discussed in the paper; this glass-box experiment is becoming a side-distraction, and I surely would not want it to harm the rest of what I discussed in the paper, because a lot of it stands on its own .. "
It is anything but a side-distraction. It goes to your fundamental trustworthiness on even basic questions related to radiative transfer.
Your contentions about the meaning of the SB Law, the directionality of radiative transfer (i.e., one-way vs. two-way) and the nature of thermodynamic equilibrium with a radiative source, etc., are so wildly at odds with mainstream understanding of these things -- and not just in climate science but in physics and engineering as well -- that you have gone way, way out on a limb with your credibility (and so have others here, including John O., Alan, Claes, and others).
You have all made equally bold unequivocal contentions about the validity of mainstream understanding of radiation and climate, which is a vastly more subtle and complex topic than a glass box, do you agree?
I claim that if your understanding of radiative balance in a glass box is found to be fundamentally faulty despite the confidence and persistence with which you have been defending your non-mainstream ideas, then your non-mainstream analyses of the much more complex role of radiation in climate are even more worthless, at least as compared to the opinions of those who do understand a glass box. And if that's the case, we need not even waste our time arguing about the role of "back radiation" in climate.
That's what's at stake with the glass box.
Grant
==========
From: Joseph Postma
To: 'Grant W. Petty'
CC: 'JOHN OSULLIVAN'
Sent: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 3:26
Subject: RE: John O'Sullivan's specious claims
Yes I did take a little liberty with "has no basis in reality". You basically said the model was meaningless:
Petty: " the "standard model" has [NO] validity AT ALL as a REAL model of the GHE"
That's what you said.
It is also what I said in my paper. But I go further and explain that a back-radiative GHE doesn't exist in Earth's atmosphere in any case.
Petty: " In particular, it will clearly demonstrate the existence of a GHE in the sense that the interior sphere will be markedly warmer than it would be with the shell removed. ... So the "standard model", if tested in the above laboratory experiment, would be very useful indeed to differentiate between those who have a correct grasp of the role of "back radiation" in thermal equilibrium and those who don't. Do you agree?"
I have an entire section in my paper devoted to describing just how such an experiment could be performed. It's entirely appropriate that you bring it up. According the standard theory, passive reflection or trapping of LWIR should be able to make a glass-box MUCH hotter than the solar insolation upon it. But we don't think it would...the premise is a basic violation of the laws of thermodynamics and heat flow.
I invited people to perform the experiment to prove the outcome either way. After reading that section, however, many GHE proponents started trying to tell us that the greenhouse effect IS the adiabatic lapse rate, and that therefore the experiment you (and I) proposed is meaningless because you need a deep atmosphere. Obviously this is sophist back-peddling: the adiabatic and environmental lapse rate is specifically NOT created due to a GHE.
Additionally, even if such an experiment DID show such an effect, that doesn't mean that that's what's happens with Earth's atmosphere, since the atmosphere makes the ground surface COOLER when under solar insolation anyway! This is the exact opposite of the effect we'd be experimentally looking for to support the GHE. That's quite the conundrum.
So, we hold that the warm sunlight heats the cooler ground, and the ground heats the cooler atmosphere, QED. There's no need for reverse-heating where a cold atmosphere makes an already warmer ground warmer still. The warmth comes from sunlight in the first and only place. With a proper heat-flow equation using instantaneous inputs of the solar flux, there's no indication of a quantitative or even subjective violation of thermodynamics, where a cold object needs to increase the temperature of a warmer object. Why would anyone every premise such a thing? It is incorrect, and I explain how the error arose in the first place, in my paper, which is the error of diluting sunlight from its ACTUAL value, to some fictional cold value.
Best,
JP
==============
From: Grant W. Petty
To: Joseph Postma
CC: 'JOHN OSULLIVAN'
Sent: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 2:52
Subject: RE: John O'Sullivan's specious claims
Quick point, since I have a life.
" .. DID end up debunking it, or at least strongly disagreed with its value, when you said that the model has no basis in reality .. "
No, I did NOT say it "has no basis in reality". I only said that it cannot be taken as a QUANTITATIVE model of the earth-atmosphere system, only as a demonstration of the existence of a radiative greenhouse effect.
Here is the basis in reality:
Take a black- or gray-painted metal sphere and enclose it inside a thin spherical, non-airtight glass shell that is slightly larger than the sphere. Then suspend the assembly in a vacuum in which there is no externally incident longwave flux (this is hard to achieve on Earth, but can be approximated in a cryogenically cooled chamber. Illuminate the sphere and shell with an external source of SW radiation. Rotate the sphere at a reasonable rate.
Alternatively, you could take this assembly up to the International Space Station and send it out into free space, with a transmitter sending temperature information back (unless you want to try to retrieve it).
I claim that what you call the "standard model" will then describe quite well the steady state temperature of both the interior sphere and the exterior glass shell. In particular, it will clearly demonstrate the existence of a GHE in the sense that the interior sphere will be markedly warmer than it would be with the shell removed.
You and John O. must necessarily disagree with this claim because of your repeated disavowals of the existence of "back radiation".
So the "standard model", if tested in the above laboratory experiment, would be very useful indeed to differentiate between those who have a correct grasp of the role of "back radiation" in thermal equilibrium and those who don't.
Do you agree?
GP
=============
From: Joseph Postma
To: 'Grant W. Petty'
CC: 'JOHN OSULLIVAN'
Sent: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 2:18
Subject: RE: John O'Sullivan's specious claims
Hi Petty (sorry for getting your name wrong earlier)
Oh I see, right. It is a typo in the diagram, but the math still works out exactly the same way as the Harvard Model derived it. I will fix the diagram so that it is exactly like the Harvard Model, thanks. Obviously, the point of the math being inherently specious is still, well, obvious. If your position, now, is that you agree with the math and what it is supposed to demonstrate, that's fine.
Petty: "1) I didn't "debunk" the "Harvard model" or the "standard model", because the error I referred to isn't actually IN that model. I don't know whether it appears in any of the other 60 examples cited, and I don't really
care whether it does or doesn't."
This particular error isn't germane to the fundamental paradigmatic, flat-earth science problem of the GHE in any case. My paper needs to be digested in its entirety and with reference to the philosophy of science and cognition to get just what that paradigmatic problem is - although, certainly, this eludes many people. Which is why I wrote this follow up to help make it more clear:
http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Copernicus_Meets_the_Greenhouse_Effect.pdf
Petty: "2) You and John were celebrating your victory just a little too early and a little too enthusiastically."
We were eager to count you as an ally in the fraud of such models showing the GHE. You were fortunate to have corrected your position via a minor typo in reproducing a diagram. Although you do still agree that such models have no basis in reality:
Petty: " First, NO ONE CREDIBLE claims that the "standard model" (as you call it) has ANY validity AT ALL as a REAL model of the GHE anyway"
Petty: "it ONLY gives a qualitative indication of how a GHE can EXIST "
It has no basis in reality, yet it shows something the paradigm claims to exist is reality. This is a good demonstration of the bad logic of the GHE paradigm.
Petty: " On page 9, you start to make an issue of the day-night difference as if that were relevant to the overall validity of the "standard model"."
It is very relevant in a heat-flow scenario to acknowledge that the source of heat is of very high temperature, rather than some fictionally diluted value which pretends that the sun is cold.
Petty: " The 2-layer (surface and atmosphere) model would have to be replaced with an N-layer (surface and multiple atmospheric layers) in order to even begin to account for variable temperature in the vertical, and even
then it would fail as a real model for reasons I won't get into."
We agree. "Even then it would fail as a real model".
Petty: " To harp on the "standard model" as anything but a conceptual teaching tool is to focus on exactly the wrong thing if you want to credibly debunk the claims of climate scientists."
To use something which, to quote you, has no basis in reality whatsoever, for teaching, is unique in any science I am familiar with. A first-order approximation to a heat-flow scenario would be acceptable, but such wouldn't produce a GHE. It is exactly -one of- the correct things to focus on in exposing the flawed logic of the GHE.
Petty: " Second, the day-night difference is a red herring anyway, because thermal inertia smooths out the diurnal cycle in temperature. The temperature of the troposphere changes rather little between day and night, and the temperature at the surface only changes strongly (i.e., more than 10 or so degrees) over bare ground under clear skies. Even in the desert, the temperature of the surface doesn't drop to absolute zero overnight. If you view an infrared satellite image of the Earth, it's hard to tell whether you're looking at the daytime side or the night-time side, precisely because of strong thermal inertia in the system that smooths out variations in the
radiation budget between day and night."
Thermal "inertia" has no meaning outside the fraud of climate science and the GHE. Thermal capacity and thermal resistance would be better. I do discuss the scenarios of desert night-time cooling in my paper. It agrees with what you said here.
Petty: " As you yourself correctly explain on page 7 (and as every climate scientist worthy of the name KNOWS), the "effective emitting temperature" of the Earth as seen from space, and as required to balance absorbed solar radiation, is NOT an instantaneous temperature at the surface but rather represents a weighted average over the entire system -- vertically, horizontally, and IN TIME, including day-night differences.
Nobody in their right mind would claim that emission to space balances absorption of sunlight at any point in space and/or time -- only that it does so when averaged over the globe and over longish periods of time."
That is wonderful, then. It would be good, therefore, for proponents of the GHE to stop saying that "the earth is warmer than it should be". As you point out, the Earth is exactly the temperature it should be. And further, the ground-surface temperature is easily described by a proper heat-flow equation and the natural environmental gradient the atmosphere produces without a GHE.
Petty: " On p. 12 you apply your (15) to Venus and cry "victory" when you show that it yields an unphysical result, and you go on to belabor this point over several pages. Well, duh. Venus has a very, very deep and very, very opaque atmosphere. It would be beyond naive to think that that atmosphere can be approximated in ANY model, toy or otherwise, as a single isothermal layer."
Well, thank for you "well duh" agreement on that point. This should be extended to the Earth, as well.
Petty: " 1) The "standard" (two-layer) model isn't represented by any credible scientists as having quantitative validity for the real atmosphere on Earth. It is ONLY used to ILLUSTRATE (e.g., for teaching purposes) the CONCEPTUAL basis of a GHE in the sense that it predicts a significantly warmer surface temperature in the presence of a highly simplified "atmosphere" (actually, more like a thin, gray shell) than would be observed without one. To attribute greater significance to it is either disingenuous or naive. And to say that one cannot resort to simple models to justify an idea is pedagogically inflexible."
But you yourself pointed out that the model you use to teach the GHE is a complete fabrication with no basis in reality whatsoever. That represents a PROFOUND pedagogical problem. It would be the only time in all of science training where an absurdity is used to teach what only such an absurdity is able to produce. That isn't science. It is sophistry.
I do agree that such a model demonstrates what you claim it to. I do not agree that just because you can create such a model, or make it more complex using more advanced radiative-transfer schemes, means that it necessarily has any basis in reality.
Petty: "2) The same model, already a crude simplification in the first place, breaks down for completely obvious reasons for an atmosphere like that of Venus."
As it does for the Earth.
Petty: "To try to make hay with this is again either disingenuous or extremely naive. Right now, I'm leaning toward disingenuous, since you seem like a very smart guy with a very big chip on your shoulder."
I think the paradigm it sets, and represents, is flawed. That such a "baseless in reality" model is ALLOWED to be taught by proponents of the GHE is very confusing. I think it is because they don't know just how deeply
flawed it is. It is THEIR red-herring. Why did they create it? Did they not know? Many don't seem to! Why would they hurt themselves by teaching a concept/model that has no basis in reality whatsoever, as you point out?
There is a profound problem there. I do not get the impression they know.
Ah yes, "the chip": Internet generation where manners online don't matter, which is really lame, so I apologize. On the other hand, it's not like I am not immediately confronted with innuendo and bashing by "believers" who
confront me on the paper - and that is usually what it is, a confrontation.
I really would like to curse a lot more than I do, LOL. But again, excuses.
The standard of science is higher than that.
Petty: "In short, you've set up a ridiculous straw man which then you proceed to knock down easily enough, and then you proceed to gnaw on it angrily for several pages, long beyond the point where any climate or atmospheric scientist is wondering why you think they're such idiots."
It is NOT my straw man. It is theirs. Why did they create it and then push it as meaning anything when it has no basis in reality whatsoever... THEY have set up the ridiculous straw man. I pointed that out...and you agreed.
Why do that to themselves?
Petty: "3) Day-night differences are largely irrelevant to any GLOBAL, LONG-TERM assessment of the radiation budget of the Earth system."
Oh but they're extremely important for determining the input forcing to the system! The long-term average approach makes people believe that sunshine is cold, and that a cold atmosphere can radiatively heat a warmer ground.
If you use the real-time values in a heat-flow equation, you immediately see that the temperature on the surface, and thence in the atmosphere which absorbs that heat from the surface, is generated directly by sunlight in real-time. You don't even have room anymore for a GHE back-heating effect because the problem actually becomes one of answering why the atmosphere is so efficient at keeping the ground cool in the day time! Not warmer.
Obviously, the system just cools at night.
Petty: "So far, I've gotten to p. 14. I now look forward very much to reading how mainstream scientists have somehow forgotten that emission is in all directions rather than strictly up and down, and therefore how dumb we are, notwithstanding the fact that whenever we say "upward flux" and "downward flux", we always MEAN "cosine-weighted integrals of the COMPLETE radiance fields over the respective (angular) hemispheres". Duh!"
Yes you're probably correct. It was one of the weaker points. I should edit that section for the new Slayer book when it comes out, to be more clear as to what I was referring to.
Petty: "Maybe by the time I've posted my next installment, you and John O'Sullivan will have finished your reverse-engineering of the LBLRTM line-by-line model in search of carefully hidden Stefan-Boltzmann relationships. "
Just because it is a model doesn't mean it is correct. If it has any form of back-radiative heating from a cold atmosphere to a warm ground, which they do, it is incorrect. The whole static long-term averaging approach is flawed. The system is inherently dynamic and only such a dynamic model, without inputting back-radiative heating inserted into the model a-priori, is going to mean anything. Start from there and then we'd see if we FIND need for back-radiative heating. But we won't, because heat-flow from solar input already explains it all.
Petty: "I wonder whether you'll find the atmosphere treated as a single isothermal layer with a graybody emissivity over the entire LW spectrum? And the Earth as a flat plate with no day or night?"
I'd really like to see what values they use for the solar insolation, and if they're using diurnally averaged values or instantaneous values. If they are doing such (using instantaneous values), then whatever that model does inside has nothing at all to do with the GHE as it is taught with these teaching models which "have no basis in reality".
Petty: "Here's one you can download and run yourself: http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/cesm1.0/"
To quote from the website: The Community Earth System Model (CESM) is a fully-coupled, global climate model that provides state-of-the-art computer simulations of the Earth's past, present, and future climate states.
Who knows what debauchery happens inside that model. But from the description it sure doesn’t sound like it uses real-time values of the parameters.
Petty: ""Incapable" is a strong word."
Yah, it is just so easy to send out the innuendo and insults. My bad.
Petty: "Great! Publish away. With the minor clarification that it was YOUR diagram I debunked, not Harvard's."
That's an unimportant equivocation over a typo. It is the math which is represented by the diagram and as you pointed out it worked out the same way in the end anyway. It is Harvard's math, and diagram, not mine. And you DID end up debunking it, or at least strongly disagreed with its value, when you said that the model has no basis in reality.
Best,
JP
============
From: Grant W. Petty
To: Joseph E Postma
CC: 'JOHN OSULLIVAN'
Sent: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 0:44
Subject: RE: John O'Sullivan's specious claims
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011, Joseph E Postma wrote:
“ .. You can justify illiteracy all you want Perry. It's still an inability to comprehend what's read. If you have a problem with what's presented on page 6, take it up with Harvard's Atmospheric Modelling Group. It is a very simple concept: I present a standard model greenhouse used in various textbooks (with variations of course but they all have the same basic premises...quibbling over the terms in the diagram misses the point) and show what's wrong with it. That is PRECISELY what you just did too, so thank you so much for supporting our work .. ”
Joe,
I appreciate your gratitude (and John's too), and I'm sorry to give you cause to retract it so soon.
As you'll recall, I said that I found an error in the model presented on your page 6. You and John immediately seized on that as evidence that I agreed that the "Harvard Model" is wrong, and you were prepared to send a press release to the NY Times (or someone) reveling in the irony (and in my inevitable humiliation) that an atmospheric scientist "debunked the "Harvard Model" and also "his own position" (whatever that "position" is).
So I went and finally looked at your document listing ~60 references to the simple greenhouse model. And lo and behold, Harvard's is on page one.
And here's the real irony: The error I said I found IS NOT PRESENT IN THAT VERSION -- but IT'S PRESENT IN YOUR FIGURE 1.
The Harvard version correctly multiplies the SB emission by the atmospheric layer by the effective emissivity f, as required for self-consistency with respect to the fraction absorbed of surface emission.
So much for my supporting your critique of the "standard model", at least in this particular way (but stay tuned, because I'll be back on your side .. sort of, in a moment).
The good news for you is that when you add the f to the appropriate places in your equations (11) and (12), it cancels out again in your derivation of (14), so the latter remains correct, and the derived surface temperature isn't affected. It WOULD affect the equilibrium T_A, but that's not relevant to your discussion. Whew!
So let's agree for now that:
1) I didn't "debunk" the "Harvard model" or the "standard model", because the error I referred to isn't actually IN that model. I don't know whether it appears in any of the other 60 examples cited, and I don't really care whether it does or doesn'
2) You and John were celebrating your victory just a little too early and a little too enthusiastically.
----
As for the rest of your paper, I've read just a few pages further, and here are some preliminary comments:
On page 9, you start to make an issue of the day-night difference as if that were relevant to the overall validity of the "standard model".
First, NO ONE CREDIBLE claims that the "standard model" (as you call it) has ANY validity AT ALL as a REAL model of the GHE anyway -- it ONLY gives a qualitative indication of how a GHE can EXIST. It CANNOT be a valid model for the real atmosphere because the real atmosphere is not isothermal (and you recognize this, to your credit). The atmosphere "looks" colder with respect to radiation to space than it does with respect to radiation downward toward the Earth. The 2-layer (surface and atmosphere) model would have to be replaced with an N-layer (surface and multiple atmospheric layers) in order to even begin to account for variable temperature in the vertical, and even then it would fail as a real model for reasons I won't get into.
To harp on the "standard model" as anything but a conceptual teaching tool is to focus on exactly the wrong thing if you want to credibly debunk the claims of climate scientists.
Second, the day-night difference is a red herring anyway, because thermal inertia smooths out the diurnal cycle in temperature. The temperature of the troposphere changes rather little between day and night, and the temperature at the surface only changes strongly (i.e., more than 10 or so degrees) over bare ground under clear skies. Even in the desert, the temperature of the surface doesn't drop to absolute zero overnight. If you view an infrared satellite image of the Earth, it's hard to tell whether you're looking at the daytime side or the night-time side, precisely because of strong thermal inertia in the system that smooths out variations in the radiation budget between day and night.
As you yourself correctly explain on page 7 (and as every climate scientist worthy of the name KNOWS), the "effective emitting temperature" of the Earth as seen from space, and as required to balance absorbed solar radiation, is NOT an instantaneous temperature at the surface but rather represents a weighted average over the entire system -- vertically, horizontally, and IN TIME, including day-night differences.
Nobody in their right mind would claim that emission to space balances absorption of sunlight at any point in space and/or time -- only that it does so when averaged over the globe and over longish periods of time.
On p. 12 you apply your (15) to Venus and cry "victory" when you show that it yields an unphysical result, and you go on to belabor this point over several pages. Well, duh. Venus has a very, very deep and very, very opaque atmosphere. It would be beyond naive to think that that atmosphere can be approximated in ANY model, toy or otherwise, as a single isothermal layer.
To summarize my points so far:
1) The "standard" (two-layer) model isn't represented by any credible scientists as having quantitative validity for the real atmosphere on Earth. It is ONLY used to ILLUSTRATE (e.g., for teaching purposes) the CONCEPTUAL basis of a GHE in the sense that it predicts a significantly warmer surface temperature in the presence of a highly simplified "atmosphere" (actually, more like a thin, gray shell) than would be observed without one. To attribute greater significance to it is either disingenuous or naive. And to say that one cannot resort to simple models to justify an idea is pedagogically inflexible.
2) The same model, already a crude simplification in the first place, breaks down for completely obvious reasons for an atmosphere like that of Venus. To try to make hay with this is again either disingenuous or extremely naive. Right now, I'm leaning toward disingenuous, since you seem like a very smart guy with a very big chip on your shoulder.
In short, you've set up a ridiculous straw man which then you proceed to knock down easily enough, and then you proceed to gnaw on it angrily for several pages, long beyond the point where any climate or atmospheric scientist is wondering why you think they're such idiots.
3) Day-night differences are largely irrelevant to any GLOBAL, LONG-TERM assessment of the radiation budget of the Earth system.
So far, I've gotten to p. 14. I now look forward very much to reading how mainstream scientists have somehow forgotten that emission is in all directions rather than strictly up and down, and therefore how dumb we are, notwithstanding the fact that whenever we say "upward flux" and "downward flux", we always MEAN "cosine-weighted integrals of the COMPLETE radiance fields over the respective (angular) hemispheres". Duh!
Maybe by the time I've posted my next installment, you and John O'Sullivan will have finished your reverse-engineering of the LBLRTM line-by-line model in search of carefully hidden Stefan-Boltzmann relationships. By the way, here's a better link than the one I sent before; you can browse the LBLRTM source directly: http://irina.eas.gatech.edu/Lab_5560/lblrtm/index.html
In fact, as soon as you're done with that, why don't you go ahead and apply your immeasurable clarity of thought and physical insight to a debunking a REAL climate model? Here's one you can download and run yourself: http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/cesm1.0/ Say, I wonder whether you'll find the atmosphere treated as a single isothermal layer with a graybody emissivity over the entire LW spectrum? And the Earth as a flat plate with no day or night?
I look forward to reading your PSI papers on both of the above.
“ .. Why don't you send me YOUR two-parallel plane model of the atmospheric GHE; I'll let you know what?s wrong with it too, at a fundamental paradigmatic level .. ”
I'd rather you debunk a real climate model.
“ .. It is very telling, that the only real criticisms I've had on that paper arise out of people's inability to comprehend what they're reading, or to read at all .. ”
So you're saying the 'f' is really in your figure and I just can't see it?
“ .. As you admit, you are incapable of reading more than a few pages, and incapable of understanding what was even presented, and the reason for it, in those few pages, when it was clearly presented .. ”
"Incapable" is a strong word.
“ .. I specifically did not call the Harvard model I presented an "authoritative" model, I called it a standard model. So you're misrepresenting and not comprehending what was actually written down .. ”
My apologies for confusing "standard" with "authoritative". I should really fact-check every word I write before hitting 'send'.
“ .. All that is of course understandable because it is very emotionally distressing to be told by an outsider that Sunshine is warm and the Earth is round, and that accounting for that makes a difference .. ”
Yes, my emotional distress is palpable.
“ .. Of course, you are more than welcome to ring up Harvard University and let them know that their Atmospheric Modelling Group is not authoritative, and uses toy models for teaching and setting the modelling paradigm, which has no basis in reality .. ”
I think they already know what its limitations are. And at least they got the 'f' in the right places.
“ .. I say we compile all the responses to my paper similar to Perry's, which point out exactly this, completely missing the point that they've just agreed with the premise of my paper. I mean it's just so delicious .. ”
Yes it is, isn't it?
“ .. Really, thanks for the support. We WILL publish it Perry. You, to quote: "glanced at an incorrect cartoon diagram in a [climate modelling textbook from Harvard University and] debunked "Harvard's" climate model". - I've corrected your quote for your incomprehension of what you actually said .. ”
Great! Publish away. With the minor clarification that it was YOUR diagram I debunked, not Harvard's.
GP
===========
From: peter.ridley@...
To: claesjohnson@...; houston2000@...; timothyball@...; hanssch@...; PF.SMP@...; ruthhertzberg@...; alan618034@...; Charles.R.Anderson@...; ken@...; OMATUMR@...; geraldo@...; Fred@...; piers@...; kent@...; jpostma@...; sr2@...; rtaguchi@...; aaprjohn@...; cuibono@...; jonicol18@...; judith.curry@...; rsowell@...; clifftent@...; germanclimateblog@...; dalker@...; houston2000@...; jdssps1@...; john0sullivan@...; gpetty@...
Sent: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 21:31
Subject: “PSI & Politics”
Attachment: PSI and Due Diligence E_mails from 2010_12_30
Wow, that was a flurry of E-mails about CACC science. It’s making my head spin trying to keep up and I need a break from it. Now that the real scientists look as though they are withdrawning their participation in these exchanges perhaps we can return to the other equally important side of the debate, “PSI & Politics”.
But first, Professor Petty, you said on 11th Oct. about debate over feedback effects that “ .. This, in my opinion, would be a much less exasperating fight to be fighting, because at least the fight wouldn't be over whether the atmospheric radiative transfer equation is correct. .. ”. I can understand your frustration but if it helps at all then at least some of us have benefited from the exchanges about radiative exchanges and I now recognise that my original understanding (as a layman) wasn’t far off. Your input (as an real “expert”) is very much appreciated. I hope that you won’t let the nonsense from some here put you off making the time to enlighten those of us who wish to learn. There’s always the other thread. I am not the only one involved in these exchanges who fully appreciates the effort you are making. As for your reaction to Derek, well, some people are capable of making a saint swear.
In your E-mail today at 14:50 you asked of John O’S “ .. what IS your real objective? Science? Or humiliating your adversaries? The more I learn about you, the more I conclude that science has little to do with it .. ”. Perhaps scrutiny of the “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mails might provide an answer to that question so I’ll come back to that.
As for Alan Siddons’s rant about “Full quote, speaking to Claes: .. ” and other recent comments, he presents as clear a message as I found in several of his numerous chapters in “Slaying the Sky Dragon”. It reminds me of one of his comments during the “PSI & Due Diligence” exchanges in Dec/Jan when he said on Jan 04 2011, 11:20 PM “ .. The subject is intricate and very unfamiliar to me. I’m just along for the ride .. ” (see the attached and read the related E-mails to understand the context of that statement as I’d hate anyone to accuse me of just cherry-picking).
That said, I do not go along with the statement that Alan quoted from that UCLA lecture (Alan, please would you be good enough to provide links to the source of what you quote from as it helps those of us who wish to follow up). If indeed that did appear in a UCLA lecture (and I couldn’t find it using Google) then it appears to me to be wrong. Would it not have been more correct if it had said “ .. The greenhouse effect occurs because the atmosphere is relatively transparent to the wavelengths of solar radiation, while it absorbs infrared radiation. So a large chunk of the sun's radiation makes it to the earth's surface. At the same time, the atmosphere containing greenhouse gases absorbs the radiation emitted by the earth's surface, and re-emits it back to the surface, (reduc)ing the total energy (that leaves) the surface. This forces the earth's surface to (remain) warmer than it would be otherwise .. ” (ignoring all of the other complicating factors that affect the temperature of the earth’s surface, which is of rather important in the real world, is it not?)
In his E-mails of 11 Oct 2011 21:37 & 22:30 Joseph Postma chunters on about “..Chris Colose's supposed rebuttal was retired on Judith Curry's blog .. ” but what has Professor Curry to do with the Skeptical Science blog that I referenced in my E-mail of Mon, 10 Oct 2011 21:41? “ .. Once again I recommend that the “Slayers” take a careful look at Professor Curry’s “Postma on the greenhouse effect” thread (http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/16/postma-on-the-greenhouse-effect/) and Chris Colose’s threads “Joseph Postma and the greenhouse effect” (http://www.skepticalscience.com/postma-disproved-the-greenhouse-effect.htm) and “Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect” (http://www.skepticalscience.com/Postma1.html & http://www.skepticalscience.com/Postma2.html).
“There are none so blind as them that will not see” applies so please Joseph, put on your glasses or remove your blinkers, whichever seems to be blinding you to the science that shows that the GHE exists, although not to the extent that CACC supporters would have us believe. The claim that “ .. Out of all the Slayers there were only two who didn't agree with my analysis, .. ” does not give any indication of the validity of Joseph’s analysis. One would expect all “flat-earthers” to agree with any analysis that concluded that the earth is flat, but that does not validate the analysis, does it.
Hi Roger (Sowell), before I say more about my favourite subject, “Chapter 21” and “PSI & Due Diligence”, I’d like to thank you for providing that very helpful input to the discussion of the science that seems to cause the “Slayers” so much difficulty. Your comment appears to me to reinforce what Professor petty has been trying to get across to them. Hopefully they’ll now be able to sort out what appears to this layman to be their confusion over the difference between radiant energy and heat flow.
You mentioned an earlier E-mail of yours in which you “ .. gave an example of a wood-burning campfire .. ” but I can’t find a copy of it. Perhaps I wasn’t included in the circulation so would you have any objection to sending me a copy for my records?
It is reassuring to know that there is now someone involved in this discussion who is not only an accredited attorney but also has a good understanding of science through training and experience. As it says on your web-site “ .. It is important, even crucial, to have an attorney who understands the technical issues where engineers and engineering are involved in legal actions. Mr. Sowell has that understanding, gained from many years as a consulting process engineer world-wide. .. ” (http://www.resowell-law.com/home52).
You say “ .. I am still digesting and investigating the claims made in Chapter 21, Legal Fallout from False Climate Alarm. I will give my analysis on that at some later time. I am not familiar with the other issue, "PSI U & Due Diligence emails". Perhaps I've missed them in the incredible volume of emails that was generated by the simple question of thermal radiation .. ”. My most recent E-mail to which I attached my word document “PSI & Due Diligence” was on Oct 03 2011, 09:47 PM, before the flurry of E-mails on the science but I am attaching the latest issue to this E-mail. Hopefully you’ll be able to make some time available to read through it. There is a lot more to come but that should be enough to help get you going down the right track. As I have said before, Chapter 21 gives a summary of John’s plans for PSI at the end of last year and the E-mails provide the detail behind those plans, which anyone proposing to get involved with PSI would benefit from knowing about.
John (O’S), you give me the impression of deliberately avoiding answering questions about this and trying to lead the exchanges down blind alleys. For example, as far as “John O'Sullivan's specious claims” or “PSI & Politics” is concerned it is of no significance whatever who Chris Colose studied/s under, but you push side-issues like that in order to divert attention from the important issue of “PSI & Politics”. In my opinion your E-mail of 12 Oct 2011 10:27 does little to enhance your stature – on the contrary. Perhaps a more worthwhile article would be “The facts behind why I wish to form my company PSI”. Maybe Kent Clizbe’s speculation in his “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mail of Jan 02 2011, 02:27 PM that “ .. If I'm right in assessing that the main goal in setting up this business, based on what you've said, is to find a way to enhance your income, I'd suggest that this project is a NOT a good way to go about doing that .. ” provides part of the answer that Professor Petty is looking for.
You complained during those “PSI & Due Diligence” exchanges (Jan 15 2011, 12:28 PM) that QUOTE: ..
Pete is our group’s self appointed doomsayer which is fine if he acts even-handedly but lately, from my skimming of his submissions, he is fatalistic to the extreme. For example, Pete is not only defeatist about PSI as a CIC - he has now capitulated on his own argument to form a charity when he admits, “in my humble opinion Principia Scientific International will never be allowed to set up in the UK as a CIC or a Charity but may manage private limited company status ..
UNQUOTE.
However, I wasn’t the only person to express concerns about your proposals. For example, Professor Johnson said in his E-mail of Jan 11 2011, 08:30 PM “ .. What about these examples of activities not qualifying as CIC:
- The promotion of (or opposition to) changes in the law or changes in the policy of any governmental or public authority in relation to any matter
- The promotion of (or opposition to) any proposed policy of a governmental or public authority in relation to any matter
Since climate science is mixed up with climate politics, how can PSI claim to have no political ambitions? .. ”.
As you confirmed during the current exchanges on 26 Sep 2011 20:56 “ .. I can further assure you that PSI is no longer contemplating seeking CIC or charity status because we are making strides to be a self-financing private association. .. ”.
It is noticeable that you still refuse to give any indication of how sales of “Slaying the Sky Dragon” are doing. This question of sales projections for “Slaying the Sky Dragon” was first raised in the “PSI & Due Diligence” exchanges by Kent Clizbe (see again that E-mail of Jan 02 2011, 02:27 PM in the attached). Kent offered you advice about starting your company PSI, saying QUOTE: ..
As someone who has formed and closed several types of businesses, including absolute failures and fabulous successes, let me offer a few points of advice.
Objective: It seems pretty clear that the whole "business" idea springs from the need to provide you with a living. If that is the objective, I'd guess that there are not many people who are willing to "subscribe" for that end.
Revenue model: It appears that you plan to subsist off of donations and book profits. A few things to consider .. Profit Projections from Publishing: What is your expected profit margin from each book sold? What is your expense per book? What is your expected level of sales? Numbers of books? Revenue? Profit? What is the sales record of your book to date: number sold, expenses, profit? ..
UNQUOTE (the rest of Kent’s E-mail makes for interesting reading too.
I followed up on that question in the attachment to my E-mail of Jan 08 2011, 07:24 & 31 PM (see attached) in which I said QUOTE: ..
John says that “Slaying the Sky Dragon: .. ” is a best seller but how many copies have been sold or even ordered? How many people have even heard of it? I’ve just sent out the following E-mail to 46 associates, most of whom are in agreement with us about this scam and have been actively debating the issue for many months. QUOTE: Hi all, I wonder if I might quickly pick your brains. Two questions about the book "Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory" (http://www.christopherengland.com/2010/11/slaying-sky-dragon.html). How many of you have:
1) heard of it,
2) read it,
3) discussed it?
I'd very much appreciate a response by return and thank you in anticipation of your help. Best regards, Pete. UNQUOTE.
5 responded almost immediately, four with “No” to all three. Only 1 had a “yes” to 1 & 3, that was John Droz, a recent addition to this group. It’ll be interesting to see the responses ..
UNQUOTE.
This issue of book sales was resurrected during our exchanges of 18th/19th Jan. but again you weren’t prepared to make that or other financial information available outside of the “Slayers” circle. That time (Jan 19 2011, 12:18 AM) you stone-walled with “ .. the book sales monies and expenses are being sent only to the book authors directly. Unless or until I receive written authorization from all the authors I will respectfully have to decline sharing with you or any other third party our detailed book sales accounts. As for the donations so far, I can reveal the first donation of $350 is from a member of my family in the US. .. ” (I loved that last bit, following your proud boast the day before - Jan 18 2011, 01:01 PM - that “ .. We have taken the liberty in using a third party crowdfunding service that is recognised and suggested to us earlier in the thread as our starting point. As you can see, we have already secured our first donation of $350 within less than an hour. http://funds.gofundme.com/1v39s .. ”).
As a consequence of those exchanges on 19th/19th I decided that I wanted no involvement with PSI and sent my “ .. final comment on PSI & Due Diligence .. ” (20 January, 2011 18:35:55). I suggest that you all have a read of that E-mail, even those who saw it in Jan.
Whereas you appear to try to divert attention away from “PSI & Politics”, other “Slayers” simply remain silent. Most surprisingly we have never heard a sound from the PSI Compliance Officer, Rev. Philip Foster, who was equally silent during the “PSI & Due Diligence” exchanges back in Dec./Jan. – not a peep during all of those 200+ E-mails. He still remains “tight-lipped”, so what is the role of PSI’s Compliance Officer? I commented on that in the attachment to my “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mail of Jan 14 2011, 06:21 PM “ .. ????
I must say that I was astounded to hear you admit “ .. I know I’m only a layman .. ” (11 Oct 2011 11:42). As far as I can recall it is the first time that you have shown the least degree of humility. Some might say that your writings often demonstrate the opposite trait.
I look forward to hearing Roger Sowell’s conclusions after he has managed to read Chapter 21 and those few “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mail exchanges that I have attached.
BTW, if any of you are getting tired of my E-mails and would like to be removed from the circulation then please let me know.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
================
From: JOHN OSULLIVAN ...
To: Joseph E Postma...
CC: 'Grant W. Petty' ...; 'ClaesJohnson' ...; peter.ridley@....; houston2000@....; timothyball@...; hanssch@...; PF.SMP@...; ruthhertzberg@...; alan618034@...; Charles.R.Anderson@...; ken@...; OMATUMR@...; geraldo@...; Fred@...; piers@...; kent@...; rtaguchi@...; aaprjohn@...; jonicol18@...; judith.curry@...; rsowell@...; clifftent@...; germanclimateblog@...; dalker@...
Sent: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 19:02
Subject: Re: John O'Sullivan's specious claims
Joe,
I'm elated that Professor Perry has had the profound good sense to call the Harvard University Standard Greenhouse model "an incorrect cartoon diagram" and to dismiss it as emphatically as the Slayers. Perry has become an unwitting ally! This is a good outcome from endless tortuous emails and a superb endorsement of your paper. BTW, please remove Jerry Oliver as he's seen enough of this collapse of the GHE paradigm.
Thanks to all!
www.slayingtheskydragon.com
============
From: Joseph E Postma ...
To: 'Grant W. Petty' ...; 'JOHN OSULLIVAN' ...
Cc: 'ClaesJohnson' ...; peter.ridley@...; houston2000@...; timothyball@...; hanssch@...; PF.SMP@...; ruthhertzberg@...; alan618034@...; Charles.R.Anderson@...; ken@...; OMATUMR@...; geraldo@...; jerry_oliver@...; Fred@...; piers@...; kent@...; ...rtaguchi@...; aaprjohn@...; jonicol18@...; judith.curry@...; rsowell@...; clifftent@...; germanclimateblog@...; dalker@...
Sent: Wednesday, 12 October 2011, 15:57
Subject: RE: John O'Sullivan's specious claims
You can justify illiteracy all you want Perry. It's still an inability to comprehend what's read. If you have a problem with what's presented on page 6, take it up with Harvard's Atmospheric Modelling Group. It is a very
simple concept: I present a standard model greenhouse used in various textbooks (with variations of course but they all have the same basic premises...quibbling over the terms in the diagram misses the point) and show what's wrong with it. That is PRECISELY what you just did too, so thank you so much for supporting our work.
Why don't you send me YOUR two-parallel plane model of the atmospheric GHE;
I'll let you know what’s wrong with it too, at a fundamental paradigmatic level.
It is very telling, that the only real criticisms I've had on that paper arise out of people's inability to comprehend what they're reading, or to read at all. As you admit, you are incapable of reading more than a few pages, and incapable of understanding what was even presented, and the reason for it, in those few pages, when it was clearly presented. I specifically did not call the Harvard model I presented an "authoritative" model, I called it a standard model. So you're misrepresenting and not comprehending what was actually written down. All that is of course understandable because it is very emotionally distressing to be told by an outsider that Sunshine is warm and the Earth is round, and that accounting for that makes a difference.
Of course, you are more than welcome to ring up Harvard University and let them know that their Atmospheric Modelling Group is not authoritative, and uses toy models for teaching and setting the modelling paradigm, which has no basis in reality. I say we compile all the responses to my paper similar to Perry's, which point out exactly this, completely missing the point that they've just agreed with the premise of my paper. I mean it's just so delicious.
Really, thanks for the support. We WILL publish it Perry. You, to quote:
"glanced at an incorrect cartoon diagram in a [climate modelling textbook from Harvard University and] debunked "Harvard's" climate model". - I've corrected your quote for your incomprehension of what you actually said.
Sunshine is hot.
Best,
JP
============
From: Grant W. Petty ...
Sent: October-12-11 7:51 AM
To: JOHN OSULLIVAN
Cc: Joseph E Postma; 'ClaesJohnson'; peter.ridley@...; houston2000@...; timothyball@...; hanssch@...; PF.SMP@...; ruthhertzberg@...; alan618034@...; Charles.R.Anderson@...; ken@...; OMATUMR@...; geraldo@...; jerry_oliver@...; Fred@...; piers@...; kent@...; 'rtaguchi@...; aaprjohn@...; jonicol18@...; judith.curry@...; rsowell@...; clifftent@...; germanclimateblog@... dalker@...
Subject: Re: John O'Sullivan's specious claims
Since you didn't respect my wishes to be removed from future mailings (I have tried to remember who else asked to be removed and have done so in my edited reply list but may have missed someone), I will reply.
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011, JOHN OSULLIVAN wrote:
“ .. Superb and hilarious retort to Perry! You have put into context that Perry, thinking he had spotted your error of "incompetence" as his excuse to dismiss your paper had mistakenly singled out Harvard University's version of the GHE for his venom thus attacking his own position. Priceless!!! .. ”
1. It's not "my" position. I have my own version of the simple two-layer model in my own introductory textbook, and it doesn't make the simple error shown in the diagram on p. 5 of Postma's document.
2. Postma uses a simple "toy" climate model as the set-up for debunking climate theory, and he uses one that, at least based on the figure, is not correct even in its simplicity. It's equivalent to starting off a 45-page scholarly treatise on rabbits with a picture of Bugs Bunny and then, presumably, arguing at length that the picture is not an anatomically correct depiction of rabbits.
“ .. And all due to Perry's half-assed and arrogant skim reading of your paper .. ”
I didn't even skim read it. I just stopped at page 6. It's neither my job description nor my inclination to play whack-a-mole with every variation on crackpot science that passes my way, and as soon as I saw what Postma
inexplicably thinks is an authoritative model of the greenhouse effect, I lost interest and got back to my real work, which is not climate science but satellite remote sensing. An advanced and complex field of research, by the way, that would collapse in a mass of unresolvable contradictions if specialists in my field didn't understand radiation.
“ .. If ever someone had been hoist by his own petard it is Professor Perry. I'm picturing the humilation that will befall Perry once all this gets published more widely. Perhaps I might title my article thus: 'Greenhouse Effect Professor Debunks Harvard's Greenhouse Gas Theory!' Many, many thanks, John .. ”
It will be interesting to see how humiliated I really feel when you publicizes that a non-climate scientist who glanced at an incorrect cartoon diagram in a climate skeptic's document supposedly debunked "Harvard's"
climate model. I look forward to seeing the press release.
By the way, what IS your real objective? Science? Or humiliating your adversaries? The more I learn about you, the more I conclude that science has little to do with it.
GP
==============
From: Vincent Gray ...
To: Roger Sowell ...; peter.ridley@...
CC: claesjohnson@...; houston2000@...; timothyball@...; hanssch@...; PF.SMP@...; ruthhertzberg@...; alan618034@...; Charles.R.Anderson@...; ken@...; OMATUMR@...; geraldo@...; jerry_oliver@...; Fred@...; piers@...; kent@...; Miso.Alkalaj@...; jpostma@...; sr2@...; etc. etc. etc. gpetty@...
Sent: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 2:36
Subject: Re: John O'Sullivan's specious claims
Dear Roger
Of course you are right and it is surprising that so many people seem unable to understand it. You seem to get nowhere with them. They all expect to watch television where the cool TV set transmits radiation to their warmer eyes but they refuse to believe it happens..
I prefer to get on with trying to understand the climate and all this is an unnecessary diversion which I am trying to get out of. I am deleting them all, but I thought I would encourage you when you talk sense.
Cheers
Vincent Gray
=================
=======================
From: Joseph E Postma ...
To: 'Curry, Judith A' ...; 'JOHN OSULLIVAN' ...
CC: gpetty@...; ken@...; jdssps@...; colose@...; houston2000@...; timothyball@...; hanssch@...; 'PF SMP'...; ruthhertzberg@...; claesjohnson@...; 'Charles R Anderson'...; OMATUMR@...; geraldo@...; 'jerry oliver' ...; 'vinmary gray' ...; Fred@...; piers@...; kent@...; 'Miso Alkalaj' ...; nasifnahle@...; sr2@...; rtaguchi@...; aaprjohn@...; cuibono@...; jonicol18@...; rsowell@...; clifftent@...; germanclimateblog@...; dalker@...; 'peter ridley' ...; alan618034 ...
Sent: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:36
Subject: RE: PSI & Politics
Judy, have you taught yourself what “unit analysis” mean yet? Did you take introductory physics at any point in your training?
Do you recall on your blog post which highlighted my excellent paper, you mentioned that you weren’t aware of what the units of a Watt were, or what they meant?
This document might help you:
Sunlight is hot, not cold. The Earth is round, not flat. Who knew, eh? The Slayers can help you with these modern ideas (modern as in being a millennium and more old).
JP
==================
From: Joseph E Postma ...
To: 'Joel Shore' ...; colose@...
CC: peter.ridley@...; claesjohnson@...; john0sullivan@...; timothyball@...; ken@...; judith.curry@; germanclimateblog@...; nasifnahle@...; 'JOHN OSULLIVAN' ...; alan618034@...; hanssch@...; houston2000@...; dalker@...
Sent: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:26
Subject: RE: John O'Sullivan's specious claims
Oh I sere we're blessed with some weak spirited sophist deceivers in this email. Are you all still so confused about sunlight being hot? No idea what "unitanalysis" means? Never cooked a meal in your life? http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Copernicus_Meets_the_Greenhouse_Effect.pdf It's only a matter of time until you enemies of humanity and freedom are exposed. Truth always wins. JP
-----Original Message-----
From: Joel Shore ...
Sent: October-10-11 1:11 PM
To: JOHN OSULLIVAN
Cc: peter.ridley@...; claesjohnson@...; john0sullivan@...; timothyball@...; ken@...; judith.curry@...; colose@...; germanclimateblog@...
John,
As I noted to Dr. Latour himself, I think he is a most excellent fit for the Slayers in all respects: On Amazon, he proved himself to be a skillful debater, and especially skilled at using obfuscation and deception...and he proved to be a compulsive liar to boot. I can't imagine a combination of qualities that fit any better with the Slayer team! It is truly a marriage made in heaven.
Joel Shore
============================
From: peter.ridley@....
To: jonicol18@...; judith.curry@...; john0sullivan@...
CC: gpetty@...; ken@...; jdssps1@...; colose@...; houston2000@...; timothyball@...; hanssch@...; PF.SMP@...; ruthhertzberg@...; alan618034@...; claesjohnson@...; Charles.R.Anderson@...; OMATUMR@...; geraldo@...; jerry_oliver@...; vinmary.gray@...; Fred@...; piers@...; kent@...; Miso.Alkalaj@...; nasifnahle@...; jpostma@...; sr2@...; rtaguchi@...; aaprjohn@...; cuibono@...; rsowell@...; clifftent@...; germanclimateblog@...; dalker@...
Sent: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 0:04
Subject: Re: PSI & Politics
My my, what an interesting outburst of E-mails during the past couple of days.
I see that Dr. Latour has been invigorated by Dr. Joel Shore’s involvement in this thread. After receiving numerous E-mails from uninvited guests he suddenly turns on Dr Joel Shore. Although I don’t see eye-to-eye with theoretical physicist Joel on everything (http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/31/slaying-a-greenhouse-dragon/) I have some agreement with him over his opinion about the scientific “merits” of “Slaying the Sky Dragon”.
Considering that Dr. Latour is claimed to have “ .. a deep technical knowledge of chemical process control, as well as the ability to survive and prosper as a business leader .. ” whereas Joel’s area of expertise is in theoretical physics I am inclined to pay more attention to what Joel has top say about the CACC hypothesis. After all, I can find nothing of substance that Dr. Latour has authored about any science relating to the processes and drivers of the different global climates. All that I could find was a report of an opinion piece by Dr. Latour in “Letters to the Editor” section of the Hydrocarbon Processing Journal (http://ccd4e.org/drpierre_latour_and_jeff_temple/) – also commented on in Professor Curry’s thread “Lies, damned lies, and science(?)” (http://judithcurry.com/2010/12/14/lies-damned-lies-and-science/). If anyone can provide a link to a peer-reviewed paper relating to climate science authored by Dr. Latour then I’d appreciate it.
It appears that there might be some connection between Dr. Latour and investment guru James Trippon, who appears to have a different opinion about the GHE than Dr. Latour. In his book “Becoming Your Own China Stock Guru: .. ” (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Ipl_t0vwKIwC&pg=PA80&lpg=PA80&dq=%22James+Trippon%22+%22Climate+Change%22&source=bl&ots=_1K7FSlBiV&sig=S8Q3tIETc5fy0BTb9rUFkvwdxdQ&hl=en&ei=ONCRTuajApG5hAfc25Uc&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false) James says “ .. the global problem of climate change can be attributed partly to Western pollutants .. ”. Maybe I’ve been misled by the entry in Corporation Wiki (http://www.corporationwiki.com/Texas/Houston/clifftent-inc/35474316.aspx).
Joel, you said in your E-mail of 9th Oct. that “ .. John's statement is just a load of nonsense, as is everything the emanates from these folks. .. who among them is engaged in willful deception and who is simply self-deluded .. ”. I think that you should be more specific about to whom and to what you are referring when you talk of nonsense. Much (not most) of what they say in “Slaying the Sky Dragon” is not nonsense but their interpretation could well be. In my humble opinion, as a non-scientist, the book’s opening claim “ .. Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory .. ” is indeed nonsense.
When I read the free copy that I received Chapters 1 & 10 by Dr. Tim Ball were a big disappointment. It is declared in the “Author Biographies” that Dr. Ball “.. has an extensive science background in climatology .. ” yet I could find nothing of scientific significance in all of the 17,000+ words that he contributed. Of course, not being a scientist it is possible that I simply didn’t appreciate what scientific treasures he was revealing. If anyone can point out what I have missed then I'd appreciate it. One thing that I did notice is that the word “politics” or its derivatives appears 67 times.
Although John’s Chapter 21 hardly mentions politics it mentions “government” 28 times and that is in only 4000 words, which end with “ .. We offer this volume as evidence both to the U.S. government and other nations so they may act on the incontrovertible facts presented herein and conspicuously discard that mythical Sky Dragon once and for all from all policy considerations. That’s “politic” and “government” appearing 95 times in a book that ends with an appeal to national governments to change their policies yet is claimed not to be politically motivated. Please can someone (other than a “Slayer”) explain how Professor Curry and I are misleading ourselves.
My impression of Chapters 2 & 3 written by Allan Siddons (who as I recall wrote about half of the book’s chapters) was that he frequently presented a confused mixture of units and concepts which distorted the message that he was trying to deliver. He persisted with the line that other “Slayers” seem to support, that there can be no energy transfer between a colder to a hotter body. He states “ .. In short, radiant energy has but one way of exerting an effect: on a region of lesser energy. When a region possesses equal or greater energy, energy cannot flow there and cannot exert an effect. Greater thermal energy must move to lesser, hotter moving to colder .. ”.
As a simple layman I cannot understand how a radiating region can tell that another radiating region is hotter than it is itself so that it stops radiating towards the hotter region. I am under the impression that the energy radiated depended upon two things, the temperature of the region and the nature of its surface. I am also under the impression that the concept of radiated energy is quite different from the concept of thermal energy whereas Siddons seems happy to interchange the terms.
I had no comment to make on Allan’s Chapter 3 but found Chapter 4 “The Impact of an Atmosphere” very interesting. Alan’s repeated question in that chapter of “ .. Atmospheric heat rises with pressure. Is that the greenhouse effect at work? .. ” was discussed in mid-September in a thread “Back Radiation & The Greenhouse Effect” but I don’t recall Alan responding to Professor Petty’s explanation.
I also found Charles Anderson’s Chapter 20 very interesting and not at all nonsensical, but then, I’m not a theoretical physicist like you, only a layman. One thing that did surprise me in Dr. Anderson’s chapter was his apparent agreement that the greenhouse effect does indeed exist, contrary to the claim in the title of the book that the theory is dead. He said “ .. a part of this 33K temperature difference is not created by infrared (IR) absorbing gases .. ”. This implies that a part of it is caused by IR-absorbing gases which sounds to me like agreeing that the GHE lives on. I’m sure that one of the “Slayers” will put me straight on that.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
=================
From: JOHN OSULLIVAN ...
To: Curry, Judith A ...
CC: gpetty@...; ken@...; jdssps1@...; colose@...; houston2000@...; timothyball@...; hanssch@...; PF SMP...; ruthhertzberg@...; alan618034@...; claesjohnson@...; Charles R Anderson ...; OMATUMR@...; geraldo@...; jerry oliver ...; vinmary gray...; Fred@...; piers@...; kent@...; Miso Alkalaj...; nasifnahle@...; jpostma@...; sr2@...; rtaguchi@...; aaprjohn@...; cuibono@...; jonicol18@...; rsowell@...; clifftent@...; germanclimateblog@...; dalker@...; peter ridley ...
Sent: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 9:27
Subject: Re: PSI & Politics
Judith,
You don't need to email me to serve good science. But if you engage in full and frank debate with my colleagues you will. Please stop appealing to your own questionable authority and discuss the matters at hand and learn something!
John
www.slayingtheskydragon.com
==================
From: John Nicol...
To: Curry, Judith A ...; JOHN OSULLIVAN ...
CC: gpetty@...; ken@...; jdssps1@...; colose@...; houston2000@...; timothyball@...; hanssch@...; PF SMP ...; ruthhertzberg@...; alan618034@...; claesjohnson@...; Charles R Anderson ...; OMATUMR@...; geraldo@...; jerry oliver...; vinmary gray...; Fred@...; piers@...; kent@...; Miso Alkalaj ...; nasifnahle@...; jpostma@...; sr2@...; rtaguchi@...; aaprjohn@...; cuibono@...; rsowell@...; clifftent@...; germanclimateblog@...; dalker@...; peter ridley ...
Sent: Sun, 9 Oct 2011 22:16
Subject: Re: PSI & Politics
Judith,
That is a pity but I can understand. This was earlier a very polite group with whom I also enjoyed a great relationship, although I was never a "slayer" as such. It is a pity that some impolite words have crept into the conversations over the last few weeks.
I do hope people who receive this and recognise that they may have strayed away from the ealier much more pleasant exchanges of debate, may resolve to return to the more civil exchanges we enjoyed earlier. The emphasis in any debate must be the subject matter, not the person, and one has to avoid over reacting to what may appear to be a direct criticism of one's ideas.
I hope this message may remind us all that we shold leave negativity behind and remain good friends, always.
John Nicol
John Nicol
Ph: 07 3879 8848 Mob: 0414 761 503
60/50 Coriander Place, Forest Lake Q 4078
“We are born wet, naked, and hungry. Then things get worse.”
“Life is a whim of several billion cells to be you for a while.”
“Life is like a coin. You can spend it any way you wish, but you only spend it once.”
“Life is an endless struggle full of frustrations and challenges, but eventually you find a hair stylist you like.”
“Expecting the world to treat you fairly because you are good is like expecting the bull not to charge because you are a vegetarian.”
====================
From: Curry, Judith A
To: JOHN OSULLIVAN
Cc: gpetty@...; ken@...; jdssps1@...; colose@...; houston2000@...; timothyball@...; hanssch@...; PF SMP; ruthhertzberg@...; alan618034@...; claesjohnson@...; Charles R Anderson; OMATUMR@...; geraldo@...; jerry oliver; vinmary gray; Fred@...; piers@...; kent@...; Miso Alkalaj; nasifnahle@...; jpostma@...; sr2@...; rtaguchi@...; aaprjohn@...; cuibono@...; jonicol18@...; rsowell@...; clifftent@...; germanclimateblog@...; dalker@...; peter ridley
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 6:57 AM
Subject: Re: PSI & Politics
John, this is my last email to you. Get a clue, your dragonslayers are jumping ship. Judy
=================
From: "JOHN OSULLIVAN" ...
To: "Judith A Curry"...
Cc: gpetty@..., ken@..., jdssps1@..., colose@..., houston2000@..., timothyball@..., hanssch@..., "PF SMP" ..., ruthhertzberg@..., alan618034@..., claesjohnson@..., "Charles R Anderson"..., OMATUMR@..., geraldo@..., "jerry oliver" ..., "vinmary gray"..., Fred@..., piers@..., kent@..., "Miso Alkalaj" ..., nasifnahle@..., jpostma@..., sr2@..., rtaguchi@..., aaprjohn@..., cuibono@..., jonicol18@..., rsowell@..., clifftent@..., germanclimateblog@..., dalker@..., "peter ridley"...
Sent: Sunday, October 9, 2011 4:40:32 PM
Subject: Re: PSI & Politics
Judith,
True to form you run liked a scared cat from debate hurling insults at those who challenge you. It hasn't escaped notice that although you hosted a few discussions on your blog you were frequently conspicuous by your absence. Indeed, I recall nothing of note ever having been contributed by you in those discussions. When you did appear you were soon taken to task and grudgingly had to concede Claes was correct about back radiation and you abandoned this nonsense. Is that your definition of being taken seriously?
As for recommending the Slayers submit to the climate science peer-review system - well, that's broken and well beyond repair as everyone knows. So please don't try that tired old dodge on us.
As for your closed doors "professional meetings", they also do nothing to expose the woeful incompetence you and your climate peers are so desperate to keep hidden. Frankly, you're refusal to woman up and defend your 'science' is precisely why you and those discredited IPCC pseudo-scientists are treated as a joke among the wider scientific community.
John
www.slayingtheskydragon.com
===============
From: "Curry, Judith A" ...
To: JOHN OSULLIVAN ...
Cc: gpetty@...; ken@...; jdssps1@...; colose@...; houston2000@...; timothyball@...; hanssch@...; PF SMP...; ruthhertzberg@...; alan618034@...; claesjohnson@...; Charles R Anderson ...; OMATUMR@...; geraldo@...; jerry oliver ...; vinmary gray...; Fred@...; piers@...; kent@...; Miso Alkalaj...; nasifnahle@...; jpostma@...; sr2@...; rtaguchi@...; aaprjohn@...; cuibono@...; jonicol18@...; rsowell@...; clifftent@...; germanclimateblog@...; dalker@...; peter ridley ...
Sent: Sunday, 9 October 2011, 19:15
Subject: Re: PSI & Politics
John, a live radio debate is about the worst possible forum for a serious debate about science. Scientists typically debate this in the peer reviewed scientific literature or at professional meetings. We've already debated this on my blog. I'm taken seriously; your problem is that you are not. Judy
============
From: Claes Johnson ...
To: Curry, Judith A ...
CC: JOHN OSULLIVAN ...; gpetty@...; ken@...; jdssps1@...; colose@...; houston2000@...; timothyball@...; hanssch@...; PF SMP ...; ruthhertzberg@...; alan618034@...; Charles R Anderson...; OMATUMR@...; geraldo@...; jerryoliver...; vinmary gray...; Fred@...; piers@...; kent@...; Miso Alkalaj ...; nasifnahle@...; jpostma@...; sr2@msn.com...; rtaguchi@...; aaprjohn@...; cuibono@...; jonicol18@...; rsowell@...; clifftent@...; germanclimateblog@...; dalker@...; peter ridley...
Sent: Sun, 9 Oct 2011 15:51
Subject: Re: PSI & Politics
Hi Judy,
As you should know, I am no longer a Slayer, if I ever was. And yes, I will publish my new derivation of Planck's law in some physics journal.
A result of the debate on my chapters of the book, was that you gave up backradiation which is the same as DLR, the pillar of climate alarmism. Pretty good outcome.
You have changed views in recent time, which I welcome and think will have impact.
Best regards,
Claes
=================
From: "JOHN OSULLIVAN" ...
To: "Judith A Curry" ...
Cc: gpetty@..., ken@..., jdssps1@..., colose@..., houston2000@..., timothyball@..., hanssch@..., "PF SMP"..., ruthhertzberg@..., alan618034@.., claesjohnson@..., "Charles R Anderson"..., OMATUMR@..., geraldo@..., "jerry oliver"..., "vinmary gray" ..., Fred@..., piers@..., kent@..., "Miso Alkalaj"..., nasifnahle@..., jpostma@..., sr2@..., rtaguchi@..., aaprjohn@..., cuibono@... jonicol18@..., rsowell@..., clifftent@..., germanclimateblog@..., dalker@..., "peter ridley"...
Sent: Sunday, October 9, 2011 2:05:52 PM
Subject: Re: PSI & Politics
Judith,
You would be taken more seriously in your diatribe against the Slayers if you actually agreed to a debate. Can't you spare an hour or two of your time to engage in a live radio debate? I'm sure this would be a cinch for you being that, in your words, our science is "Not that ...difficult to debunk." Like you, we are all busy people. But, if you wish, I'm most happy to arrange such a broadcast to fit in with your hectic schedule.
Regards John
www.slayingtheskydragon.com
====================
From: "Curry, Judith A" ...
To: JOHN OSULLIVAN ...
Cc: gpetty@...; ken@...; jdssps1@...; colose@...; houston2000@...; timothyball@...; hanssch@...; PF SMP...; ruthhertzberg@...; alan618034@...; claesjohnson@...; Charles R Anderson ...; OMATUMR@...; geraldo@...; jerry oliver ...; vinmary gray ...; Fred@...; piers@...; kent@...; Miso Alkalaj ...; nasifnahle@b...; jpostma@...; sr2@...; rtaguchi@...; aaprjohn@...; cuibono@...; jonicol18@...; rsowell@...; clifftent@...; germanclimateblog@...; dalker@...; peter ridley...
Sent: Sunday, 9 October 2011, 14:52
Subject: Re: PSI & Politics
John, this exchange is rather tiresome. There are several well intentioned people engaged in this dialogue, along with some major crackpots. As for my own credentials: my undergraduate major was geography with minors in Math, Physics and Chemistry. My Ph.D. is in geophysical sciences from the University of Chicago. I have published a book entitled "Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans" that is widely used as a graduate textbook in the field. Saying that I don't understand thermodynamics is, well, ridiculous. Read my book. Then take the tests that I give my students. If you pass, then we can talk. While you are at it, read Grant Petty's book on radiative transfer, which is actually an undergraduate text. Pass the tests, then lets talk.
Like I said in my original blog post on the skydragons, debunking everything that is wrong in that book would take weeks. Not that it is difficult to debunk, but the sheer volume of things that need debunking would take weeks. I have better things to do with my time.
I have recommended to Claes Johnson that he try to publish his papers on this topic in peer reviewed journals, perhaps in an applied mathematics or physics journal. There are no AGW biases in such journals. His credibility in the science community is severely diminished by engaging with this group.
I have recommended that Ken Coffman not publish further skydragon books under your leadership. Publishing such books does not reflect well on his publishing house. Ken is to be commended for being open to fixing mistakes in the book, but that would imply throwing out most of the book.
I remain interested in communicating with those of you that want to learn and want to engage in a dialogue with climate scientists. Those who want to sling mud and who know next to nothing about the science and are unprepared to learn, well I am not going to pay attention to you.
Judy
======================
From: Oliver Manuel ...
To: gpetty@...; ken@...; john0sullivan@...; jdssps1@...; colose@...; peter.ridley@...
CC: houston2000@...; timothyball@...; hanssch@...; PF.SMP@...; ruthhertzberg@...; alan618034@...; claesjohnson@...; Charles.R.Anderson@...; OMATUMR@...; geraldo@...; jerry_oliver@...; vinmary.gray@...; Fred@...; piers@...; kent@...; Miso.Alkalaj@...; nasifnahle@...; jpostma@...; sr2@...; rtaguchi@...; aaprjohn@...; cuibono@...; jonicol18@...; judith.curry@...; rsowell@...; clifftent@...; germanclimateblog@...; dalker@...
Sent: Sun, 9 Oct 2011 12:55
Subject: Re: PSI & Politics
Dear friends,
Unfortunately government science and politics are so intertwined now that it is impossible to discuss one without mentioning the other.
See, for example, growing concerns on PhysOrg.com that collapse of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001 were chemically induced.
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-theory-collapse-twin-towers.html
Were they? Who knows!
Does anyone doubt that NASA hid xenon isotope data from the Galileo probe of Jupiter to keep the public from knowing that Earth's heat source is NOT a stable H-fusion reactor?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3VIFmZpFco
The presence of excess Xe-136 in Jupiter was predicted in 1983, in a paper that showed isotope data from the Apollo mission to the Moon reveal the interior of the Sun contains more iron (Fe) than hydrogen (H).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLjQSSHIe6k
There is compelling evidence for manipulation of government science for at least the last 40 years (1971-2011) of my research career (1961-2011)
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10640850/Summary_of_Career.pdf
With kind regards, Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal Investigator for Apollo
http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09
==============
From: "JOHN OSULLIVAN"...
To: "peter ridley" ...
Cc: gpetty@..., ken@..., john0sullivan@..., jdssps1@..., colose@..., houston2000@..., timothyball@..., hanssch@..., "PF SMP" ..., ruthhertzberg@..., alan618034@..., claesjohnson@..., "Charles R Anderson"..., OMATUMR@..., geraldo@..., "jerry oliver" ..., "vinmary gray"..., Fred@..., piers@..., kent@..., "Miso Alkalaj"..., nasifnahle@..., jpostma@..., sr2@..., rtaguchi@..., aaprjohn@..., cuibono@..., jonicol18@..., "judith curry" ..., rsowell@..., clifftent@..., germanclimateblog@..., dalker@...
Sent: Sunday, October 9, 2011 9:24:32 AM
Subject: Re: PSI & Politics
Pete,
Ken has asked you to list the specific errors in the book. You've failed to do so. Instead, you continue to hand wave and re-state the same vague and unsubstantiated points while dancing on a semantic pinhead. You just don't seem to get it that specialists in 'hard' sciences such as physics, chemistry and biology (plus math and applied engineering) do not need to have published anything on climate science before to be able to dissect and expose the errors of climatologists in matters where their work seeks to apply such 'hard' sciences. Even if these experts wanted to publish critical papers in mainstream climatology journals, in view of the corruption of the peer-review process exposed in the Climategate emails, its very doubtful that global warming gatekeepers will let them!
Now you have also added professors Petty and Shore to your motley array of experts. I've already given you the link to the Amazon website comments where Dr. Pierre Latour demolishes Joel Shore's bogus claims. Like the others, Petty and Shore appear just as patently less skilled in those 'hard' sciences (e.g. Judith Curry: a geographer, Monckton: a journalist, and Colose: a student). But if you prefer to take their sweeping assessments at face value, fair enough.
Professor Johnson has exposed Petty for his misunderstandings over "radiative flux" in the other thread. Go check it. While Professor Petty has yet to answer my question as to whether Colose is actually his student, being that they are at the same university and in the same faculty, which would explain much.
Unlike many of the Slayers, Curry admits she has no training in higher-level thermodynamics - key to comprehending the more arcane elements of climate. Monckton and Colose, I suspect have less still than Curry; while Professor Petty seems to be lacking in that department, too. But if you want to take them as your authorities then more fool you. There appears to be nothing further to be gained in sustaining this discussion without you and your 'authorities' offering some specifics for us to rebut. So, absent any specific criticisms of our science, don't expect me to make any further responses because reading your long, repetitive and rambling emails has taking up more than enough of my time.
Thanks, John
www.slayingtheskydragon.com
==================
From: peter.ridley@...
To: gpetty@...; ken@...; john0sullivan@...; jdssps1@r...; colose@...
CC: houston2000@...; timothyball@...; hanssch@...; etc. etc.
Sent: Sun, 9 Oct 2011 12:15
Subject: Re: PSI & Politics
Hi Professor Petty, thanks for starting that “John O'Sullivan's specious claims” thread. You really have stirred up some of the others. I’m sure that not only the non-scientists like John O’S and I will have learnt a lot from those exchanges.
Hi Ken, you said in your E-mail of 8th that “ .. I am eager to collect errata to make sure the book is as accurate as possible .. I'm ready to accept errata .. . Bring it on .. ” so if you are interested in my thoughts (as a non-scientist) about the scientific offerings in the book then let me know. In addition to the political aspects in it I’ve jotted down quite a lot of notes about things presented as science which appear to me as rather odd.
Hi Joel, I have added you to the circulation because you may wish to respond at first hand to John’s claim that you were “ .. exposed by Dr.Pierre Latour as having deeply flawed knowledge of the laws of thermodynamics .. ”.
Hi Chris, I’ve added you because you may wish to consider John’s claim that you have “ .. already waved the white flag in this debate .. ” and because of your excellent rebuttal of Joseph Postma’s (pseudo?)-science.
Hi John, I sometimes wonder whether you deliberately distort what I say or if you simply scan my E-mails and respond too quickly. You said in your E-mail of 8th Oct. that my “ .. mischaracterization of what actually transpired in the discussions between Professor Johnson and Judith Curry is, in my view, so distorted as to constitute a fraudulent misrepresentation .. ”.
What I had said was “ .. Professor Curry’s blog saw significant discussion of Professor Claes Johnson’s chapters and it looks as though Professor Johnson listened to Professor Curry’s advice “ .. I am hoping that Johnson learns .. that if he wants his scientific arguments to be taken seriously, that publishing them in a politically motivated book does not help his credibility .. ”. Professor Johnson seems to have wisely dissociated himself from the “Slayers” and PSI .. ”. It would be interesting to hear Professor Johnson’s opinion on what I said and how you reacted to it.
Please would you be good enough to point out what you object to therein and if you can persuade me that I have distorted any facts or made a fraudulent misrepresentation of anything then I will gladly apologise and retract what I said. Alternatively you could just apologise for making what seems to me to be another unfounded accusation (e.g. remember the one in your E-mail of 26th Sept. when you said that my alleged “ .. unsubstantiated claim (in effect, a lie) about the Slayers being in decline is laughable .. ”.
You object to me calling “Slaying the Sky Dragon” “politically motivated” although I was simply agreeing with Professor Curry’s description of it, which I still say is correct. Of course it depends upon what is meant by “politically” and “motivated”. The definitions that I am using are “ .. Adv. 2. politically - with regard to government .. ” (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/politically)
“ .. Adj. 1. motivated - provided with a motive or given incentive for action; .. ” (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/motivated).
In other words I am saying that in my opinion one of the incentives for your action in producing “Slaying the Sky Dragon” was with regard to the policies adopted by several global governments about tackling global climate change. I believe that anyone reading your Chapter 21 in “Slaying the Sky Dragon” along with the content of the “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mails would also form the same opinion that Professor Curry and I have that calling the book “politically motivated” in the sense that I have described is perfectly justified. My challenge to you is to put my opinion to the test by picking over the bones of Chapter 21 and those E-mails. In my opinion, in the spirit of transparency so important to PSI, the best place to do it is on your PSI web-site.
You make the unfounded statement of me " .. that you’ve not even read the book .. ”. Please get your facts straight John. Things have moved on since the 18th Sept. when I said “ .. I did my own in-depth review of the five free sample chapters and carefully followed the discussions on Professor Curry’s thread. I wasn’t impressed enough to buy the book. Thanks for providing those free chapters and helping me to avoid wasting my money. .. ”. As I told you on 28th Sept. “ .. I now have a copy of the US version of the book and remain satisfied that my conclusion after reading the free sample chapters that it would be a waste of money buying it. In my opinion the only chapter that would really enlighten anyone is John's Chapter 21 “Legal Fallout from False Climate Alarm” which nicely describes John's plans for PSI at that time .. ”. I still would not recommend the book to anyone.
I’ll ignore the rest of your rambling comment about appealing to authority but I think that it is only fair to let Chris Colose see what you have said about him so I’ve added him to the circulation.
As I indicated in my E-mail of 8th Sept. Chris did a fine job of rebutting Joseph Postma’s article but he isn’t the only one to do so. Even one of your former Slayers, Dr. Matthias Kleespies, named on your PSI Web-site as one of “ .. Our Founding Members and stakeholders .. ” alongside Joseph E. Postma (http://principia-scientific.org/about-us/why-psi-is-a-private-assoc), is unimpressed by the article. Some of Matthias’s comments were included on 8th Oct. in another E-mail thread - “The Model Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect” & “IR Thermometers” – which I started on 3rd Oct. specifically for the purpose of getting opinions from knowledgeable individuals. I’ll keep you updated on their comments if you like.
You claim that I “ .. then seek to smear Chapter 21 of the book .. ” but it looks as though I’m going to have to define “smear” for you too. I speculate that the definition that you have in mind is “ .. To stain or attempt to destroy the reputation of; vilify: .. ” (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/smear). Once again John you are misinterpreting what I have said. I simply propose to use what you have written in that chapter along with what was written in those “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mails to paint a clear picture of your original plans for PSI. In my opinion it is important that anyone who is contemplating associating with PSI needs to be aware of those plans.
As for your son’s verdict on “Slaying the Sky Dragon”, I speculate that David (like you and me) has an awful lot to learn about science. David is about the same age as Chris Colose I believe and I could find nothing on climate science authored by David O’Sullivan whereas Chris Colose has articles on the subject all over the Internet. Not knowing David’s level of scientific understanding I tend to reject David’s opinion that “Slaying the Sky Dragon” is “cool” in favour of Chris Colose’s “ .. Most rational people would stop here .. ”.
Talking of scientific credentials with respect to climate, I couldn’t find any papers by Professor Jef Reynen relating to any of the major scientific disciplines involved in trying to improve our poor understanding of the processes and drivers of the different global climates. I found one Jeff Reynen who is involved in modelling mechanical structures (concrete, pressure vessels, etc) but I doubt if that is the one you have recruited so please can you provide a link to the biography of your Professor Reyden and some of his papers on climate-related science.
As for “due diligence” I look forward to hearing from Roger Sowell and having him contribute to the review of Chapter 21 and the “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mails. It will be interesting to have him “ .. prove (my) allegations baseless and biased .. ”, but it would help if I knew what are the allegations that you are talking about. I don’t recall making any but at my age memory can be a problem so please remind me of what those allegations are.
Best regards, Pete Ridley.
=================
From: ... gpetty@...
To: ... john0sullivan@...
CC: peter.ridley@...; houston2000@...; timothyball@...; hanssch@...; PF.SMP@...; etc. etc.
Sent: Sat, 8 Oct 2011 17:48
Subject: John O'Sullivan's specious claims
On Sat, 8 Oct 2011, JOHN OSULLIVAN wrote:
> of the so-called greenhouse gas effect) being that no such concept > exists anywhere in the laws of thermodynamics. 'Back radiation' is now > proven to be as unphysical and absurd an idea as suggesting there exists > 'back conduction' or 'back convection' because energy, when measured as > heat, can only move one way, from warmer to colder. You call our book
I've been trying to avoid getting embroiled in this fruitless "debate", but I can't help but respond to the above claim.
If we agree that "back radiation" is defined as radiation emitted by the atmosphere and received at the Earth's surface, then it not only exists, but
1) we routinely MEASURE it using any of a variety of commercially available instruments (do a search on 'Eppley pyrgeometer', for example; see also this random article I just pulled up: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008JD009936.shtml),
2) we routinely and accurately PREDICT its magnitude based solely on knowledge of the temperature, humidity, and cloud structure of the atmospheric column (as exemplified, for example, by a class project I and 15 other students had to complete as first-year graduate students, in which our fairly simple (<200 lines of code) model calculations yield results within a 1-2 W/m^2 of the MEASURED IR flux value for a MEASURED atmospheric profile); and
3) we routinely predict OBSERVABLE PHENOMENA like overnight frost based in part on the temperature, humidity, and cloudiness of the atmosphere precisely because of the crucial role of downwelling infrared radiation (it is a large imbalance between downward and upward IR flux that leads to sharp cooling of the surface).
In short: The downward emission of IR radiation by the atmosphere -- which this group calls "back radiation" -- is both well documented and well understood. It is settled science and has been for more than a century.
John O'Sullivan correctly asserts that thermodynamics forbids the spontaneous flow of heat from cold to warm, but he reveals a glaring misunderstanding by applying this statement to the ONE-WAY flux of radiation from one body to another rather than to the TWO-WAY EXCHANGE of radiation between two bodies. It is the NET FLUX (upward minus downward) that must obey the 2nd Law.
Both Planck's Law and the Stefan-Boltzman Law (the latter is just an integration of the former over wavelength) have been known for generations to accurately predict EMISSION (one-way) from a blackbody. Nothing in either formulation requires one to know the temperature of the body (if any) RECEIVING the radiation. And Planck's Law was itself derived via thermodynamic arguments by a guy who understood the 2nd Law extremely well.
John O'Sullivan's statement is tantamount to a claim that neither Planck's Law nor the Stefan-Boltzmann law is valid, a century's worth of unambiguous experimental evidence notwithstanding. Please judge his "scientific" arguments with that fact in mind.
Prof. Grant W. Petty
===============
From: ken@...
To: JOHN OSULLIVAN ...
CC: houston2000@...; timothyball@...; hanssch@...; PF.SMP@...; ruthhertzberg@...; alan618034@...; claesjohnson@...; Charles.R.Anderson@...; OMATUMR@...; geraldo@...; jerry_oliver@...; vinmary.gray@...; Fred@...; piers@...; kent@...; Miso.Alkalaj@...; nasifnahle@...; jpostma@...; sr2@...; rtaguchi@...; aaprjohn@...; cuibono@...; jonicol18@...; gpetty@...; judith.curry@...; rsowell@...; clifftent@...; germanclimateblog@...; dalker@...; peter.ridley@...
Sent: Sat, 8 Oct 2011 18:00
Subject: RE: PSI & Politics
I would like to second John's thoughts. I read the comments and criticisms at Madam Curry's site very carefully. I am eager to collect errata to make sure the book is as accurate as possible. There were (and still are and always will be) differences of opinion, but I did not see anything I could use as errata. There's a lot of hostility and obfuscation, but no verifiable data that refutes conclusions drawn in the Slayer book. I discount the references to text books because there is plenty of nonsense in text books...something in a text book might be carefully reviewed, but it's not the holy word from some mountaintop. I read as many of the referenced papers as I could stomach and considered the arguments. Joel Shore is a bright guy and knows some things from an academic perspective, but he has no knowledge or feel for practical physics. He has zero insight into physical properties and effects. None! His opinions are less than worthless. He's like a mindless parrot who learned a few phrases from Al Gore's stupid Inconvenient Truth movie.
Anyone who thinks the exchanges at Curry's site are death blows to Slayer logic is simply deluded. People say all kinds of things, but can they think an original thought or synthesize information from a variety of directions? Are they willing to accept nature as it is and update their thinking based on new data and information? Are they directing our attention to a lab experiment that refutes any of the Slayer positions?
I'm ready to accept errata. Bring it on. The only one I have so far is TB's mixing AD and BC for a date of one of Caesar's battles. Big frickin' deal.
=================
From: JOHN OSULLIVAN ...
To: peter.ridley@...
CC: houston2000...; timothyball@s...; hanssch@...; PF.SMP@...; ruthhertzberg@...; alan618034@...; claesjohnson@...; Charles.R.Anderson@...; ken@...; OMATUMR@...; geraldo@...; jerry_oliver@...; vinmary.gray@...; Fred@...; piers@...; kent@...; Miso.Alkalaj@...; nasifnahle@...; jpostma@...; sr2@...; rtaguchi@...; aaprjohn@...; cuibono@...; jonicol18@...; gpetty@...; judith.curry@...; rsowell@...; clifftent@...; germanclimateblog@...; dalker@...
Sent: Sat, 8 Oct 2011 17:02
Subject: Re: PSI & Politics
Peter,
I have to correct you once again on your skewed interpretation of the facts. Joel Shore's so-called 'review' of Slaying the Sky Dragon was no such thing and Shore was exposed by Dr.Pierre Latour as having deeply flawed knowledge of the laws of thermodynamics. Like you, Joe Shore merely read only two of the free sample chapters and then passed his biased and ill-considered judgment. I recommend all non-biased parties make their own minds up about how the Latour-v-Shore debate on Amazon actually went by reading the full version on Amazon here:
http://www.amazon.com/Slaying-Sky-Dragon-Greenhouse-Theory/dp/0982773412/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1314716238&sr=1-1
Indeed, your mischaracterization of what actually transpired in the discussions between Professor Johnson and Judith Curry is, in my view, so distorted as to constitute a fraudulent misrepresentation. Indeed, Johnson not only sustained his arguments on the science in his chapters, he prevailed in those discussions to the extent that Curry announced she was abandoning supporting the notion of 'back radiation' (a key premise of the so-called greenhouse gas effect) being that no such concept exists anywhere in the laws of thermodynamics. 'Back radiation' is now proven to be as unphysical and absurd an idea as suggesting there exists 'back conduction' or 'back convection' because energy, when measured as heat, can only move one way, from warmer to colder.
You call our book "politically motivated" - please elucidate as to what politics it supports. I can advise you that to my knowledge, several of the authors hold political views very much left of center in party-political parlance. Thus it is clearly not a party-political publication. So what do you guess "politically motivated" us then Peter, being that you’ve not even read the book?
Your appeal to the less qualified authorities of Lord Monckton (a journalist) and Judith Curry (a geographer who admits little training, if any, in thermodynamics) only serves to further weaken your case (simply an unscientific appeal to authority rather than science) when laid alongside the scientific, engineering and mathematical credentials of the authors and supporters of the Slayers ( 23 with PhD's).
I can further advise that last week, adding to our growing list of highly-accredited supporters is Professor Jef Reynen originally with ECN (Energie Centrum Nederland). Reynen's area of expertise is mathematical and computer modeling. He spent 22 years at The Institute for Environmental Protection and Research, ISPRA, Italy, and then was a EU Science Advisor in Washington D.C. liaising with the US federal govt.
But you now go to your new next best authority of choice: Chris Colose http://www.aos.wisc.edu/~colose/ ( a mere STUDENT!) who has already waved the white flag in this debate by putting his own blog into "retirement" ( see here: http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/)
I don't recall student Colose representing any national government as a science adviser. But I may be wrong. So can you please enlighten us as to what credentials/publications undergraduate Colose boasts that in any way puts him in the same ball park as Reynen et al? But if we're now supposed to be citing students as authorities I can match Colose's credentials by citing my own 21-year-old son, David O'Sullivan, a second year physics undergraduate at the University of Nottingham. David read the entire Slayers book during his Summer recess and advises me "it's cool, Dad!" Impressive right?
You then seek to smear Chapter 21 of the book authored by me which addresses legal matters. I can advise you that the chapter was peer-reviewed extensively and is based upon first hand evidence supplied inter alia by esteemed NZ barrister, Barry Brill. Perhaps you can name a few lawyers who have read my chapter and disagree with the assessments?
For your information, Roger Sowell, a Californian lawyer and qualified engineer has kindly accepted our offer to review the book (plus my chapter) and will be providing his own review in due course. So what other due diligence do you suggest I now do to further prove your allegations baseless and biased?
Regards,
John
www.slayingtheskydragon.com
==============
From: peter.ridley@...
To: houston2000@...; timothyball@...; hanssch@...; PF.SMP@...; ruthhertzberg@...; alan618034@...; claesjohnson@...; Charles.R.Anderson@...; ken@...; OMATUMR@...; geraldo@...; jerry_oliver@...; vinmary.gray@...; Fred@...; piers@...; kent@...; Miso.Alkalaj@...; nasifnahle@...; jpostma@...; sr2@...; rtaguchi@...; aaprjohn@...g; cuibono@...; jonicol18@...; gpetty@...; judith.curry@...; rsowell@...; clifftent@...; germanclimateblog@...; dalker@...
CC: john0sullivan@...
Sent: Sat, 8 Oct 2011 13:27
Subject: PSI & Politics
Hi Folks,
In his last E-mail on 1st October John suggested debating the “Slayers” version of science but much of it has already been thoroughly debated elsewhere. Joel Shore has provided an excellent review of “Slaying the Sky Dragon” (http://www.amazon.com/Slaying-Sky-Dragon-Greenhouse-ebook/product-reviews/B004DNWJN6). Professor Curry’s “Slaying a greenhouse dragon” threads (http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/31/slaying-a-greenhouse-dragon/, http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/04/slaying-a-greenhouse-dragon-part-ii/ and http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/04/slaying-a-greenhouse-dragon-part-iii-discussion/) provided excellent criticisms of much of the “Slayers” debatable scientific pronouncements.
Professor Curry’s blog saw significant discussion of Professor Claes Johnson’s chapters and it looks as though Professor Johnson listened to Professor Curry’s advice “ .. I am hoping that Johnson learns from this that if he wants his scientific arguments to be taken seriously, that publishing them in a politically motivated book does not help his credibility and does not motivate people to take his arguments seriously .. ”. Professor Johnson seems to have wisely dissociated himself from the “Slayers” and PSI.
Martin Hertzberg’s paper “EARTH’S RADIATIVE EQUILIBRIUM IN THE SOLAR IRRADIANCE” was discussed in Professor Curry’s “Part ii” thread on which she wisely said of the “Slayers” “ .. Looks like this issue isn’t going away, but hopefully the efforts here are further marginalizing those who insist on pursuing incorrect theories of radiative transfer, and alienating them from the more serious skeptics/deniers. .. ”.
Professor Curry posted an E-mail in which highly respected CACC sceptic Lord Monckton said “ .. It is exasperating that results easily demonstrable by simple laboratory experiment continue to be challenged by some members of this group. However superficially ingenious their arguments, they fly in the face of experiments that even children can perform with readily-available materials, as well as contradicting proven results in astrophysical theory. I do not propose to contribute further to this group: it is not a sensible deployment of my time .. ”.
It looks as though Lord Monckton (proudly mentioned on the PSI blog - http://principia-scientific.org/about-us/principles-of-association) has, like Professor Johnson, decided to dissociate himself from the “Slayers” too.
Talking of astrophysics, University of Calgary Department of Physics and Astronomy Calibration Support Specialist Joseph Posma’s article “The Model Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect” has been thoroughly refuted on Professor Curry’s “Postma on the greenhouse effect” thread (http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/16/postma-on-the-greenhouse-effect/) and on Chris Colose’s threads “Joseph Postma and the greenhouse effect” (http://www.skepticalscience.com/postma-disproved-the-greenhouse-effect.htm) and “Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect” (http://www.skepticalscience.com/Postma1.html & http://www.skepticalscience.com/Postma2.html). Chris says of it “ .. Joseph Postma published an article criticizing a very simple model that nonetheless produces useful results. He made several very simple errors along the way, none of which are very technical in nature. In no way does Postma undermine the existence or necessity of the greenhouse effect .. ”. In “Postma2” Chris also said “ .. Postma .. then proceeds to really show that he does not understand the very model he is complaining about, or much else about atmospheric physics. .. This work makes extraordinary claims and yet no effort was made to put it in a real climate science journal, since it was never intended to educate climate scientists or improve the field; it is a sham, intended only to confuse casual readers and provide a citation on blogs. The author should be ashamed .. ”. (the first comment made by one Marco is worth reading too and aligns with the comments of another former “Slayer”).
The comment that I consider most appropriate was in “Postma1” in which Chris said QUOTE: .. As is often the case with these types of “skeptics,” the more extravagant the claim, the more obscure the publishing venue; in this case the host is Principia Scientific International, which according to the website “…was conceived after 22 international climate experts and authors joined forces to write the climate science bestseller, ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory’” Most rational people would stop here, but this is the Americanized age where we need to glorify everyone’s opinion and must provide rebuttals for everything, so here it goes .. UNQUOTE. Postma’s article is then soundly rebutted by Chris (and Professor Petty also gets a mention).
I understand that Postma’s articles caused considerable discomfort for a former “Slayer”. As well as Professor Johnson, it appears that as a consequence another of “ .. Our Founding Members and stakeholders (http://principia-scientific.org/about-us/why-psi-is-a-private-assoc) decided to dissociate himself from PSI.
BTW Joseph, I haven’t been able to find any papers of yours published in recognised scientific journals. All I came across were a Candian Undergraduate Physics Conference talk that a Joseph Postma gave 10 years ago (http://www.physics.umanitoba.ca/undergraduate/CUPC/french/abstract_oral.html) and a Canadian Astronomical Society (CASCA) paper co-authored by Joseph Postma. Can you provide any references/links to any of your peer-reviewed papers (but not articles published on blogs)?
So, I don’t think that further debate of the pseudo-science in “Slaying the Sky Dragon” is necessary here, however, John’s Chapter 21 hasn’t been debated anywhere as far as I can ascertain. This is the ideal forum for such a debate initially, after which it can be taken elsewhere as appropriate.
Since John seems to have opted out of talking about his original plans for PSI as summarised in “Slaying the Sky Dragon” Chapter 21 and is disinclined to make those plans known on the PSI web-site I wonder if any others in this circulation have an interest in discussing it. I suspect that most of you are more concerned with the science and pseudo-science being bandied about but as we all must recognise, there is much more to the CACC debate than science.
Politics is having a far greater impact upon us all than the science, with the power-hungry, the politicians and the environmental activists simply using pseudo-science for their own purposes. Professor Curry correctly referred to “Slaying the Sky Dragon” as a “ .. politically motivated book .. ”, which is substantiated by John’s Chapter 21 and his original plans for PSI as described in the “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mails. John’s Chapter 21 provides a useful starting point. Let me know if anyone else wishes to follow that chapter through with me in conjunction with the “PSI & Due Diligence E-mails”. If not I’ll take the discussion elsewhere because in my opinion there will be others who wish to talk about it.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
PS:
Derek (Alker), as the PSI blog manager may I respectfully suggest that every effort is made to promptly correct the PSI promotional material with regard to the current status of founders and stake-holders and about John’s decision that PSI will not seek CIC status. At present the blog is misleading about these, just as it was misleading about PSI’s status as a CIC back in September 2010.
(See J O’S’s Email 26th September “ .. I can further assure you that PSI is no longer contemplating seeking CIC or charity status .. ”).
Pete
============
From: JOHN OSULLIVAN ...
To: peter.ridley@...
CC: timothyball@...; hanssch@...; PF.SMP@...; ruthhertzberg@...; alan618034@...; claesjohnson@...; Charles.R.Anderson@...; ken@...; OMATUMR@...; geraldo@...; jerry_oliver@...; vinmary.gray@...; Fred@...; piers@...; kent@...; Miso.Alkalaj@...; nasifnahle@...; jpostma@...; sr2@...; rtaguchi...; aaprjohn@...; cuibono@...; jonicol18@...; gpetty@...; judith.curry@...; .rsowell@...; clifftent@...; germanclimateblog@...
Sent: Sat, 1 Oct 2011 11:16
Subject: Re: Resolution of conflict between me and Prof. Grant Petty
Forgive me, but your emails are becoming rambling and repetitive and I am frustrated at the time they are taking up. All your questions have already been asked and answered. By repeating them over again in slightly difference guise suggests to me you are seeking to coerce others into conforming with your own sensibilities on these issues. Rather than nitpick around the edges, I suggest you address the 'meat' of this debate which is the validity or otherwise of the science supporting the GHE.
In particular, I urge you and others to debate about Slayer science. I say this because currently on another thread many leading skeptics are currently in discussion with us on important matters in dispute regarding the GHE. Indeed, one very useful new development is that the Slayers have identified a major error in the understanding of adiabatic lapse rate by one of the most prominent skeptics. Keeping up to date with that thread is taking up a considerable amount of my time so you will understand that I will have to address my priorities accordingly.
Thanks,
John
www.slayingtheskydragon.com
===============
From: peter.ridley@ …
To: john0sullivan@… houston2000@...
CC: timothyball@...; hanssch@...; PF.SMP@...; ruthhertzberg@...; alan618034@...; claesjohnson@...; Charles.R.Anderson@...; ken@...; OMATUMR@...; geraldo@...; jerry_oliver@...; vinmary.gray@...; Fred@...; piers@...; kent@...; Miso.Alkalaj@...; nasifnahle@...; jpostma@...; sr2@...; rtaguchi@...; aaprjohn@...; cuibono@...; jonicol18@...; gpetty@...; judith.curry@...; gpetty@...; rsowell@...; clifftent@...; germanclimateblog@...
CC: timothyball@...; hanssch@...; PF.SMP@...; ruthhertzberg@...; alan618034@...; claesjohnson@...; Charles.R.Anderson@...; ken@...; OMATUMR@...; geraldo@...; jerry_oliver@...; vinmary.gray@...; Fred@...; piers@...; kent@...; Miso.Alkalaj@...; nasifnahle@...; jpostma@...; sr2@...; rtaguchi@...; aaprjohn@...; cuibono@...; jonicol18@...; gpetty@...; judith.curry@...; gpetty@...; rsowell@...; clifftent@...; germanclimateblog@...
Sent: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 21:56
Subject: Re: Resolution of conflict between me and Prof. Grant Petty
ATTACHMENT: PSI AND DUE DILIGENCE E_MAILS FROM 2010_12_30 REVISED 2011_09_30
Hi Joe,
I am surprised at your comment of 29th Sept. that “ .. there is NO judgement that you .. can render against me that I FEAR .. ”. As I said in my E-mail of 28th “ .. I’m not making judgement Joe, simply passing on information to others, .. ”. I am not aware that I have ever indicated that I have judged you and if you can show that I have then please tell me where and I will consider whether or not an apology and correction is warranted.
Hi John,
I’m sorry but I am not at liberty to make any commitments on Professor Curry’s behalf. I’m sure that she is more than capable of deciding the merits or otherwise of indulging in the debate that you suggested in your E-mail of 28th. I find somewhat puzzling your suggestion that because I am silent regarding your invitation to Professor Curry to have an on-line debate in some way makes me look guilty. As I have said before, I’m no more a scientist that you are and wouldn’t presume to have such a debate when individuals who have far greater knowledge of the science than both of us combined, such as Roger and Professor Petty, are engaged in the same debate. You and other “Slayers” are aware of those very enlightening exchanges in “The Greenhouse Effect” and “Back Radiation” threads but Professor Curry may only be aware of the “Greenhouse Effect” ones (Roger, if Professor Curry is interested then perhaps you’d consider adding her to the circulation.)
In your E-mail of 26th Sept. you said that my alleged “ .. unsubstantiated claim (in effect, a lie) about the Slayers being in decline is laughable .. ” and you rashly assumed that this was Professor Curry’s an my unfulfilled wish. Again I can’t speak for Professor Curry but it certainly isn’t something that I have wished for, simply anticipate. I merely commented on what appeared to be the case from the scant information available on the PSI web-site, which unfortunately concentrates mainly on marketing the PSI brand rather than presenting pertinent facts about the organisation.
You have confirmed that “ .. Claes Johnson has taken a backwards step lately .. ” but I wonder how he would describe it. I don’t find his departure surprising, considering his comments during those “PSI & Due Diligence” exchanges in Dec/Jan. In the spirit of transparency please can you provide an updated list of PSI executives and currently involved “founding members and stakeholders” as well as PSI’s financial position.
On 17th January you appeared to be proudly boasting that there was a “ .. group of 36 respected international scientists and related professionals .. ” (http://www.gofundme.com/1v39s). Nearly 9 months later you name only 10 individuals who are “ .. currently the most active/influential members of the Slayers team.. ”. I make the total count in your E-mail to be 33 and that includes those that you “ .. would hesitate to call ‘Slayers’ per se just yet .. ” (and Dr Matthias Kleepsies has just advised that he is a former member of the “Slayers”). Falling from 36 to 32 (at best) certainly appears to me “ .. to be a dwindling group of “Slayers” .. ”! I wonder who else agrees with you about my “ .. unsubstantiated claim (in effect, a lie) about the Slayers being in decline .. ”. (I won’t hold my breath waiting for an apology)
In the spirit of transparency that is claimed to be so important for your fledgling organisation PSI are you prepared to say who were those “ .. 36 respected international scientists and related professionals .. ” named on 17th Jan. in your failed appeal for charitable donations to help set up PSI as a CIC (http://funds.gofundme.com/1v39s).
This talk of “ .. in effect, a lie .. ” reminded me of a statement in the US version of “Slaying the Sky Dragon” Chapter 21 “Legal Fallout from False Climate Alarm”. You declare in QUOTE: .. Too Many Coincidences to be Innocent Error? .. Collectively the authors of this book represent .. business interest .. UNQUOTE.
I understand that the US version was published in January 2011. Four months earlier on 20th Sept. the PSI web site promotional material in “Why PSI is Proposed as a CIC” started with “ .. Principia Scientific International (PSI) is proposed as a COMMUNITY INTEREST COMPANY (CIC) which is a new type of limited company for people wishing to establish businesses which trade with a social purpose .. ” (note the words “limited company” , “business”, “trade”).
On 15th Dec. the “Principia Scientific Intl. (PSI) page declared (misleadingly) “ .. PSI is a Community Interest Company (CIC) .. ” (as I understand it PSI never has been a CIC and you say you are “ .. no longer contemplating seeking CIC or charity status .. ”).
On 17th Jan. the appeal for charitable donations (http://funds.gofundme.com/1v39s) included “ . Mostly we are the authors of 'Slaying the Sky Dragon,' .. ” (which brings us back to your Chapter 21 “Too Many Coincidences to be Innocent Error?” statement).
The CIC Regulator advises “ .. Community Interest Companies (CICS) are limited companies, with special additional features, created for the use of people who want to conduct a business or other activity for community benefit, and not purely for private advantage .. ” (http://www.bis.gov.uk/cicregulator/).
If that isn’t enough to suggest that the authors do indeed have a business interest, in your E-mail of Jan 01 @ 07:48 PM in which you tried so hard to justify setting up PSI as a CIC you said “ .. As a charity we will not be permitted to operate as a commercial book publishing and promotions entity which is a key function that our group of authors wishes to pursue - raising awareness of, and disseminating real science. Our core authoring team is now 26 international experts strong and we want to receive some financial compensation for our hard work in putting together our main body of scientific evidence into easily accessible book form .. Moreover, I'm highly skeptical that we could put together such a large team of experts (scientists, lawyers and media specialists) willing to give up so much time unpaid under the non-paying constraints of charitable status. Personally, I'm barely scraping by financially as I've spent the last year working on skeptic advocacy full-time, unpaid. I cannot maintain my current level of commitment without some kind of financial remuneration .. If we operate as a ' not for profit' business being completely transparent in our accounts, paying the hardest working members of PSI for their time it seems more likely that we'll get higher quality staff to get the job done .. As a CIC PSI cannot be used solely for the financial advantage of a limited group of people, for political purposes or for the benefit of PSI employees, directors or members .. The directors can be paid and will have the same rights and duties as any other directors ..
The permanent shareholders and directors of PSI are drawn from the founding stakeholders of those 22 original authors of the ‘Slayers’ books .. PROPOSED chair is Dr. Timothy Ball; our PROPOSED managers are John O’Sullivan (CEO), Hans Schreuder (CFO) and Rev. Philip Foster (Compliance Officer). .. Our PROPOSED Board of Directors is: Dr. Martin Hertzberg Dr. Claes Johnson Joseph A. Olson Alan Siddons Dr. Charles Anderson Rev. Philip Foster John O’Sullivan Hans Schreuder .. ” (see attachment).
That E-mail is one of the most revealing about your plans for the business to be known as PSI (but only mentions PSI’s transparency in relation to financial matters, as did your E-mail of 30th Dec @ 05:54 PM). Dr. Michael Mann, Andrew Skolnick, Gareth Renowden and their ilk could well construe what you said in Chapter 21 about “ .. the authors of this book represent no .. business interest .. ” to be “ .. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth .. ” - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie). In a defamation action in the UK isn’t the burden of proof upon the defendant? If, as you say in Chapter 21 “ .. All such Anglophone nations .. premise themselves on English common law .. ” then wouldn’t the same apply in Canada? I get the impression that a favourite lawyers’ tactic is to undermine the credibility of the other party (but perhaps I’ve been watching too many TV soaps).
You may recall Hans Schroeder’s comments about me in his E-mail of 6th Jan @ 09:26 AM to you (and Joe Olson?) “ .. J&J You are digging a trap into which we will all fall if you guys insist in keeping this pest in the fold. He is, IMHO, a spy who has so far very successfully infiltrated the hub of our undertakings .. If you insist on keeping this clown in the loop, than I am out of it, simple as that. My sixth sense has yet to be proven wrong and I do not like this pest one bit. Cheers, Hans .. ” (see attachment).
In my response to Hans’s comment I said in my E-mail of 8th Jan. @ 07:24 & 31 to the group QUOTE: .. I am not in this group as a spy. I am simply a cautious .. individual who believes in telling it as I see it .. Too much is out there already. There seems to either be a spy in the camp or someone has been very careless, otherwise how did Jeff Daley know that “ .. John Osullivan is going to announce in Janaury the setting up a new science association called Principia Scientific International to sue all your criminal warmist buddies for fraud” (http://globalwarmingsuperheroes.com/osullivans-seletive-myopia/) .. UNQUOTE. On reflection it is probable that Jeff didn’t get his information from a spy in the group but came to his conclusions after reading your Chapter 21.
In my “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mail of Jan 04 2011, 06:40 (see attached) I commented on several related matters, including QUOTE: ..
- open and honest manner .. no hint of dishonesty. If we don’t do that then the disciples and supporters .. will tear us to pieces.
- .. 32 experts signed up to the Slayers book project .. who are these 32 “experts”
- The CIC Regulator must fully understand the reason why PSI is being established .. each if us must be squeaky clean .. and provide no ammunition for our opponents to support their inevitable claims that our motives are avaricious not altruistic .. ” UNQUOTE.
Thanks for the update on Andrew Skolnick’s activities, which is all very interesting, just as were his questions and comments about your academic and professional claims. The details that you provide on Friends Re-united (http://www.friendsreunited.co.uk/blog/read/JohnOSullivan/77846) are mundane compared with your self-promotion on Linked In (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/john-o-sullivan/19/6b4/84a – note that this is a different URL to what you provided). I find the Friends Re-united entry more appropriate but I never was impressed by self-praise, as I discussed with Andrew Skolnick on Professor Curry’s thread (http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/31/slaying-a-greenhouse-dragon/).
“Slaying the Sky Dragon” says about you that “ .. In the U.S. his work is featured in the National Review .. Among other internationally-esteemed publications he has appeared in both the China Daily .. as well as India Times .. ”. Andrew Skolnick claims that you haven’t featured in the National Review and correctly pointed out that there is another John O’Sullivan featured there, the National Review’s well-known editor-at-large (http://old.nationalreview.com/jos/jos.asp).
On 4th July Gareth Renowden said of you (http://sciblogs.co.nz/hot-topic/tag/osullivan/) QUOTE: ..
John O’Sullivan has never had any article, major or otherwise, published in National Review or Forbes. National Review does have a writer called John O’Sullivan - .. their Editor-at-Large. Pressed to confirm his status as a writer for National Review .. O’Sullivan posted links to two articles written by the other John. Tasked with this apparent theft of another’s reputation, he resorted to bluster and attempts to change the subject.
.. China Daily .. and The India Times .. For O’Sullivan, “featuring” in China Daily means having someone post one of your articles in a discussion forum. The same is true for The India Times ..
his legal background .. He claims to have a law degree (LLB) and to have litigated in New York State courts and the US Federal 2nd Circuit. .. Does O’Sullivan really have any kind of legal training or background? .. Research by Andrew Skolnick discovered that a John O’Sullivan does appear to have obtained a law degree .. but it’s not Sky Dragon O’Sullivan.
What about his experience in the US courts? .. O’Sullivan had been involved in bringing a sexual harassment case against a former employer of his wife. This suit appears to have been a failure. .. He has recently joined the American Bar Association as an associate — but is not, and should not be claiming to be, a full member .. UNQUOTE (please read the complete article as I have cherry-picked in an effort to reduce turgidity)..
John, please can you once and for all shut up Andrew, Gareth and any other vile detractors by providing links to irrefutable evidence of your educational, academic and professional claims and telling us precisely which articles of yours featured in the National Review and which appeared in China Daily and The India Times. It is common practice for accredited academics to give full details of their achievements so why don’t you? In my opinion the information provided in Friend Re-united and Linked In doesn’t really adequately support the claims that you make elsewhere.
It’s interesting to know that Andrew has joined Dr. Mann’s team. I see that Professor Curry has a thread “Lawyering up” (http://judithcurry.com/2011/04/09/lawyering-up/) in which she comments on the “Michael Mann – Tim Ball” libel action, including “ .. Why Ball is the one being sued is not clear to me, when others who have made similar (and even more explicit) statements are not being sued .. ”. In “Slaying the Sky Dragon” Chapter 11 “Analysis of Climate Alarmism” and Chapter 21 “Legal Fallout from False Climate Alarm” Dr. Ball and you make less than complementary comments about Dr. Michael Mann and I recall mention of “hockey team” members having temper tantrums over the publication of the McIntyre/McKittrick paper in Climate Research (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2004/04/02/bending-the-hockey-stick/). As Professor Curry indicates, that actual comment made by Dr. Ball about State Penn was really quite innocuous. Could this libel action just be another “Hockey Team” tantrum or is it more involved that than?
There is another aspect that puzzles me about this action – r. Ball’s response to it. My understanding is that Dr. Mann would have accepted an apology (http://rabett.blogspot.com/2011/03/coming-soon-to-courthouse-near-you.html) which might have avoided the need for you to make another funding appeal, “Top Climate Skeptic Seeks Help in Double-barrel Courtroom Shootout By John O. Sullivan” (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/08/help-asked-for-dr-tim-ball-in-legal-battle-with-dr-mann/). In his Email of 27th May @ 06:02 PM John claimed that “ .. Part of helping Tim defend himself .. has been in raising funds via public donations .. Dr. Ball's supporters have .. donated well over $100,000CAD already in just a few weeks. Thus I'm filled with confidence for the future of PSI when I see such grassroots support for what we envision will be an organization that has high principles in the defense of honest science .. I hope once we have defeated these frivolous lawsuits and won substantial damages for Dr. Ball we will be well placed to resume work on PSI on the back of proven successes here .. ”.
John, if, as you confidently predict, Dr. Mann loses his claim is Dr. Ball likely to get his costs paid (as well as perhaps getting substantial damages)? If so, what will happen to those funds donated towards the costs of him defending it? Those contributions cannot reasonably be considered as contributions to the PSI start-up fund, can they.
(Dr. Ball, are you prepared to let us know how you would propose to dispose of any surplus donations from that appeal if you recover your costs from Dr. Mann)?
Getting back to PSI, you could consider replacing much of you latest PSI promotional material (which I doubt many find inspiring) with facts about the status of the organisation, e.g. confirmed membership list, outstanding applications (you know the kind of thing) so that your target market can understand the real picture. While you’re at it perhaps some facts about the number of copies of “Slaying the Sky Dragon” that have been sold, with a breakdown by country. That should be quite easy to do. After all, the “Slayers”, “Slaying the Sky Dragon” and PSI are really inseparable, aren’t they? That sort of material will be of enormous benefit to anyone contemplating subscribing to PSI.
Having said a fair bit about Andrew Skolnick and friends we are in danger of allowing ourselves to be dragged down a side-track away from the main issue of interest to me, PSI and transparency. You seem to be reluctant to take up my challenge that you make the “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mails available for public scrutiny on the PSI web-site and have remained silent on that. I suspect that many are suspicious of those who worship Harpocrates (http://www.whale.to/b/silence.html).
In my next E-mail I’ll share my review of Slaying the Sky Dragon” Chapter 21 “Legal Fallout from False Climate Alarm” which nicely describes your plans for PSI at that time, as shown in those “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mails. I hope that Mr. Sowell has spent a little time reading that chapter because his input to these exchanges could be very useful. I’ll carry on adding E-mails to my “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mails file (attached) as I continue presenting what I see as related issues and relevant extracts.
Once again, if any of you wish to be removed from the circulation then please let me know. If those Ccd here are getting bored then I’m sure that there will be interest elsewhere.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
PS:
I managed to find Dr. Matthais Kleespies’ E-mail address but please would someone pass this E-mail on to Tom Neveu and Derek Alker as I think that as participants in PSI activities they are entitled to get involved in these exchanges. Now Derek Alker is one PSI participant who has earned my respect very quickly. He appears to tell it as he sees it and isn’t prone to self-aggrandisement “ .. Derek Alker. BA (hons) Geography.2-2 if you must know, and no I ain’t proud of that. I am an English factory floor worker .. ” (http://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/derek-free-to-all-pdf-to-end-agw-scam-saturday-18_12-version.pdf).
Pete R.
======================
Best regards, Pete Ridley
PS:
I managed to find Dr. Matthais Kleespies’ E-mail address but please would someone pass this E-mail on to Tom Neveu and Derek Alker as I think that as participants in PSI activities they are entitled to get involved in these exchanges. Now Derek Alker is one PSI participant who has earned my respect very quickly. He appears to tell it as he sees it and isn’t prone to self-aggrandisement “ .. Derek Alker. BA (hons) Geography.2-2 if you must know, and no I ain’t proud of that. I am an English factory floor worker .. ” (http://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/derek-free-to-all-pdf-to-end-agw-scam-saturday-18_12-version.pdf).
Pete R.
======================
From: JOHN OSULLIVAN
To: Tim Ball
CC: peter.ridley@...; houston2000@; nasifnahle@; jpostma@; hanssch@; alan618034@; omatumr@; etc. etc.
Sent: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 16:14
Subject: Re: Resolution of conflict between me and Prof. Grant Petty
Tim,
I wasn't aware of that. Although Skolnick's unsolicited correspondence to me has made it explicit that he's been liaising with Michael Mann's and Andrew Weaver's lawyer, Roger McConchie. So it would be no stretch of the imagination to infer that McConchie has likely put Skolnick up to these shenanigans.The fact Skolnick also filed a complaint against your attorney, too, suggests to me McConchie is not confident of winnning the Weaver and Mann libel suits against you. Savvy lawyers don't waste valuable time stooping to such tricks if they believe they are already in a good position - smells of clutching at straws to me. So I'll take this as a good sign!
Thanks,
John
www.slayingtheskydragon.com
=============
From: Tim Ball
To: JOHN OSULLIVAN
CC: peter.ridley@...; houston2000@...; nasifnahle@...; jpostma@...; hanssch@...; alan618034@...; omatumr@...; etc. etc.
Sent: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 15:26
Subject: Re: Resolution of conflict between me and Prof. Grant Petty
John:
I understand Skolnick has also filed a complaint with the BC Law Society against my Canadian attorney.
Tim B
=============
From: ..john0sullivan@…
To: peter.ridley@…
CC: …
Sent: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 9:42
Subject: Re: Fwd: Resolution of conflict between me and Prof. Grant Petty
Peter,
I'm still awaiting feedback from you and Dr. Curry on my suggestion that Dr. Curry debates the Slayers on the greenhouse gas effect. I raise the point now because your latest email suggests that my silence on some of your questions is indicative of my "guilt” (?). If this is so, then to be consistent, may we now likewise infer that the silence of you and Dr Curry regarding my offer is "guilt" on both your parts, as well?
As for Andrew Skolnick - I understand he is a pro-green environmental journalist. He began his personal tirade against me around May 2011 on the LinkedIn website when I mentioned, in one of the discussion forums on the site, that I was appointed as a consultant to Canadian Law firm, Pearlman Lindholm. I was appointed to assist Dr. Tim Ball in his defense of two high profile libel suits (the first, versus Dr Andrew Weaver, the second versus Dr. Michael Mann). A heated debate ensued in the 'LinkedIn' discussion forum during which I won from Skolnick an apology for erring in his facts. Yet he has since sought to vilify me on other blogs and last week I was advised by Pearlman Lindholm that Skolnick has filed a "complaint" against me via the Canadian Supreme Court.
In none of Skolnick’s slurs does he provide any web links for verification of his claims. Readers are asked to take his invective at face value. I do not see any need to repeatedly deign to reply to such unsubstantiated smears. If you choose to entertain them absent any evidence, then that exposes your own predilictions and biases. (Frankly, this does also seem to be how you approach to the greenhouse gas effect debate).
Among Skolnick's false allegations is that I have claimed as my own the work of other writers. Also, he says I've been fraudulently assuming the identity of another John O’Sullivan, a graduate of law from University College, Cork. I have made no such claims and have repeatedly challenged Skolnick to provide hard evidence proving where and when I am supposed to have said/written any of this. He has yet to comply.
Also, despite Skolnick’s claims to the contrary, I do not conceal my history. Indeed, I openly publish my educational and professional background on my ‘bio’ page on the 'LinkedIn' website that we both frequent. Yet he conveniently chooses to ignore this. See LinkedIn web page: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=64434874&trk=tab_pro
Moreover, I openly maintain another 'bio' page on the 'Friends Reunited' website where I have numerous links to former colleagues and friends (some of whom have reported that Skolnick has been pestering them about me). On their urging I posted on the site an open response to Skolnick:
Not satisfied with the above, Skolnick has gone on to demand that I provide him with a list of cases and former clients to verify that I have litigated for 13 years at all levels of the New York State court system and the Federal Second Circuit. Naturally, I declined to do so because of client confidentiality and the fear that Skolnick intended to misuse such information to inflict injury on my reputation. However, as an indication of the truthfulness of my position one such client, Thomas Neveu, will gladly vouch for me.
I recently achieved for Mr. Neveu the favorable outcome he sought in a vexatious and potentially extremely costly copyright infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court, Nevada. All claims against Mr. Neveu were withdrawn (with prejudice) last week. See here:
For further verification Mr. Neveu can be contacted at this address: tom_neveu@comcast.net and is now added to this c.c. list.
As for PSI, it is currently proceeding as a private concern being that there is not yet agreement among the team about how best to advance this project in the longer term. As for who is or isn't officially a Slayer, that's a tough question as the group has appeared to have grown organically over the last year or so. Certainly, Claes Johnson has taken a backwards step lately and we hope he will reconsider his position and resume a front line role again soon. (When the PSI site is updated this will be amended accordingly).
I can say that currently the most active/influential members of the Slayers team are Hans Schreuder, Alan Siddons, Joe Olson, Joe Postma, Dr Nasif Nahle, Dr Tim Ball, Dr Martin Hertzberg, Derek Alker, plus our publishers, Ken Coffman and Philip Foster. I can recommend for your continuing education the recent four groundbreaking papers by Postma and Nahle on the GHE that stand proudly as PSI’s first publications and already are causing considerable debate in the community:
Other highly valued contributors include Bob Ashworth, Dr Charles Anderson, Miso Alkalaj, Malcolm Roberts, Dr Oliver Manuel, Piers Corbyn, Gabriel Rychert, Tom Richards, Dr Norm Kalmonovich, Mark Schwarz, Dr Matthias Kleepsies, Paul Driessen, Dr Klaus Keiser, John Droz. Jr. and Dr Geraldo Luís Lino. Of course, there
are other individuals on the periphery of the team who share our views and provide invaluable feedback on our science (e.g. Dr Harry Dale Huffman, Dr Jeff Glassman, Gary Novak, Dr Norm Kalmonovich, Dr Jim Peden, Timothy Casey) but I would hesitate to call ‘Slayers’ per se just yet.
Dr. Pierre Latour has very recently joined us. Californian attorney Roger Sowell, also on this c.c. list, is in discussion with us as a potential new recruit, but his decision is pending because he is currently reviewing our Sky Dragon book.
Regards,
John
www.slayingtheskydragon.com
----------
From: "peter.ridley@..."
Sent: Wednesday, 28 September, 2011 23:44:04
SEE BELOW
==============
From: ...houston2000@....
To: peter.ridley@....; john0sullivan@...
CC: nasifnahle@....; jpostma@....; hanssch@...; alan618034@...; omatumr@...; timothyball@...; etc. etc.
Sent: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 0:27
Subject: Re: Fwd: Resolution of conflict between me and Prof. Grant Petty
Mr Ridley
for the record....there is NO expectation of privacy on the internet....my "HARSH RIDLEY JUDGEMENT" comment was made to YOU and selected Fellow Slayers....i make no apologies for my evaluation of your behavior....when apologies were due to my error i have made those as needed....
THIS IS A THREE SIDED DEBATE....i studied Thermodynamics 40 years ago as an engineering student and applied those principles many times in my career....i KNEW that AGW was a lie 10 years ago, but it had no direct impact on my life....when Obama got elected THAT changed....
i had been researching and writting for two years prior to the formation of the Slayers....these brave and tallented men understand the same Physics that has solved humanities problems for centuries....our Fellowship has strenghtened our courage and our knowledge....
i accepted your emails as an honest broker of truth....after surveailing our small group for months you voted to support the invalid science of the Luke Warmists due to their larger number and greater media presence....there is NO judgement that you are any man can render against me that I FEAR....my life quest is to find and share TRUTH....all that i have known and all current study prove the Slayer position....and i will continue to battle for that Truthfilled Victory....
TWO SIDES IN THIS DEBATE ARE WRONG....as the world will soon witness....Veritas Vos Liberabit !
Joe Olson
proud co-author of "Slaying the Sky Dragon"
=============
From: peter.ridley@...
To: houston2000@...; john0sullivan@...
CC: nasifnahle@...; jpostma@...; hanssch@...; alan618034@...; omatumr@...; timothyball@...; ... etc. etc.
Sent: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 23:44
Subject: Fwd: Resolution of conflict between me and Prof. Grant Petty
ATTACHMENT: PSI AND DUE DILIGENCE E_MAILS FROM 2010_12_30
Hi All,
I hope that you can tolerate another of my “ .. turgid emails .. ” (as John so kindly put it on 26th Sept.). If anyone wishes to be removed from the circulation then please let me know, as I have no wish to bore people.
Hi Joe,
You’ve changed your tone completely compared with our friendly exchanges back in January. Now you sarcastically comment about “ .. our lovey 'ally' P Ridley .. ” (17 September on this thread) and “ .. Slayers Oh dear....it doest now appear....we must live in fear....of yet another.... HARSH RIDLEY JUDGEMENT ! ! ! [tremble....tremble] .. ” today on the “This is a THREE Sided Debate....and . ...TWO Sides are Wrong....[Monckton’s letter to the journal Remote Sensing]” thread. Still, none of us who have been involved in this Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) hypothesis debate expect respect, do we.
That most recent comment of yours was in response to my “ .. I now have a copy of the US version of the book and remain satisfied that my conclusion after reading the free sample chapters that it would be a waste of money buying it. In my opinion the only chapter that would really enlighten anyone is John's Chapter 21 “Legal Fallout from False Climate Alarm” which nicely describes John's plans for PSI at that time. I'll be saying more about that and PSI's status shortly in the “Resolution of conflict between me and Prof. Grant Petty” thread .. ”. (Anyone interested in understanding what PSI was intended to be needs to take a close look at that Chapter 21.)
You were much more complementary on Dec 30 with your “ .. Pete, i concur with your analysis of the current state of PSI.... .. ” (see my E-mail of Dec 30 2010, 08:52 PM in the attached document for that analysis you were agreeing with) and much more friendly during our exchanges in January. May I respectfully suggest that you have another look at those exchanges we had on 20th Jan. especially yours at 09:02 PM and mine at 09:38 (UK time).
I’m not making judgement Joe, simply passing on information to others, so I hope that you enjoy the memories that this E-mail should bring back.
Hi John,
In your E-mail of 18th Sept. you said “ .. I really hope .. you are not now stooping to ham-fisted bait and switch antics .. ”. It is noticeable that you insist on simply switching rather than addressing points put to you by others. c
I hope that you don’t mind me cherry-picking from your E-mail of 18th Sept. “ .. I will give you another opportunity to prove to us you that you are genuinely interested in .. ” transparency “ .. So please man up on this or we may reasonably infer that .. ” the claims on the PSI pages about transparency are simply more of your exaggerated promotional declarations.
You no doubt remember the exchanges with Andrew Skolnick (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_A._Skolnick & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Andrew_A._Skolnick) on Professor Curry’s thread “Slaying the Sky Dragon” http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/31/slaying-a-greenhouse-dragon/). Andrew (and others involved) were never satisfied that you had responded properly to his questions about your claimed academic and professional credentials (see his comments starting on June 4, 2011 at 4:27 pm, particularly the one on 1st July at 2:15 pm).
In my opinion anyone contemplating joining the “Slayers” or PSI would benefit from reading the “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mails, all of those exchanges in “Slaying the Sky Dragon” http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/31/slaying-a-greenhouse-dragon/) before committing to contributing financially to PSI, whether it is an association, a CIC or other form of private company or charity.
There are also some interesting comments made and links provided in “So many lies – and the liar who tells them” by Gareth Renowden (http://sciblogs.co.nz/hot-topic/2011/07/04/so-many-lies-%E2%80%93-and-the-liar-who-tells-them/) starting from “ .. But what of O’Sullivan? Who is this man .. ”, although I always take with a pinch of salt what the truffles- olive- grape-grower Gareth Renowden (http://hot-topic.co.nz/about-2/) says.
BTW, if as you say “ .. I can further assure you that PSI is no longer contemplating seeking CIC or charity status because we are making strides to be a self-financing private association .. ” then I suggest that you consider changing the statements in your Web-pages. The “Why PSI is a Private Association” (http://principia-scientific.org/about-us/why-psi-is-a-private-assoc) Web-page presently discusses CIC status and mentions CIC 24 times, even having sections devoted to “WHAT IF PSI BECOMES A CIC?”, “BENEFITS OF BEING A CIC” and “KEY POINTS ABOUT PSI IF OPERATED AS A CIC:” (there was even a sub-section “The CIC Regulator”). Also the TRANSPARENCY, STAKEHOLDING, QUALITY ADMINISTRATION promotional material (http://principia-scientific.org/about-us/principles-of-association) makes reference to CIC.
You and Hans Schroeder might recall that on 21st Jan. (following my E-mail exchanges with the CIC Regulator) I had to point out misleading claims being made since September 2010 on the PSI Web-site about PSI already being “ .... a legal entity under British law serving charitable interests for the benefit of the broader community .. ”. Only a few days later the Web-site’s pages simply had the message “This site is down for maintenance. Please check back again soon”.
Several of the authors of “Slaying the Greenhouse Dragon” are named on the “Why PSI is a Private Association” page (http://principia-scientific.org/about-us/why-psi-is-a-private-assoc) among the 13 PSI founding members and stakeholders. It is stated that “ .. Our Founding Members and stakeholders include:
Dr. Tim Ball, Dr. Martin Hertzberg, Dr. Claes Johnson, Joseph A. Olson, Alan Siddons, Dr. Charles Anderson, John O’Sullivan, Hans Schreuder, Joseph E. Postma, Professor Nasif Nahle, Dr. Matthais Kleespies, Tom Neveu, Derek Alker .. ”.
One of those named as a founding member and stakeholder has advised me that he is not a “Slayer” and will not be involved in PSI as there is little agreement between him and the “Slayers”. I see that as an important relevant issue – why has someone who is still being promoted by PSI as a founder member of this embryonic organisation that is seeking to establish itself internationally with the Core Values declared on its homepage (http://principia-scientific.org/) chosen to disassociate himself from it. Also, why is he still being promoted as a PSI founder? Is this just another misleading statement on the PSI promotional pages? Please would you be good enough to advise whether or not that list of founding members is correct?
That word “transparency” figures large in the PSI promotional pages so now seems to me to be a good time for you to start demonstrating that those are not merely impressive words trying to market the PSI brand. In compliance with the declaration under TRANSPARENCY, STAKEHOLDING, QUALITY ADMINISTRATION (http://principia-scientific.org/about-us/principles-of-association) isn’t there a lot that ought to be made available for scrutiny now rather than waiting for it to be disclosed by others who might try to undermine the association/CIC/private company and the individuals associated with it? As I said before, anyone who is considering subscribing to PSI would be well advised to consider the exchanges involving Andrew Skolnick, etc. and to ask for sight of those “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mails of Dec/Jan. I refer you (and the Ccs) to my E-mail of 18th Sept. Para. 7 starting “ .. Professor Petty could have been directing that comment at you John. .. ”.
Also John, in my opinion you have misrepresented what I say. Although I am always happy to apologise for and correct any incorrect statement that I may make my (as you put it) “ .. unsubstantiated claim (in effect, a lie) about the Slayers being in decline .. ” was in fact a statement of opinion about what to me “ .. appears to be a dwindling group of “Slayers” .. ”. I expect that you are well aware of the difference between an opinion and a lie (“ .. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth .. ” - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie). You can very easily enlighten us all by declaring who presently regard themselves as being members of your group of “Slayers”. In Dec/Jan there appeared to be something like 36 (http://www.gofundme.com/1v39s). How many are there now and who are they. If you are considering people who have signed up as members of PSI to be “Slayers” then please, in the spirit of transparency would you provide a list of those members (I have been unable to find one anywhere). I’m not talking about those “ .. exciting pending applications to join the team .. “ but existing committed members. Here’s another opportunity for you to demonstrate how enthusiastic you really are about transparency concerning PSI.
I get the impression that Andrew Skolnick (and other like-minded individuals) might consider the claims made on the PSI promotional page “Principles of Association” (http://principia-scientific.org/about-us/principles-of-association) about the credentials of its principal founder are just another “ .. brand of BS .. ” (as you put it about Professor Curry). You claim on that page and in “Slaying the Sky Dragon” that you have “ .. litigated successfully for over a decade in government corruption cases in the New York State Court system and Federal Court (Second Circuit) .. ”. Andrew has challenged you on that but if it is true then I expect that you are aware of what is said in “Criminal Justice: Does Silence Mean Guilt?” (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,899502,00.html). Regardless that “ .. The decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States have, in effect, shattered the tacit-admission rule .. ” silence can still leave a strong suspicion of guilt in the minds of the lay public.
You had a lot to say about the leaked Climategate E-mails, using strong words like “proven criminal conduct” “criminal intent” “fraud” “crooked” – e.g. see http://www.climategate.com/biased-reporting-on-climategate http://www.climategate.com/worlds-biggest-coal-company-brings-us-government-to-court-in-climate-fraud http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6674 http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5700) yet you have nothing to say about the “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mails. Surely it is not because you think that they are of no interest to others?
Using your phraseology “ .. please man up on this or we may reasonably infer that .. ” there is something in those PSI & Due Diligence” E-mails (and the attachments thereto) that PSI wishes to keep hidden from potential members of the association. Let’s not give CACC supporters like Andrew Skolnick any more fodder for their vile invective. None of the individuals involved in those “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mails have raised any objection to my proposal of 18th Sept. that the E-mails be given a public airing and I’m happy to accept a null response from them as agreement to it.
In my opinion the most appropriate place to make them available for public scrutiny is on the PSI web-site, however, you may for some reason prefer them to be made available elsewhere. Perhaps Professor Curry would be prepared to make them available. After all, she was prepared to give “Slaying the Sky Dragon” an airing. I’m sure that in her “Core Values” she too promotes the virtues of scientific truth, shuns the vagaries of political advocacy, chooses not to subordinate herself to the moralizing pre-determinism of discredited ‘post normal’ science and believes that the pursuit of truth ought to be our abiding goal (http://principia-scientific.org/).
In my opinion it is important that PSI be seen to be transparent in its dealings because Climategate demonstrated that once things are committed to print they are very easily made public. If PSI doesn’t do it someone else could. In his E-mail of Jan 06 2011, 09:26 AM Hans Schroeder said of me “ .. He is, IMHO, a spy who has so far very successfully infiltrated the hub of our undertakings. .. My sixth sense has yet to be proven wrong and I do not like this pest one bit .. ”. Hans was wrong about me, as I said in the attachment to my E-mail of Jan 08 2011, 07:24/31 PM QUOTE:
.. Let me advise you all that if you have been thinking along the same lines as Hans then his 6th sense, which he seems to hold in high regard, has let him down badly this time. I am not in this group as a spy. I am simply a cautious (“once bitten twice shy”) individual who believes in telling it as I see it. There are too many in this group who are not prepared to put what they think on record.
Hans raised the issue of a spy and John mentioned earlier about the need for care, especially wrt what goes out on the Internet. Too much is out there already. There seems to either be a spy in the camp or someone has been very careless, otherwise how did Jeff Daley know that “John Osullivan is going to announce in Janaury the setting up a new science association called Principia Scientific International to sue all your criminal warmist buddies for fraud” (http://globalwarmingsuperheroes.com/osullivans-seletive-myopia/) .. UNQUOTE.
In that E-mail I also said “ ..I .. have not had a single reply to it and am beginning to get somewhat irritated by the deafening silence on this issue .. - “Due Diligence” and “Regulatory Compliance”, like Siamese twins, are inseparable, yet the member of the proposed Executive nominated as Compliance Officer, Philip Foster, has said NOTHING AT ALL”.
You commented on 26 Sep about “ .. Dr Curry's "arrogance" .. ” but Professor Curry does have proven scientific qualifications, professional experience and the respect of both sceptics ans supporters of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) hypothesis to back up what she says
You also added a “ .. P.S. Note how much quicker I respond to your turgid emails? .. ”. That reminded me of our E-mail exchanges immediately after Xmas last year (see attached file for the complete set of E-mails leading up to the first of our “PSI & Due Diligence” exchanges). In your first E-mail in that batch, dated 26th December, you responded to Miso Alkalaj’s E-mail with “ .. I am happy to work with one of my contacts in the DC area to file a mandamus in the federal court in D.C. on behalf of PSI. To do this we need to pay filing and court fees, paralegal costs land office expenses. A typical mandamus petition will ordinarily cost a client $3,000. If we can raise $3,000 I can set the legal wheels in motion. The legal skills and resources are at the ready so now the ball is in our court and that of our supporters to raise the $3,000.There is no fear of a counter suit so we cannot be sued for frivolous or malicious filing. This is as cheap a way to score a legal victory as I can suggest .. ”. That reflects what you discussed in your Chapter 21 “Legal Fallout from False Climate Alarm” contribution to “Slaying the Sky Dragon” and that chapter nicely describes your plans for PSI at that time.
Oliver responded with “ .. I would probably be willing to contribute to this effort. But I am cautious, as others may well be, about investing in a legal process that may continue forever .. ”. Tim said “ .. I am in support of this proposal and will make a contribution .. One must think of the impact of the British father (Dimmock) who challenged the scientific validity of Gore's Inconvenient Truth .. ”. I commented that “ .. Although Dimmock brought a successful action against the UK government under the Education Act it made no impact upon the distribution of Al Gore's propaganda film throughput our schools. It was basically a waste of effort and money from that point of view .. ”.
You will recall that you responded with “ .. I've staked my reputation, sweat and own money on beating the AGW fraud in the courts - its the only serious game in town. My legal associates and I are ready and waiting to take the battle on. .. As the saying goes: you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. Take the chance while it is offered or it may not be made again .. ”.
It was that talk of raising money for legal action that persuaded me to carry out my “PSI & Due Diligence” activity. In the first of the “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mails on 30th December I started with QUOTE:
.. sorry that I’ve taken a few days to consider the points that you made in your E-mails of 28th Dec. Your comment of 28th @ 09:20 PM about having “ .. full corporate staff--CEO, CFO, fund-raising staff, sales, marketing, advertising, operations .. a legal entity in England .. a new publishing business .. the infrastructure to make this thing work. .. a private agreement with a prominent skeptic association .. willingly staked my own reputation and resources on .. PSI as CEO ... “ more than surprised me (and I suspect others too). Then your “ .. I heartily recommend PSI to you and encourage you to help lobby for donations and membership. Thanks for your faith and continued support .. ” made me more than a little uncomfortable.
Your comment of 28th @ 09:38 PM “ .. you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. Take the chance while it is offered or it may not be made again .. ” reminded me of two other relevant saying “Fools rush in where wise men fear to go” and “look before you leap”. .. UNQUOTE.
I also said QUOTE: ..
As a result of those two E-mails I have spent a couple of days doing “due diligence” research into PSI and its sponsors, including most of the people receiving these E-mails. I have completed my (10,000-word) report plus the attached profiles. I offer my “Executive Summary” here but am prepared to share selected extracts with anyone here who asks for them but on the understanding that I do so on a Private & Confidential basis.
…. Executive Summary
“Self-praise is no praise at all”
Although there is a plethora of boastful promotion material there are many unanswered questions about PSI’s structure, the relationships between and motivations of the principle individuals involved, its modus operandi and strategies. I find no convincing evidence that PSI will be anything other than a minor addition to the existing tally of international organisations of people who are sceptical of the doctrine that our continuing use of fossil fuels is leading to catastrophic change to the different global climates. ..
Sorry folks but I won’t be donating any of my hard-earned cash to PSI, .. UNQUOTE.
Eventually I propose to cover each of the “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mails but before that I’ll make a few comments about “Slaying the Sky Dragon” Chapter 21.
Once again, if anyone wishes to be removed from the circulation then please let me know, as I have no wish to bore people with my “ .. turgid emails .. ”.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Hi all!
Alarm bells ring in my head whenever I read "the science is settled" and "the ONLY correct science" in something still in flux, like climate "science". I am well aware that my own proposals are just that: hypotheses that I MADE UP, and therefore subject to attack, revision, and possible withdrawal.
That's the way real science is SUPPOSED to work, with Mann et al. shamefully breaking these informal rules.
Since Alan has raised specific points, here are some further considerations (which are not meant to be personal attacks):
1. CO2, human-produced or otherwise, does not have the thermal mass to affect the entire planet system. How could 0.04% or less of the atmosphere have an effect that 99.9% does not? Answer: N2, O2 and Ar CANNOT absorb or emit IR, because they lack a permanent (and changing) electric dipole moment. But greenhouse gases CO2, water vapour, ozone, methane, etc. CAN absorb and emit IR. This fact alone would be negligible if they couldn't affect N2, O2 and Ar. But transfer of energy during inelastic collisions between excess excited state greenhouse gas molecules and N2, O2 and Ar means that absorbed IR ends up heating the atmosphere (N2, O2, Ar), with negligible amounts of heat stored in these trace amounts of greenhouse gases. This obvious possibility (which explains how an equilibrium temperature is
approached when heat is added to a system) seems to be absent in the climate change (enhanced greenhouse effect) literature.
So I believe the Standard Model for explanation of the greenhouse effect is fundamentally flawed (I'll have to read Prof. Grant Petty's textbook on Atmospheric Radiation to be sure that I have not misinterpreted the Standard Model).
heat rises by convection away from Earth....briefly OLR heated CO2 heats surrounding air that RISES....
2. I agree with Alan that Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) is not a (simple) function of CO2 and that doubling CO2 does NOT double OLR. From Sir John Houghton's "explanation" of the greenhouse effect available at http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2572 the OLR is emitted from a 220 K layer high in the atmosphere (at 5 to 20 km altitude - there's some room for argument here). This 220 K layer CANNOT act as a black body radiator, because the Stefan-Boltzmann law quickly yields 130 W/m^2 which is only half the observed 260 W/m^2.
What Houghton's model gets wrong is that N2, O2 and Ar (i.e. the atmosphere's main components) CANNOT emit ANY IR, black body or otherwise. And at CO2 frequencies centered on 667 cm^-1, only bout 14 W/m^2 escapes to outer space, way smaller than 260 W/m^2.
So here's my explanation for the OLR: except at absorption bands due to greenhouse gases (which appear in the satellite spectra looking down on the Earth), the atmosphere is TRANSPARENT to IR photons emitted from the SURFACE of the Earth. This is most apparent between 800-1200 cm^-1 except for he ozone absorption between 1000-1080 cm^-1. The Barrow, Alaska spectrum looking UP from the ground shows essentially ZERO IR emission from the atmosphere at these frequencies: the atmosphere does NOT emit a black body spectrum. In spectra looking down on the Earth, the best-fitted black body curve measures the temperature of the emitting solid or liquid SURFACE of the Earth, not some atmospheric layer high in the troposphere.
Greenhouse gases absorb SOME of the IR emitted from the SURFACE of the Earth, and act as a blanket WITH VERY LARGE HOLES IN IT. Increasing CO2 makes the area of the holes somewhat smaller (but not linearly), so at energy balance with incoming Solar radiation, the surface temperature must rise to drive the same number of W/m^2 through the diminished windows.
On the other hand, Houghton's "explanation" is that with increased CO2 less IR escapes, which means a lower black body emitting temperature, which means the IR escapes from a layer at a higher altitude in the troposphere (where it is colder). John Nicol has rightly judged this fantastic nonsensical theory "non-physical". So I'm definitely with the skeptics on this point. Judith Curry has criticized my comments as simply attacking a "straw man" (a phrase also used, perhaps non-coincidentally, by Josh), "kindergarten science" that does not represent the real Standard Model. We'll see, after I read Petty's textbook.
this plot available on line....settled rapidly decreasing CO2 to temp storage....BUT....Slayer calcs show minor decrease heat with even 100 PPM increase in CO2.....
3. The radiative lifetime of an excited CO2 molecule may be only 10^-7 or 10^-8 seconds, but at 1 atmosphere pressure there are approx. 10^10 collisions/second between gas molecules. Therefore there are 100-1000 collisions in a radiative lifetime, and therefore there is a non-zero probability of energy transfer from an excited state CO2 molecule to air molecules (N2, O2, Ar). In fact, the number of collisions necessary for quenching vibrationally excited states runs from the hundreds to thousands (rotationally excited states take only a few - approx. 2-5 - collisions for quenching to occur, resulting in an equilibrium distribution characterized by a Boltzmann rotational temperature equivalent to the ambient translational temperature). Shifting of frequencies on emission of a photon is one factor in the theory of line width (the Doppler effect and pressure broadening explain the fact that the observed line width is much greater than the "natural" line width predicted by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle). So radiative transfer between CO2 molecules is affected by line width, but as I have repeatedly stressed, the quantized energy levels means that absorption/emission results in no net energy gain or loss. So scattering of IR photons by CO2 molecules cannot alone explain how the air warms up, an idea somehow unknown to supporters of the Standard Model.
the asorb-emit cycle causes phase shift to lower energy. longer wavelenght and CO2 invisible spectrum photon
4. Energy is indeed transferred from excess excited CO2 molecules to N2 and O2, but since they cannot emit IR, they do not carry energy away from the planet to outer space. It is the IR emitted by CO2 and the Earth's SURFACE that carries energy to outer space. The Standard Model seems to say (I'll have to read Petty's book to be sure) that it is the IR emitted by CO2 at 220 K at 20 km that balances incoming energy. But this is only 14 W/m^2, and is powered not by IR emitted from the warm surface of the Earth, but by heat generated as ozone absorbs incoming UV and visible light from the Sun. This occurs in the stratosphere (accounting for the well-known temperature inversion - see graph in Houghton's article) and upper troposphere (especially between 10-20 km where the temperature is roughly constant, as the decreasing emperature due to adiabatic expansion is balanced by heat radiated from higher altitudes). The energy of a photon of wavelength 4000 Angstroms = 400 nm = 0.4 microns is 37.5 times that of a 15 micron photon, i.e. 25,000 cm^-1 instead of 667 cm^-1. So on collision, an excited state ozone molecule has plenty of energy to warm up the surrounding air. If only part of that 25,000 cm^-1 energy (the energy of a photon varies as the frequency, and frequency varies as the wavenumber; e.g. 667 cm^-1 means 667 waves in each cm distance; 25,000 cm^-1 means 25,000 waves in each cm distance) ends up producing on collision an excess CO2 molecule to the v=1 vibrational state, its radiation on falling down to the ground v=0 state will show up as an emission peak at 667 cm^-1.
This is expected both during the daytime and the nighttime, since the stratosphere does not cool instantly to zero at nighttime (thanks, Prof. Petty). How do we know that this emission doesn't come directly, unmolested from the Earth's surface? The spectrum looking down on a Thunderstorm Anvil, available at www.sundogpublishing.com/AtmosRad/Excerpts/AtmosRad217.pdf shows the CO2 emission peak is at 220 K, poking above the background 210 K BLACK BODY emission of the background Thunderstorm Anvil. Therefore the emission CANNOT be powered from below, which is colder.
The energy absorbed by ozone (which I have observed to be a deep Royal Blue colour when adsorbed on silica gel in a liquid nitrogen cold trap, meaning that it absorbs visible light and therefore UV, unlike colourless dry ice which does not absorb visible light) means that on the way down to equilbrium, the ozone can exist in a steady-state non-equilibrium concentration of v=2 excited state molecules, where the v=1 to v=0 transition explains the emission peak at 1040 cm^-1. This v=2 state will be approx. 2000 cm^-1 above the v=0 ground state, and will be in resonance with the v=3 state for CO2 bond-bending (2000/3 = 667 cm^-1). So radiative exchange between ozone and CO2 will create excess v=3 CO2 molecules IN THE DAYTIME WHEN OZONE ABSORBS INCOMING SOLAR RADIATION. When these excess v=3 CO2 molecules fall down to the v=2 state, they emit 648 cm^-1 radiation, accounting for the second Q-branch spike which appears in all the daytime spectra looking down on a warm Earth or Thunderstorm Anvil. The existence of two Q-branch spikes has not been noticed, let alone explained, in the literature I have read to date. I eagerly anticipate reading Petty's textbook to see his explanation.
5. From recent emails on back-radiation, we see that there is no consensus on what "back-radiation" means. Petty himself says that radiation experts do not use the term, but that an IR photon is an IR photon, so back-radiation is whatever is measured by a detector looking up from the ground. Since some of the IR comes from heat liberated by condensation, and since this heat was originally derived from incoming Solar radiation which was absorbed and used to evaporate water molecules, this portion of the total back-radiation CANNOT be used to explain how the Earth warms up (i.e. CANNOT be used to predict or explain the greenhouse effect). In this sense, Alan and all the skeptics are right: there is NO such back-radiation which magically heats up the Earth. In addition, measuring the emission "temperature" by measuring the height of the CO2 peak in the back-radiation spectrum (e.g. at Barrow, Alaska or Nauru in spectra available at http://sundogpublishing.com/AtmosRad/Excerpts/AtmosRad212.pdf) CANNOT be used to calculate total back-radiation on plugging into the Stefan-Boltzmann law, because the atmosphere is not a black body radiator. The CO2 emission can be characterized by an "equivalent" black body temperature of e.g. 250 K, but since there is no emission between 800-1200 cm^-1 except at ozone frequencies of 1000-1080 cm^-1, it is simply wrong to use the Stefan-Boltzmann law which predicts the TOTAL energy (area on the graph) under the black body curve.
Because of the confusion about back-radiation, it might be safest at the moment to simply ignore the diagram(s) on complete energy balance (even a mistake in one term will screw up the whole picture).
Let's stick for now on what CAN be universally agreed to: at 288.2 K (15 C), the Earth's surface emits (using emissivity 0.98) 383 W/m^2 of outgoing IR, 260 of which is measured by the satellite as outgoing IR (this corresponds to the total area under the 288.2 K Planck curve minus the area of the absorption peaks due to all greenhouse gases). The difference, of 123 W/m^2, accounts for the total greenhouse effect.
Actually, due to truncation error, the 14 W/m^2 measured as outgoing IR at CO2 frequencies is powered by incoming Solar radiation absorbed by ozone, so the amount of greenhouse gas absorption has been underestimated by 14 W/m^2. So the amount of IR emitted from the Earth's surface eventually escaping to outer space should be reduced to 246 W/m^2. At energy balance, this means the Earth's surface is better represented by a black body temperature of 285.6 K (12.4 C). If you look carefully at the MODTRAN computer spectrum reproduced at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing , you will see that a Planck black body emission curve at this 285.6 K will be a better fit, especially at the clear 800-1200 cm^-1 window, than the published 288.2 K curve. This value of 285.6 K is consistent with an albedo of 0.28, much closer to the literature values of about 0.30 than the albedo of 0.24 which is consistent with the MODTRAN value of 288.2 K, which is of course also that of the IPCC.
the warmist now FEAR back radiation as a term....but still insist this fiction force exists....3 sides....2 are WRONG
I trust that this email will remove a few doubts and misconceptions. I have sent this email mainly to skeptics to bolster their case on a scientific basis.
Refusing to concede valid points would put us in the same emotional category as Mann et al. and the most fervent of the IPCC's supporters. We don't need to do this, since we're more right than they are.
Joe:
I agree with your points. It is a three sided "debate" in which the correct side is being neglected. The Luke-warmers are only nibbling around the edges and by conceding that there could be even the smallest degree of validity to the arguments of the Warmers, they are only encouraging them by arguing on their turf. As I have said before, the Slayers are driving a stake through the very heart of the problem. Only that will finally give the Anthropogenic Global Warming Vampire its well-deserved death for all eternity.
Marty
Roger et al
despite all efforts to keep this a Warmist vs Luke Warmist debate there is a third side based on traditional Physics that is in fact the ONLY correct science....consider....
1 Human CO2 does not have the Thermal Mass to effect the entire planet system. CO2 has Specific Heat of 0.8 meaning it ablsorbs and releases energy faster than air.
2 The amount of Outgoing Longwave Radiation to be absorbed is NOT a function of CO2 and is in a NON linear relationship to CO2 ratio....doubling CO2 does NOT double OLR.
3 For energy to transfer there must be flux-over-time....for CO2 the absorption-emission cycle is on a billionth of a second per molecule and the emitted photon is phase shifted out of CO2 absorption range.
4 The kinetic energy from this OLR reaction is transfered to the surrounding N2 & O2 and transfered AWAY from the planet...the TOTAL for this energy transfer is 5 milliseconds.
5 There is NO back radiation. A remote Infra-red Thermometer measures the reflection in the atmosphere NOT the radiant energy being returned to Earth. for more on this see http://principia-scientific.org/publications/New_Concise_Experiment_on_Backradation.pdf ignoring the legitimate debate will not make the TRUTH go away.
Joe Olson
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger Taguchi
Sent: Sep 27, 2011 8:58 AM
To: Peter Ridley , Colin Davidson , John Nicol , alan618034 , Charles
Anderson , geraldo , houston2000 , Jerry Oliver , John Droz , John
O'Sullivan , Ruth Hertzberg , Tim Ball
Subject: FW: [New post] Monckton’s letter to the journal Remote Sensing
The article below by Christopher Monckton shows that empirical determinations of climate sensitivity fit into two camps: "high" values of about 3 degrees on doubling CO2 from 300 to 600 ppm, and an increasing number of "low" values centered on 1 degree. The latter agrees with my theoretical calculation (assuming no feedback) of 1.2 degrees due to CO2 alone, after correcting for truncation error in interpreting the satellite spectra looking down on a warm cloudless Earth. I concede that all other feedback factors (increased water vapour on warming, increased cloud cover, aerosols, dust, Solar constant) COULD taken together nudge the prediction up to 1.4 degrees if they continue proportionately the same as in the period 1750-2010.
BTW, the assumption of equal warmings on each successive doubling of CO2 follows immediately on FITTING a log curve to the data. This is an ASSUMPTION that a detailed numerical calculation of the effect of "saturation" of CO2 central frequencies shows is not exactly true. For the next several doublings from 600 ppm, there is a DECREASING (not constant) temperature sensitivity. Thus the IPCC predictions of future warmings (from 400 ppm today) are a factor of 3 too high. This is consistent with Monckton's empirical results.
Therefore we can get a 67% reduction in warming from IPCC predictions by simply doing nothing about CO2, at a cost of zero.
From: houston2000@...>
To: JOHN OSULLIVAN...; nasifnahle@...; jpostma@...; hanssch@t...
CC: judith.curry@...; pete ridley ...
Sent: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 22:01
Subject: Re: Resolution of conflict between me and Prof. Grant Petty
Mr Ridley
Dr Curry was presented in the April 2010 issue of Discover magazine in an interview "Where Does Climate Science Go From Here?"....
does she supports the 'precautionary principle'..... JC: "Oh, absolutely"....
do today's climate models need to be taken with a grain of slat.... JC: "No. I think the climate models are becoming quite sophisticated."
she was presented as "denier" to Michael Mann in this same interview....it is a shameful display of Disney created Faux Debate....
i wrote about this article....sent posted copy to JC, telephoned her, encouraged her to study Thermodynamics, offered assistance....
she stated she would 'audit' Thermo during summer of 2010....in fall of 2010 she told me she attended two classes but "didn't get it".....
the same thing she said about the Thermodynamics in Slaying the Sky Dragon.... SHE DOESN'T GET IT....
luckily the world is not limited to the understanding of the lowest common denominator, which certainly includes Mr Ridley...
Nasif's article on the proper 'use and limitations' of Infra-red Thermometers is damaging proof of Warmist & Luke incompentance....
and more damaging Slayer material is being researched and prepared daily....there is NO BACKRADIATION....no CO2 warming....
Slayers will continue to draw the distinction between "half right"....and "wrong"....
Joe Olson
[CC list edited with respect of others valuable time]
===================
From: ... john0sullivan@...
To: peter.ridley@...
CC: houston2000@...; nasifnahle@...; jpostma@...; hanssch@...; alan618034@...; omatumr@...; timothyball@...; PF.SMP@...; ruthhertzberg@...; claesjohnson@...; Charles.R.Anderson@...; ken@...; geraldo@...; jerry_oliver@...; vinmary.gray@...; Fred@...; piers@...; kent@...; Miso.Alkalaj@...; sr2@...; aaprjohn@...; cuibono@...; jonicol18@...; rtaguchi@...; gpetty@...; judith.curry@...; rsowell@...; clifftent@...
Sent: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 20:56
Subject: Re: Resolution of conflict between me and Prof. Grant Petty
Peter,
I owe Dr Curry no apology. Indeed, I stand by the facts submitted in my email that (1.) Dr Curry has no formal training in higher thermodynamics (2.) She is on record as admitting she cannot comprehend the science in our book, and (3.) She stated she intended to improve her understanding of the thermodynamics but admitted she had little time do this. Where is my "arrogance" in communicating these facts? If you still choose Dr Curry as your preferred authority on these and related matters, then more fool you!
Perhaps you also forget that it was Dr Curry's "arrogance" that prompted her to claim that even her students could debunk our book?? In that regard I have a better idea than yours: how about a real time debate online between Dr Curry and one of the Slayers team on the science of back radiation. I'm not holding my breath that Dr Curry will accept being that she is the "authority" on all such matters (it's amazing how cowards quickly hide when the word 'debate' gets mentioned).
Also, your unsubstantiated claim ( in effect, a lie) about the Slayers being in decline is laughable and I can only assume to be an unfulfilled wish of yours and Dr. Curry's being that it is your ilk that avidly avoids addressing the GHE science. Your own citing of our prominent new recruits, Latour, Nahle and Postma further exposes your befuddled reasoning. In fact, there are exciting pending applications to join the team which will be announced in due course.
In addition, I can further assure you that PSI is no longer contemplating seeking CIC or charity status because we are making strides to be a self-financing private association. This is on the back of our advances in publishing and private consultation across various science and engineering specialisms - all of which considerably strengthens our internal peer-review process. If you are not aware Dr Latour has successfully debunked a leading AGW alarmist, Professor Joel Shore on our Amazon review page.
http://www.amazon.com/review/R554OCUZZYTPN/ref=cm_cd_pg_pg3?ie=UTF8&cdForum=Fx2XRL4GE0WC2UX&cdPage=3&asin=0982773412&store=books&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=TxYTS6ITXTLKGA#wasThisHelpful
Our great strides in destroying junk science permits me the privilege of publishing very shortly a hard-hitting article which our team further exposes another new glaring falsity of GHE climate 'science' - this time perpetrator, Dr Roy Spencer et al's false claims that infrared thermometers (IRT) detect 'back radiation' which supposedly 'proves' the GHE. My colleagues have conducted extensive research and found that evidence from a leading IRT manufacturer proves IRT's inherently AVOID measuring feedback from CO2 or water vapor. Substantive of this issue, PSI has today published a damning study by Professor Nasif Nahle that nails such myths about back radiation. Here:
http://principia-scientific.org/publications/New_Concise_Experiment_on_Backradiation.pdf.
Regards,
John
From: peter.ridley@...
To: john0sullivan@...
CC: houston2000@...; nasifnahle@...; jpostma@...; hanssch@...; alan618034@...; omatumr@...; timothyball@...; PF.SMP@...; ruthhertzberg@...; claesjohnson@...; Charles.R.Anderson@...; ken@...; geraldo@...; jerry_oliver@...; vinmary.gray@...; Fred@...; piers@...; kent@...; Miso.Alkalaj@...; sr2@...; aaprjohn@...; cuibono@...; jonicol18@...; rtaguchi@...; gpetty@...; judith.curry@...; rsowell@...; clifftent@...
Sent: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 19:46
Subject: Re: Resolution of conflict between me and Prof. Grant Petty
Attachment: E-mails with Slayers_PSI members et al from 2011_09_17
Hi John,
I have pondered long and hard about how to respond to your last E-mail of 18 Sep. The arrogance demonstrated in your comments about Professor Curry does not surprise me but may I respectfully suggest that you owe her an apology. After all, Professor Curry has recognised post-graduate scientific qualifications and expertise (http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/currycv.html) and has earned significant respect from sceptics as well as supporters of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) hypothesis. I’m not convinced that you come anywhere close to matching that, despite what in my opinion are your self-aggrandising pronouncements about your achievements. I’ve added Professor Curry to the circulation because it is only fair that she is fully aware of your opinion of her as expressed in your E-mail.
I wonder why you went to the trouble of removing 20 names from the circulation of this thread for your reply of 17 September, 2011 23:40:05. I know that several of those involved in the “PSI & Due Diligence” exchanges have withdrawn from participation in PSI during and since those discussions in Dec/Jan but surely not ¾ of them. I was equally surprised that having added sr2@msn.com (Dr. Pierre R. Latour, President of Clifftent Inc - http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/chemical-engineer-takes-on-global.html) to the circulation of this thread on 17 Sep 2011 17:51 you dropped him from your E-mail of 18 Sep 2011 22:42.
It appears from Joe Olson’s E-mail of 18th that Dr. Latour is another individual who you have attracted into what appears to be a dwindling group of “Slayers”. If so you may find that Roger Sowell may be prepared to give you some advice, both on the science as well as the legal side. After all, he appears to have substantial legal qualifications/experience as well as a graduate qualification in a science and I have no reason to doubt what he says about himself (http://www.resowell-law.com/). It appears that he and Dr. Latour know each other very well professionally (http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/chemical-engineer-takes-on-global.html?showComment=1264748335102#c8345378794389516675) and I think that Mr Sowell could be the ideal person to do an in-depth review of “Slaying the Sky Dragon” Chapter 21 “Legal Fallout from False Climate Alarm” in the light of the “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mails.
You complained that “ .. This thread was not addressing any issue connected with PSI but rather something else that put you on the spot. Indeed, it's possible this may have made you so uncomfortable that it explains why you decided to omit the rest of that email thread from yours. .. ”. I remind you that this thread originated from Roger Taguchi with no mention of PSI, “Slaying the Sky Dragon” or the “Slayers”. It was “Slayer” Joe Olson who brought those into the thread in his immediate response on 14th. I simply picked up on that theme, so perhaps you owe me an apology as well as Professor Curry.
Since you seem worried about me not always including all of the E-mails in this thread I have attached the word document in which I maintain copies of them all. Now anyone who is interested can read or search them if they are so inclined. I don’t know if you have the same problem but lots of earlier E-mails appended to new ones end up being distorted to such an extent that they are very cumbersome to read.
I have a similar word document covering the “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mails which I’m happy to pass on to anyone who is interested. I suggest that your new recruits (Nasif, Joe and Pierre) ought to be aware of the exchanges we all had back in Dec/Jan about your grand plans for PSI as a CIC. In my E-mail of 18 Sep I included all of those involved in those earlier exchanges because it was only fair to let them know about my proposal that PSI should make the “PSI & Due Diligence” exchanges available to the general public. After all, your latest PSI promotional pages make a big thing of “transparency” so I suggest that in order to demonstrate that the words in those PSI pages are not simply another example of self-promotion those E-mails be made available on the PSI site. No-one has come back to me objecting to this proposal.
Alternatively Professor Curry, who has provided threads on her blog for discussions about the “Slayers”, “Slaying the Sky Dragon” and PSI, may be interested in providing a forum for discussing the history of PSI. She agreed to provide a thread for scrutiny of Professor Claes Johnson’s contribution to “Slaying the Sky Dragon” (Chapters 18 & 19 US version) but I think that a much more interesting discussion would be of your contribution “Legal Fallout from False Climate Alarm” (Chapter 21) in relation to those “PSI & Due Diligence” exchanges.
BTW, I always regard one-to-one E-mail exchanges that I have as Private & Confidential between the other party and me unless otherwise agreed, as several of the “Slayers” (past and present) can confirm. If any of you wish to discuss things with me privately then you may rest assured that I will not deliberately disclose anything said to me without getting permission.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
From: ... john0sullivan@...
To: peter.ridley@...
CC: houston2000@...; nasifnahle@...; jpostma@...; hanssch@...; alan618034@...; gpetty@...; rtaguchi@...
Sent: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 22:42
Subject: Re: Resolution of conflict between me and Prof. Grant Petty
Peter, I really hope my suspicions are wrong and you are not now stooping to ham-fisted bait and switch antics. This thread was not addressing any issue connected with PSI but rather something else that put you on the spot. Indeed, it's possible this may have made you so uncomfortable that it explains why you decided to omit the rest of that email thread from yours.
I will give you another opportunity to prove to us you that you are genuinely interested in learning more about the science. Therefore, below I copy and paste my last email on this thread and request you address the points I raised.
The issue at hand is that you glibly bad-mouthed our 'Slaying the Sky Dragon' book to others after perusing a few chapters. I called you out on that. You responded by advising us that you have arbitrarily and capriciously selected a self-confessed unqualified 'authority' on thermodynamics (geographer, Dr. Judith Curry) as your guide. Like you, Curry has perused our book. She admits she did not comprehend the higher level of thermodynamics contained within it.
Nonetheless, Curry was disparaging and dismissive of our book - as are you – ridiculing my co-authors in the process. But Curry goofed by posting on her blog that even her students could refute us. I wonder how – is she actually suggesting her students are better educated on the science than her? I know my co-authors are. Aren’t you smelling her brand of BS yet?
So please man up on this or we may reasonably infer that ad hom and ignorance wins the day in the unscientific world of Ridley and Curry.
Best,
John
From: peter.ridley@...
To: john0sullivan@... houston2000@...
CC: timothyball@...; hanssch@...; PF.SMP@...; ruthhertzberg@...; alan618034@...; claesjohnson@...; Charles.R.Anderson@...; ken@...; OMATUMR@...; etc. etc.
Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 19:07
Hi Joe and John, in the E-mail of 17th Sept. you (Joe) referred to " .. some comments from our lovey 'ally' P Ridley .. ". I would be most surprised if any of the individuals involved in the E-mail exchanges in my “PSI & Due Diligence” thread during December 2010 and January 2011, which included "Slayers" and members of the executive of their embryonic global science association Principia Scientific International (http://principia-scientific.org/ or http://principia-scientific.org/component/content/article/36-frontpage/44-principia-scientific-international-psi – as a matter of interest, why two pages with identical self-promotion?) have any delusions about me being an "ally" (lovely or otherwise) of the Slayers/PSI group as a body.
I believe that I made my position regarding PSI quite clear to all during my December/January due-diligence activities, in my comments early this year on the gofundme page (http://www.gofundme.com/1v39s) and more recently on Professor Judith Curry's "Slaying a greenhouse dragon" thread (http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/31/slaying-a-greenhouse-dragon/).
There were only two responses to that gofundme appeal for people to “ .. Give generously for this good cause .. to counter the creeping folly of misguided societies that appear to have been commandeered by political lobbyists and shills serving self-interested corporations or misguided national governments .. ”. Together they donated only £400 towards the targeted £15,000 of charitable donations to set up PSI as a Community Interest Company. More to the point, according to John on 18th/19th Jan:
- “ .. we have already secured our first donation of $350 within less than an hour .. ”. (or was it £?) and in response to my query
- “ .. I can reveal the first donation of $350 is from a member of my family in the US. .. ”.
I wonder if that family member considers it to be £350 well spent – at least he/she should have received “ .. a copy of ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory’ plus a bonus book (two volume pack RRP: $38.98) .. ” as a consolation prize.
I hope that at that time I made everyone involved fully aware that I did then and still do consider John's proposal to try to form PSI as a CIC to be inappropriate. I predict that attempts to establish PSI as a significant international scientific association with and executive comprising Tim Ball (President), John (CEO), Hans Schroeder (CFO), Rev. Philip Foster (Compliance Officer) plus Dr. Martin Hertzberg, Dr. Claes Johnson, Joe, Alan Siddons and Dr. Charles Anderson (is that still the proposed structure of the executive board?) will be no more successful than the attempt to raise funds on gofundme.
PSI’s “Principles of Association” page (http://principia-scientific.org/about-us/principles-of-association) claims that PSI promotes scientists adhering to the Scientific Method and individuals wishing to expose corruption in science. Professor Curry’s "Slaying a greenhouse dragon" thread (http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/31/slaying-a-greenhouse-dragon/) was kicked back into activity on 4th June after a three month quiet period by one Andrew Skolnick, who questioned the self-promotional claims that John had made. I don’t recall John taking up the challenge from Andrew to provide convincing evidence supporting those claims. (Please Joe, don’t start mistakingly suggesting that Andrew Skolnick and I are allies – see “Beware” at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Andrew_A._Skolnick).
That same “Principles of Association” page refers to the leaked Climate-gate E-mails and claims that they provide substantive evidence about the subversion of science journals by zealous researchers on a mission to save the planet. In a recent E-mail exchange with Professor Petty and Roger Taguchi I quoted from one of those leaked E-mail exchanges, between Tom Wigley and Kevin Trenberth on 14th Oct. 2009. Professor Petty’s response, which I am sure he will not mind me quoting, was “ .. I realize there's a tendency by some to attribute sinister motives or deception to those who wrote some of those emails. But when I read them, I only see people continuing to struggle with the multitude of unanswered questions about the details of the climate system and with how we communicate our certainty that changing the radiative properties of the atmosphere MUST have a significant impact on climate even if we still don't have all the answers.
I'd love to see the emails of those who are out to shoot down the AGW scenario at all costs. .. ”.
Professor Petty could have been directing that comment at you John. I see that you had plenty to say about Climategate in your Jan. 2010 article “Climategate Professor Phil Jones could face ten years on fraud charges” (http://www.climategate.com/climategate-professor-phil-jones-could-face-ten-years-on-fraud-charges). Well, in line with that final sentence of Professor Petty’s comment and the declaration on the “Principles of Association” page about transparency being an important aspect of PSI, here’s another challenge for you. In order to make available to anyone who might be considering applying for membership of PSI and contributing towards its funding all relevant background information, will you provide:
- access to all of the E-mails that we all exchanged during the December/January discussions about setting up PSI as a CIC. I’m happy for all of my E-mails to be made available to the public, how about you and the rest of those receiving this E-mail,
- full substantiated details of your academic and professional training and experience.
This is an opportunity for you to prove that Andrew Skolnick’s opinion about you is wrong and that you do not shy away from such challenges.
John, you said in your E-mail of 17th Sept. at 17:51 that you had forwarded to me the " .. latest in-depth independent review of the book conducted by Dr. Pierre Latour .. ". The impression that I get from reading your attachment is that it was Dr. Joel Shore (also involved in those exchanges on Professor Curry's thread) who did a less than complementary in-depth independent review, not Dr. Latour. Dr. Latour said quite clearly to Joel " .. My review of your book review .. I am not reviewing the book; just your review of it. .. ". If I missed something that indicates that Dr. Latour did indeed undertake an in-depth review of "Slaying the Sky Dragon" rather than merely undertaking an in-depth review of Dr. Shores in-depth review of the book then please point me to it.
For someone who appears to me to have no greater understanding than I of the numerous disciplines contributing towards improving our poor understanding of the processes and drivers of the different global climates, I find your assessment of my “problem” and the solution to it at the very best presumptuous. I prefer to pay heed to the advice of those with qualifications and experience in a relevant discipline and a track record of success recognised by their peers rather than self-promoting individuals who provide little or nothing to substantiate their claims. This too was discussed on Professor Curry’s thread.
Professor Curry commented that " .. I’ve read Slaying the Sky Dragon and originally intended a rubuttal, but it would be too overwhelming to attempt this and probably pointless .. ". She, like I, has a right to express her opinion but she makes her pronouncements as someone with more than a layperson’s understanding of the issue. The discussions on Professor Curry's thread about the contribution made by Professor Claes Johnson involved others with expertise in relevant disciplines. As I recall, in those 2489 comments the only contributors singing the praises of “Slaying the Sky Dragon” were “Slayers” themselves. If I missed any commendations from others then please let me know. (BTW, as I recall you never did respond properly to Andrew Skolnick’s questions, did you.)
I can’t argue with Professor Curry’s comment that “ .. I suspect that many undergrad physics or atmospheric science majors at Georgia Tech could effectively refute these chapters .. " and that is what set me wondering about whether or not it was worth paying to read it. My wife bought me a Kindle in June and I had been tempted to fork out the $6.47 but rather than simply take the word of others I did my own in-depth review of the five free sample chapters and and carefully followed the discussions on Professor Curry’s thread. I wasn’t impressed enough to buy the book. Thanks for providing those free chapters and helping me to avoid wasting my money.
I think that I have included everyone in the circulation who was involved in those PSI & Due Diligence exchanges but if you spot that I’ve missed anybody please would you forward this.
(BTW, you may find the Global Warming Policy Foundation blog article “Judith Curry: Polyclimate” of interest - http://www.thegwpf.org/the-climate-record/2870-judith-curry-polyclimate.html)
Best regards, Pete
From: "peter.ridley@..."
Sent: Wednesday, 28 September, 2011 23:44:04
SEE BELOW
==============
From: ...houston2000@....
To: peter.ridley@....; john0sullivan@...
CC: nasifnahle@....; jpostma@....; hanssch@...; alan618034@...; omatumr@...; timothyball@...; etc. etc.
Sent: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 0:27
Subject: Re: Fwd: Resolution of conflict between me and Prof. Grant Petty
Mr Ridley
for the record....there is NO expectation of privacy on the internet....my "HARSH RIDLEY JUDGEMENT" comment was made to YOU and selected Fellow Slayers....i make no apologies for my evaluation of your behavior....when apologies were due to my error i have made those as needed....
THIS IS A THREE SIDED DEBATE....i studied Thermodynamics 40 years ago as an engineering student and applied those principles many times in my career....i KNEW that AGW was a lie 10 years ago, but it had no direct impact on my life....when Obama got elected THAT changed....
i had been researching and writting for two years prior to the formation of the Slayers....these brave and tallented men understand the same Physics that has solved humanities problems for centuries....our Fellowship has strenghtened our courage and our knowledge....
i accepted your emails as an honest broker of truth....after surveailing our small group for months you voted to support the invalid science of the Luke Warmists due to their larger number and greater media presence....there is NO judgement that you are any man can render against me that I FEAR....my life quest is to find and share TRUTH....all that i have known and all current study prove the Slayer position....and i will continue to battle for that Truthfilled Victory....
TWO SIDES IN THIS DEBATE ARE WRONG....as the world will soon witness....Veritas Vos Liberabit !
Joe Olson
proud co-author of "Slaying the Sky Dragon"
=============
From: peter.ridley@...
To: houston2000@...; john0sullivan@...
CC: nasifnahle@...; jpostma@...; hanssch@...; alan618034@...; omatumr@...; timothyball@...; ... etc. etc.
Sent: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 23:44
Subject: Fwd: Resolution of conflict between me and Prof. Grant Petty
ATTACHMENT: PSI AND DUE DILIGENCE E_MAILS FROM 2010_12_30
Hi All,
I hope that you can tolerate another of my “ .. turgid emails .. ” (as John so kindly put it on 26th Sept.). If anyone wishes to be removed from the circulation then please let me know, as I have no wish to bore people.
Hi Joe,
You’ve changed your tone completely compared with our friendly exchanges back in January. Now you sarcastically comment about “ .. our lovey 'ally' P Ridley .. ” (17 September on this thread) and “ .. Slayers Oh dear....it doest now appear....we must live in fear....of yet another.... HARSH RIDLEY JUDGEMENT ! ! ! [tremble....tremble] .. ” today on the “This is a THREE Sided Debate....and . ...TWO Sides are Wrong....[Monckton’s letter to the journal Remote Sensing]” thread. Still, none of us who have been involved in this Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) hypothesis debate expect respect, do we.
That most recent comment of yours was in response to my “ .. I now have a copy of the US version of the book and remain satisfied that my conclusion after reading the free sample chapters that it would be a waste of money buying it. In my opinion the only chapter that would really enlighten anyone is John's Chapter 21 “Legal Fallout from False Climate Alarm” which nicely describes John's plans for PSI at that time. I'll be saying more about that and PSI's status shortly in the “Resolution of conflict between me and Prof. Grant Petty” thread .. ”. (Anyone interested in understanding what PSI was intended to be needs to take a close look at that Chapter 21.)
You were much more complementary on Dec 30 with your “ .. Pete, i concur with your analysis of the current state of PSI.... .. ” (see my E-mail of Dec 30 2010, 08:52 PM in the attached document for that analysis you were agreeing with) and much more friendly during our exchanges in January. May I respectfully suggest that you have another look at those exchanges we had on 20th Jan. especially yours at 09:02 PM and mine at 09:38 (UK time).
I’m not making judgement Joe, simply passing on information to others, so I hope that you enjoy the memories that this E-mail should bring back.
Hi John,
In your E-mail of 18th Sept. you said “ .. I really hope .. you are not now stooping to ham-fisted bait and switch antics .. ”. It is noticeable that you insist on simply switching rather than addressing points put to you by others. c
I hope that you don’t mind me cherry-picking from your E-mail of 18th Sept. “ .. I will give you another opportunity to prove to us you that you are genuinely interested in .. ” transparency “ .. So please man up on this or we may reasonably infer that .. ” the claims on the PSI pages about transparency are simply more of your exaggerated promotional declarations.
You no doubt remember the exchanges with Andrew Skolnick (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_A._Skolnick & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Andrew_A._Skolnick) on Professor Curry’s thread “Slaying the Sky Dragon” http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/31/slaying-a-greenhouse-dragon/). Andrew (and others involved) were never satisfied that you had responded properly to his questions about your claimed academic and professional credentials (see his comments starting on June 4, 2011 at 4:27 pm, particularly the one on 1st July at 2:15 pm).
In my opinion anyone contemplating joining the “Slayers” or PSI would benefit from reading the “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mails, all of those exchanges in “Slaying the Sky Dragon” http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/31/slaying-a-greenhouse-dragon/) before committing to contributing financially to PSI, whether it is an association, a CIC or other form of private company or charity.
There are also some interesting comments made and links provided in “So many lies – and the liar who tells them” by Gareth Renowden (http://sciblogs.co.nz/hot-topic/2011/07/04/so-many-lies-%E2%80%93-and-the-liar-who-tells-them/) starting from “ .. But what of O’Sullivan? Who is this man .. ”, although I always take with a pinch of salt what the truffles- olive- grape-grower Gareth Renowden (http://hot-topic.co.nz/about-2/) says.
BTW, if as you say “ .. I can further assure you that PSI is no longer contemplating seeking CIC or charity status because we are making strides to be a self-financing private association .. ” then I suggest that you consider changing the statements in your Web-pages. The “Why PSI is a Private Association” (http://principia-scientific.org/about-us/why-psi-is-a-private-assoc) Web-page presently discusses CIC status and mentions CIC 24 times, even having sections devoted to “WHAT IF PSI BECOMES A CIC?”, “BENEFITS OF BEING A CIC” and “KEY POINTS ABOUT PSI IF OPERATED AS A CIC:” (there was even a sub-section “The CIC Regulator”). Also the TRANSPARENCY, STAKEHOLDING, QUALITY ADMINISTRATION promotional material (http://principia-scientific.org/about-us/principles-of-association) makes reference to CIC.
You and Hans Schroeder might recall that on 21st Jan. (following my E-mail exchanges with the CIC Regulator) I had to point out misleading claims being made since September 2010 on the PSI Web-site about PSI already being “ .... a legal entity under British law serving charitable interests for the benefit of the broader community .. ”. Only a few days later the Web-site’s pages simply had the message “This site is down for maintenance. Please check back again soon”.
Several of the authors of “Slaying the Greenhouse Dragon” are named on the “Why PSI is a Private Association” page (http://principia-scientific.org/about-us/why-psi-is-a-private-assoc) among the 13 PSI founding members and stakeholders. It is stated that “ .. Our Founding Members and stakeholders include:
Dr. Tim Ball, Dr. Martin Hertzberg, Dr. Claes Johnson, Joseph A. Olson, Alan Siddons, Dr. Charles Anderson, John O’Sullivan, Hans Schreuder, Joseph E. Postma, Professor Nasif Nahle, Dr. Matthais Kleespies, Tom Neveu, Derek Alker .. ”.
One of those named as a founding member and stakeholder has advised me that he is not a “Slayer” and will not be involved in PSI as there is little agreement between him and the “Slayers”. I see that as an important relevant issue – why has someone who is still being promoted by PSI as a founder member of this embryonic organisation that is seeking to establish itself internationally with the Core Values declared on its homepage (http://principia-scientific.org/) chosen to disassociate himself from it. Also, why is he still being promoted as a PSI founder? Is this just another misleading statement on the PSI promotional pages? Please would you be good enough to advise whether or not that list of founding members is correct?
That word “transparency” figures large in the PSI promotional pages so now seems to me to be a good time for you to start demonstrating that those are not merely impressive words trying to market the PSI brand. In compliance with the declaration under TRANSPARENCY, STAKEHOLDING, QUALITY ADMINISTRATION (http://principia-scientific.org/about-us/principles-of-association) isn’t there a lot that ought to be made available for scrutiny now rather than waiting for it to be disclosed by others who might try to undermine the association/CIC/private company and the individuals associated with it? As I said before, anyone who is considering subscribing to PSI would be well advised to consider the exchanges involving Andrew Skolnick, etc. and to ask for sight of those “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mails of Dec/Jan. I refer you (and the Ccs) to my E-mail of 18th Sept. Para. 7 starting “ .. Professor Petty could have been directing that comment at you John. .. ”.
Also John, in my opinion you have misrepresented what I say. Although I am always happy to apologise for and correct any incorrect statement that I may make my (as you put it) “ .. unsubstantiated claim (in effect, a lie) about the Slayers being in decline .. ” was in fact a statement of opinion about what to me “ .. appears to be a dwindling group of “Slayers” .. ”. I expect that you are well aware of the difference between an opinion and a lie (“ .. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth .. ” - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie). You can very easily enlighten us all by declaring who presently regard themselves as being members of your group of “Slayers”. In Dec/Jan there appeared to be something like 36 (http://www.gofundme.com/1v39s). How many are there now and who are they. If you are considering people who have signed up as members of PSI to be “Slayers” then please, in the spirit of transparency would you provide a list of those members (I have been unable to find one anywhere). I’m not talking about those “ .. exciting pending applications to join the team .. “ but existing committed members. Here’s another opportunity for you to demonstrate how enthusiastic you really are about transparency concerning PSI.
I get the impression that Andrew Skolnick (and other like-minded individuals) might consider the claims made on the PSI promotional page “Principles of Association” (http://principia-scientific.org/about-us/principles-of-association) about the credentials of its principal founder are just another “ .. brand of BS .. ” (as you put it about Professor Curry). You claim on that page and in “Slaying the Sky Dragon” that you have “ .. litigated successfully for over a decade in government corruption cases in the New York State Court system and Federal Court (Second Circuit) .. ”. Andrew has challenged you on that but if it is true then I expect that you are aware of what is said in “Criminal Justice: Does Silence Mean Guilt?” (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,899502,00.html). Regardless that “ .. The decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States have, in effect, shattered the tacit-admission rule .. ” silence can still leave a strong suspicion of guilt in the minds of the lay public.
You had a lot to say about the leaked Climategate E-mails, using strong words like “proven criminal conduct” “criminal intent” “fraud” “crooked” – e.g. see http://www.climategate.com/biased-reporting-on-climategate http://www.climategate.com/worlds-biggest-coal-company-brings-us-government-to-court-in-climate-fraud http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6674 http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5700) yet you have nothing to say about the “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mails. Surely it is not because you think that they are of no interest to others?
Using your phraseology “ .. please man up on this or we may reasonably infer that .. ” there is something in those PSI & Due Diligence” E-mails (and the attachments thereto) that PSI wishes to keep hidden from potential members of the association. Let’s not give CACC supporters like Andrew Skolnick any more fodder for their vile invective. None of the individuals involved in those “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mails have raised any objection to my proposal of 18th Sept. that the E-mails be given a public airing and I’m happy to accept a null response from them as agreement to it.
In my opinion the most appropriate place to make them available for public scrutiny is on the PSI web-site, however, you may for some reason prefer them to be made available elsewhere. Perhaps Professor Curry would be prepared to make them available. After all, she was prepared to give “Slaying the Sky Dragon” an airing. I’m sure that in her “Core Values” she too promotes the virtues of scientific truth, shuns the vagaries of political advocacy, chooses not to subordinate herself to the moralizing pre-determinism of discredited ‘post normal’ science and believes that the pursuit of truth ought to be our abiding goal (http://principia-scientific.org/).
In my opinion it is important that PSI be seen to be transparent in its dealings because Climategate demonstrated that once things are committed to print they are very easily made public. If PSI doesn’t do it someone else could. In his E-mail of Jan 06 2011, 09:26 AM Hans Schroeder said of me “ .. He is, IMHO, a spy who has so far very successfully infiltrated the hub of our undertakings. .. My sixth sense has yet to be proven wrong and I do not like this pest one bit .. ”. Hans was wrong about me, as I said in the attachment to my E-mail of Jan 08 2011, 07:24/31 PM QUOTE:
.. Let me advise you all that if you have been thinking along the same lines as Hans then his 6th sense, which he seems to hold in high regard, has let him down badly this time. I am not in this group as a spy. I am simply a cautious (“once bitten twice shy”) individual who believes in telling it as I see it. There are too many in this group who are not prepared to put what they think on record.
Hans raised the issue of a spy and John mentioned earlier about the need for care, especially wrt what goes out on the Internet. Too much is out there already. There seems to either be a spy in the camp or someone has been very careless, otherwise how did Jeff Daley know that “John Osullivan is going to announce in Janaury the setting up a new science association called Principia Scientific International to sue all your criminal warmist buddies for fraud” (http://globalwarmingsuperheroes.com/osullivans-seletive-myopia/) .. UNQUOTE.
In that E-mail I also said “ ..I .. have not had a single reply to it and am beginning to get somewhat irritated by the deafening silence on this issue .. - “Due Diligence” and “Regulatory Compliance”, like Siamese twins, are inseparable, yet the member of the proposed Executive nominated as Compliance Officer, Philip Foster, has said NOTHING AT ALL”.
You commented on 26 Sep about “ .. Dr Curry's "arrogance" .. ” but Professor Curry does have proven scientific qualifications, professional experience and the respect of both sceptics ans supporters of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) hypothesis to back up what she says
You also added a “ .. P.S. Note how much quicker I respond to your turgid emails? .. ”. That reminded me of our E-mail exchanges immediately after Xmas last year (see attached file for the complete set of E-mails leading up to the first of our “PSI & Due Diligence” exchanges). In your first E-mail in that batch, dated 26th December, you responded to Miso Alkalaj’s E-mail with “ .. I am happy to work with one of my contacts in the DC area to file a mandamus in the federal court in D.C. on behalf of PSI. To do this we need to pay filing and court fees, paralegal costs land office expenses. A typical mandamus petition will ordinarily cost a client $3,000. If we can raise $3,000 I can set the legal wheels in motion. The legal skills and resources are at the ready so now the ball is in our court and that of our supporters to raise the $3,000.There is no fear of a counter suit so we cannot be sued for frivolous or malicious filing. This is as cheap a way to score a legal victory as I can suggest .. ”. That reflects what you discussed in your Chapter 21 “Legal Fallout from False Climate Alarm” contribution to “Slaying the Sky Dragon” and that chapter nicely describes your plans for PSI at that time.
Oliver responded with “ .. I would probably be willing to contribute to this effort. But I am cautious, as others may well be, about investing in a legal process that may continue forever .. ”. Tim said “ .. I am in support of this proposal and will make a contribution .. One must think of the impact of the British father (Dimmock) who challenged the scientific validity of Gore's Inconvenient Truth .. ”. I commented that “ .. Although Dimmock brought a successful action against the UK government under the Education Act it made no impact upon the distribution of Al Gore's propaganda film throughput our schools. It was basically a waste of effort and money from that point of view .. ”.
You will recall that you responded with “ .. I've staked my reputation, sweat and own money on beating the AGW fraud in the courts - its the only serious game in town. My legal associates and I are ready and waiting to take the battle on. .. As the saying goes: you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. Take the chance while it is offered or it may not be made again .. ”.
It was that talk of raising money for legal action that persuaded me to carry out my “PSI & Due Diligence” activity. In the first of the “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mails on 30th December I started with QUOTE:
.. sorry that I’ve taken a few days to consider the points that you made in your E-mails of 28th Dec. Your comment of 28th @ 09:20 PM about having “ .. full corporate staff--CEO, CFO, fund-raising staff, sales, marketing, advertising, operations .. a legal entity in England .. a new publishing business .. the infrastructure to make this thing work. .. a private agreement with a prominent skeptic association .. willingly staked my own reputation and resources on .. PSI as CEO ... “ more than surprised me (and I suspect others too). Then your “ .. I heartily recommend PSI to you and encourage you to help lobby for donations and membership. Thanks for your faith and continued support .. ” made me more than a little uncomfortable.
Your comment of 28th @ 09:38 PM “ .. you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. Take the chance while it is offered or it may not be made again .. ” reminded me of two other relevant saying “Fools rush in where wise men fear to go” and “look before you leap”. .. UNQUOTE.
I also said QUOTE: ..
As a result of those two E-mails I have spent a couple of days doing “due diligence” research into PSI and its sponsors, including most of the people receiving these E-mails. I have completed my (10,000-word) report plus the attached profiles. I offer my “Executive Summary” here but am prepared to share selected extracts with anyone here who asks for them but on the understanding that I do so on a Private & Confidential basis.
…. Executive Summary
“Self-praise is no praise at all”
Although there is a plethora of boastful promotion material there are many unanswered questions about PSI’s structure, the relationships between and motivations of the principle individuals involved, its modus operandi and strategies. I find no convincing evidence that PSI will be anything other than a minor addition to the existing tally of international organisations of people who are sceptical of the doctrine that our continuing use of fossil fuels is leading to catastrophic change to the different global climates. ..
Sorry folks but I won’t be donating any of my hard-earned cash to PSI, .. UNQUOTE.
Eventually I propose to cover each of the “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mails but before that I’ll make a few comments about “Slaying the Sky Dragon” Chapter 21.
Once again, if anyone wishes to be removed from the circulation then please let me know, as I have no wish to bore people with my “ .. turgid emails .. ”.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
================
From: Roger Taguchi
Sent: Sep 27, 2011 12:45 PM
To: houston2000 , Colin Davidson , Peter Ridley , John Nicol ,
alan618034 , Charles Anderson , Claes Johnson , geraldo , Jerry Oliver
, John Droz , John O'Sullivan , Ruth Hertzberg , Tim Ball
Subject: RE: This is a THREE Sided Debate....and....TWO Sides are Wrong....[Monckton’s letter to the journal Remote Sensing]
Hi all!
Alarm bells ring in my head whenever I read "the science is settled" and "the ONLY correct science" in something still in flux, like climate "science". I am well aware that my own proposals are just that: hypotheses that I MADE UP, and therefore subject to attack, revision, and possible withdrawal.
That's the way real science is SUPPOSED to work, with Mann et al. shamefully breaking these informal rules.
Since Alan has raised specific points, here are some further considerations (which are not meant to be personal attacks):
1. CO2, human-produced or otherwise, does not have the thermal mass to affect the entire planet system. How could 0.04% or less of the atmosphere have an effect that 99.9% does not? Answer: N2, O2 and Ar CANNOT absorb or emit IR, because they lack a permanent (and changing) electric dipole moment. But greenhouse gases CO2, water vapour, ozone, methane, etc. CAN absorb and emit IR. This fact alone would be negligible if they couldn't affect N2, O2 and Ar. But transfer of energy during inelastic collisions between excess excited state greenhouse gas molecules and N2, O2 and Ar means that absorbed IR ends up heating the atmosphere (N2, O2, Ar), with negligible amounts of heat stored in these trace amounts of greenhouse gases. This obvious possibility (which explains how an equilibrium temperature is
approached when heat is added to a system) seems to be absent in the climate change (enhanced greenhouse effect) literature.
So I believe the Standard Model for explanation of the greenhouse effect is fundamentally flawed (I'll have to read Prof. Grant Petty's textbook on Atmospheric Radiation to be sure that I have not misinterpreted the Standard Model).
heat rises by convection away from Earth....briefly OLR heated CO2 heats surrounding air that RISES....
2. I agree with Alan that Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) is not a (simple) function of CO2 and that doubling CO2 does NOT double OLR. From Sir John Houghton's "explanation" of the greenhouse effect available at http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2572 the OLR is emitted from a 220 K layer high in the atmosphere (at 5 to 20 km altitude - there's some room for argument here). This 220 K layer CANNOT act as a black body radiator, because the Stefan-Boltzmann law quickly yields 130 W/m^2 which is only half the observed 260 W/m^2.
What Houghton's model gets wrong is that N2, O2 and Ar (i.e. the atmosphere's main components) CANNOT emit ANY IR, black body or otherwise. And at CO2 frequencies centered on 667 cm^-1, only bout 14 W/m^2 escapes to outer space, way smaller than 260 W/m^2.
So here's my explanation for the OLR: except at absorption bands due to greenhouse gases (which appear in the satellite spectra looking down on the Earth), the atmosphere is TRANSPARENT to IR photons emitted from the SURFACE of the Earth. This is most apparent between 800-1200 cm^-1 except for he ozone absorption between 1000-1080 cm^-1. The Barrow, Alaska spectrum looking UP from the ground shows essentially ZERO IR emission from the atmosphere at these frequencies: the atmosphere does NOT emit a black body spectrum. In spectra looking down on the Earth, the best-fitted black body curve measures the temperature of the emitting solid or liquid SURFACE of the Earth, not some atmospheric layer high in the troposphere.
Greenhouse gases absorb SOME of the IR emitted from the SURFACE of the Earth, and act as a blanket WITH VERY LARGE HOLES IN IT. Increasing CO2 makes the area of the holes somewhat smaller (but not linearly), so at energy balance with incoming Solar radiation, the surface temperature must rise to drive the same number of W/m^2 through the diminished windows.
On the other hand, Houghton's "explanation" is that with increased CO2 less IR escapes, which means a lower black body emitting temperature, which means the IR escapes from a layer at a higher altitude in the troposphere (where it is colder). John Nicol has rightly judged this fantastic nonsensical theory "non-physical". So I'm definitely with the skeptics on this point. Judith Curry has criticized my comments as simply attacking a "straw man" (a phrase also used, perhaps non-coincidentally, by Josh), "kindergarten science" that does not represent the real Standard Model. We'll see, after I read Petty's textbook.
this plot available on line....settled rapidly decreasing CO2 to temp storage....BUT....Slayer calcs show minor decrease heat with even 100 PPM increase in CO2.....
3. The radiative lifetime of an excited CO2 molecule may be only 10^-7 or 10^-8 seconds, but at 1 atmosphere pressure there are approx. 10^10 collisions/second between gas molecules. Therefore there are 100-1000 collisions in a radiative lifetime, and therefore there is a non-zero probability of energy transfer from an excited state CO2 molecule to air molecules (N2, O2, Ar). In fact, the number of collisions necessary for quenching vibrationally excited states runs from the hundreds to thousands (rotationally excited states take only a few - approx. 2-5 - collisions for quenching to occur, resulting in an equilibrium distribution characterized by a Boltzmann rotational temperature equivalent to the ambient translational temperature). Shifting of frequencies on emission of a photon is one factor in the theory of line width (the Doppler effect and pressure broadening explain the fact that the observed line width is much greater than the "natural" line width predicted by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle). So radiative transfer between CO2 molecules is affected by line width, but as I have repeatedly stressed, the quantized energy levels means that absorption/emission results in no net energy gain or loss. So scattering of IR photons by CO2 molecules cannot alone explain how the air warms up, an idea somehow unknown to supporters of the Standard Model.
the asorb-emit cycle causes phase shift to lower energy. longer wavelenght and CO2 invisible spectrum photon
4. Energy is indeed transferred from excess excited CO2 molecules to N2 and O2, but since they cannot emit IR, they do not carry energy away from the planet to outer space. It is the IR emitted by CO2 and the Earth's SURFACE that carries energy to outer space. The Standard Model seems to say (I'll have to read Petty's book to be sure) that it is the IR emitted by CO2 at 220 K at 20 km that balances incoming energy. But this is only 14 W/m^2, and is powered not by IR emitted from the warm surface of the Earth, but by heat generated as ozone absorbs incoming UV and visible light from the Sun. This occurs in the stratosphere (accounting for the well-known temperature inversion - see graph in Houghton's article) and upper troposphere (especially between 10-20 km where the temperature is roughly constant, as the decreasing emperature due to adiabatic expansion is balanced by heat radiated from higher altitudes). The energy of a photon of wavelength 4000 Angstroms = 400 nm = 0.4 microns is 37.5 times that of a 15 micron photon, i.e. 25,000 cm^-1 instead of 667 cm^-1. So on collision, an excited state ozone molecule has plenty of energy to warm up the surrounding air. If only part of that 25,000 cm^-1 energy (the energy of a photon varies as the frequency, and frequency varies as the wavenumber; e.g. 667 cm^-1 means 667 waves in each cm distance; 25,000 cm^-1 means 25,000 waves in each cm distance) ends up producing on collision an excess CO2 molecule to the v=1 vibrational state, its radiation on falling down to the ground v=0 state will show up as an emission peak at 667 cm^-1.
This is expected both during the daytime and the nighttime, since the stratosphere does not cool instantly to zero at nighttime (thanks, Prof. Petty). How do we know that this emission doesn't come directly, unmolested from the Earth's surface? The spectrum looking down on a Thunderstorm Anvil, available at www.sundogpublishing.com/AtmosRad/Excerpts/AtmosRad217.pdf shows the CO2 emission peak is at 220 K, poking above the background 210 K BLACK BODY emission of the background Thunderstorm Anvil. Therefore the emission CANNOT be powered from below, which is colder.
5. From recent emails on back-radiation, we see that there is no consensus on what "back-radiation" means. Petty himself says that radiation experts do not use the term, but that an IR photon is an IR photon, so back-radiation is whatever is measured by a detector looking up from the ground. Since some of the IR comes from heat liberated by condensation, and since this heat was originally derived from incoming Solar radiation which was absorbed and used to evaporate water molecules, this portion of the total back-radiation CANNOT be used to explain how the Earth warms up (i.e. CANNOT be used to predict or explain the greenhouse effect). In this sense, Alan and all the skeptics are right: there is NO such back-radiation which magically heats up the Earth. In addition, measuring the emission "temperature" by measuring the height of the CO2 peak in the back-radiation spectrum (e.g. at Barrow, Alaska or Nauru in spectra available at http://sundogpublishing.com/AtmosRad/Excerpts/AtmosRad212.pdf) CANNOT be used to calculate total back-radiation on plugging into the Stefan-Boltzmann law, because the atmosphere is not a black body radiator. The CO2 emission can be characterized by an "equivalent" black body temperature of e.g. 250 K, but since there is no emission between 800-1200 cm^-1 except at ozone frequencies of 1000-1080 cm^-1, it is simply wrong to use the Stefan-Boltzmann law which predicts the TOTAL energy (area on the graph) under the black body curve.
Because of the confusion about back-radiation, it might be safest at the moment to simply ignore the diagram(s) on complete energy balance (even a mistake in one term will screw up the whole picture).
Let's stick for now on what CAN be universally agreed to: at 288.2 K (15 C), the Earth's surface emits (using emissivity 0.98) 383 W/m^2 of outgoing IR, 260 of which is measured by the satellite as outgoing IR (this corresponds to the total area under the 288.2 K Planck curve minus the area of the absorption peaks due to all greenhouse gases). The difference, of 123 W/m^2, accounts for the total greenhouse effect.
Actually, due to truncation error, the 14 W/m^2 measured as outgoing IR at CO2 frequencies is powered by incoming Solar radiation absorbed by ozone, so the amount of greenhouse gas absorption has been underestimated by 14 W/m^2. So the amount of IR emitted from the Earth's surface eventually escaping to outer space should be reduced to 246 W/m^2. At energy balance, this means the Earth's surface is better represented by a black body temperature of 285.6 K (12.4 C). If you look carefully at the MODTRAN computer spectrum reproduced at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing , you will see that a Planck black body emission curve at this 285.6 K will be a better fit, especially at the clear 800-1200 cm^-1 window, than the published 288.2 K curve. This value of 285.6 K is consistent with an albedo of 0.28, much closer to the literature values of about 0.30 than the albedo of 0.24 which is consistent with the MODTRAN value of 288.2 K, which is of course also that of the IPCC.
the warmist now FEAR back radiation as a term....but still insist this fiction force exists....3 sides....2 are WRONG
I trust that this email will remove a few doubts and misconceptions. I have sent this email mainly to skeptics to bolster their case on a scientific basis.
Refusing to concede valid points would put us in the same emotional category as Mann et al. and the most fervent of the IPCC's supporters. We don't need to do this, since we're more right than they are.
====================
From: ruthhertzberg@...
To: houston2000...; Roger Taguchi...; Peter Ridley...; Colin Davidson...; John Nicol...; alan618034...>; Charles Anderson...; geraldo...; Jerry Oliver...; John Droz...; John O'Sullivan...; Tim Ball
CC: monckton@...; ...DrRoySpencer...; nasifnahle@...; joe postma...
Sent: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 16:35
Subject: Re: This is a THREE Sided Debate....and....TWO Sides are Wrong.. ..[Monckton’s letter to the journa l Remote Sensing]
Joe:
I agree with your points. It is a three sided "debate" in which the correct side is being neglected. The Luke-warmers are only nibbling around the edges and by conceding that there could be even the smallest degree of validity to the arguments of the Warmers, they are only encouraging them by arguing on their turf. As I have said before, the Slayers are driving a stake through the very heart of the problem. Only that will finally give the Anthropogenic Global Warming Vampire its well-deserved death for all eternity.
Marty
===============
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 06:38:32 -0500
From: houston2000@...
To: rtaguchi@...; peter.ridley@...;
cuibono@...; jonicol18@...; alan618034@...;
charles.r.anderson@...; geraldo@...;
jerryoliver@...; aaprjohn@...;
johnosullivan@...; ruthhertzberg@...; timothyball@...
Subject: This is a THREE Sided Debate....and....TWO Sides are
Wrong....[Monckton’s letter to the journal Remote Sensing]
CC: monckton@mail.com; Roy@DrRoySpencer.com; nasifnahle@biocab.org;
joepostma@live.ca
despite all efforts to keep this a Warmist vs Luke Warmist debate there is a third side based on traditional Physics that is in fact the ONLY correct science....consider....
1 Human CO2 does not have the Thermal Mass to effect the entire planet system. CO2 has Specific Heat of 0.8 meaning it ablsorbs and releases energy faster than air.
2 The amount of Outgoing Longwave Radiation to be absorbed is NOT a function of CO2 and is in a NON linear relationship to CO2 ratio....doubling CO2 does NOT double OLR.
3 For energy to transfer there must be flux-over-time....for CO2 the absorption-emission cycle is on a billionth of a second per molecule and the emitted photon is phase shifted out of CO2 absorption range.
4 The kinetic energy from this OLR reaction is transfered to the surrounding N2 & O2 and transfered AWAY from the planet...the TOTAL for this energy transfer is 5 milliseconds.
5 There is NO back radiation. A remote Infra-red Thermometer measures the reflection in the atmosphere NOT the radiant energy being returned to Earth. for more on this see http://principia-scientific.org/publications/New_Concise_Experiment_on_Backradation.pdf ignoring the legitimate debate will not make the TRUTH go away.
Joe Olson
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger Taguchi
Sent: Sep 27, 2011 8:58 AM
To: Peter Ridley , Colin Davidson , John Nicol , alan618034 , Charles
Anderson , geraldo , houston2000 , Jerry Oliver , John Droz , John
O'Sullivan , Ruth Hertzberg , Tim Ball
Subject: FW: [New post] Monckton’s letter to the journal Remote Sensing
The article below by Christopher Monckton shows that empirical determinations of climate sensitivity fit into two camps: "high" values of about 3 degrees on doubling CO2 from 300 to 600 ppm, and an increasing number of "low" values centered on 1 degree. The latter agrees with my theoretical calculation (assuming no feedback) of 1.2 degrees due to CO2 alone, after correcting for truncation error in interpreting the satellite spectra looking down on a warm cloudless Earth. I concede that all other feedback factors (increased water vapour on warming, increased cloud cover, aerosols, dust, Solar constant) COULD taken together nudge the prediction up to 1.4 degrees if they continue proportionately the same as in the period 1750-2010.
BTW, the assumption of equal warmings on each successive doubling of CO2 follows immediately on FITTING a log curve to the data. This is an ASSUMPTION that a detailed numerical calculation of the effect of "saturation" of CO2 central frequencies shows is not exactly true. For the next several doublings from 600 ppm, there is a DECREASING (not constant) temperature sensitivity. Thus the IPCC predictions of future warmings (from 400 ppm today) are a factor of 3 too high. This is consistent with Monckton's empirical results.
Therefore we can get a 67% reduction in warming from IPCC predictions by simply doing nothing about CO2, at a cost of zero.
=================
From: houston2000@...>
To: JOHN OSULLIVAN...; nasifnahle@...; jpostma@...; hanssch@t...
CC: judith.curry@...; pete ridley ...
Sent: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 22:01
Subject: Re: Resolution of conflict between me and Prof. Grant Petty
Mr Ridley
Dr Curry was presented in the April 2010 issue of Discover magazine in an interview "Where Does Climate Science Go From Here?"....
does she supports the 'precautionary principle'..... JC: "Oh, absolutely"....
do today's climate models need to be taken with a grain of slat.... JC: "No. I think the climate models are becoming quite sophisticated."
she was presented as "denier" to Michael Mann in this same interview....it is a shameful display of Disney created Faux Debate....
i wrote about this article....sent posted copy to JC, telephoned her, encouraged her to study Thermodynamics, offered assistance....
she stated she would 'audit' Thermo during summer of 2010....in fall of 2010 she told me she attended two classes but "didn't get it".....
the same thing she said about the Thermodynamics in Slaying the Sky Dragon.... SHE DOESN'T GET IT....
luckily the world is not limited to the understanding of the lowest common denominator, which certainly includes Mr Ridley...
Nasif's article on the proper 'use and limitations' of Infra-red Thermometers is damaging proof of Warmist & Luke incompentance....
and more damaging Slayer material is being researched and prepared daily....there is NO BACKRADIATION....no CO2 warming....
Slayers will continue to draw the distinction between "half right"....and "wrong"....
Joe Olson
[CC list edited with respect of others valuable time]
===================
From: ... john0sullivan@...
To: peter.ridley@...
CC: houston2000@...; nasifnahle@...; jpostma@...; hanssch@...; alan618034@...; omatumr@...; timothyball@...; PF.SMP@...; ruthhertzberg@...; claesjohnson@...; Charles.R.Anderson@...; ken@...; geraldo@...; jerry_oliver@...; vinmary.gray@...; Fred@...; piers@...; kent@...; Miso.Alkalaj@...; sr2@...; aaprjohn@...; cuibono@...; jonicol18@...; rtaguchi@...; gpetty@...; judith.curry@...; rsowell@...; clifftent@...
Sent: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 20:56
Subject: Re: Resolution of conflict between me and Prof. Grant Petty
Peter,
I owe Dr Curry no apology. Indeed, I stand by the facts submitted in my email that (1.) Dr Curry has no formal training in higher thermodynamics (2.) She is on record as admitting she cannot comprehend the science in our book, and (3.) She stated she intended to improve her understanding of the thermodynamics but admitted she had little time do this. Where is my "arrogance" in communicating these facts? If you still choose Dr Curry as your preferred authority on these and related matters, then more fool you!
Perhaps you also forget that it was Dr Curry's "arrogance" that prompted her to claim that even her students could debunk our book?? In that regard I have a better idea than yours: how about a real time debate online between Dr Curry and one of the Slayers team on the science of back radiation. I'm not holding my breath that Dr Curry will accept being that she is the "authority" on all such matters (it's amazing how cowards quickly hide when the word 'debate' gets mentioned).
Also, your unsubstantiated claim ( in effect, a lie) about the Slayers being in decline is laughable and I can only assume to be an unfulfilled wish of yours and Dr. Curry's being that it is your ilk that avidly avoids addressing the GHE science. Your own citing of our prominent new recruits, Latour, Nahle and Postma further exposes your befuddled reasoning. In fact, there are exciting pending applications to join the team which will be announced in due course.
In addition, I can further assure you that PSI is no longer contemplating seeking CIC or charity status because we are making strides to be a self-financing private association. This is on the back of our advances in publishing and private consultation across various science and engineering specialisms - all of which considerably strengthens our internal peer-review process. If you are not aware Dr Latour has successfully debunked a leading AGW alarmist, Professor Joel Shore on our Amazon review page.
http://www.amazon.com/review/R554OCUZZYTPN/ref=cm_cd_pg_pg3?ie=UTF8&cdForum=Fx2XRL4GE0WC2UX&cdPage=3&asin=0982773412&store=books&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=TxYTS6ITXTLKGA#wasThisHelpful
Our great strides in destroying junk science permits me the privilege of publishing very shortly a hard-hitting article which our team further exposes another new glaring falsity of GHE climate 'science' - this time perpetrator, Dr Roy Spencer et al's false claims that infrared thermometers (IRT) detect 'back radiation' which supposedly 'proves' the GHE. My colleagues have conducted extensive research and found that evidence from a leading IRT manufacturer proves IRT's inherently AVOID measuring feedback from CO2 or water vapor. Substantive of this issue, PSI has today published a damning study by Professor Nasif Nahle that nails such myths about back radiation. Here:
http://principia-scientific.org/publications/New_Concise_Experiment_on_Backradiation.pdf.
Regards,
John
=============
From: peter.ridley@...
To: john0sullivan@...
CC: houston2000@...; nasifnahle@...; jpostma@...; hanssch@...; alan618034@...; omatumr@...; timothyball@...; PF.SMP@...; ruthhertzberg@...; claesjohnson@...; Charles.R.Anderson@...; ken@...; geraldo@...; jerry_oliver@...; vinmary.gray@...; Fred@...; piers@...; kent@...; Miso.Alkalaj@...; sr2@...; aaprjohn@...; cuibono@...; jonicol18@...; rtaguchi@...; gpetty@...; judith.curry@...; rsowell@...; clifftent@...
Sent: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 19:46
Subject: Re: Resolution of conflict between me and Prof. Grant Petty
Attachment: E-mails with Slayers_PSI members et al from 2011_09_17
Hi John,
I have pondered long and hard about how to respond to your last E-mail of 18 Sep. The arrogance demonstrated in your comments about Professor Curry does not surprise me but may I respectfully suggest that you owe her an apology. After all, Professor Curry has recognised post-graduate scientific qualifications and expertise (http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/currycv.html) and has earned significant respect from sceptics as well as supporters of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) hypothesis. I’m not convinced that you come anywhere close to matching that, despite what in my opinion are your self-aggrandising pronouncements about your achievements. I’ve added Professor Curry to the circulation because it is only fair that she is fully aware of your opinion of her as expressed in your E-mail.
I wonder why you went to the trouble of removing 20 names from the circulation of this thread for your reply of 17 September, 2011 23:40:05. I know that several of those involved in the “PSI & Due Diligence” exchanges have withdrawn from participation in PSI during and since those discussions in Dec/Jan but surely not ¾ of them. I was equally surprised that having added sr2@msn.com (Dr. Pierre R. Latour, President of Clifftent Inc - http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/chemical-engineer-takes-on-global.html) to the circulation of this thread on 17 Sep 2011 17:51 you dropped him from your E-mail of 18 Sep 2011 22:42.
It appears from Joe Olson’s E-mail of 18th that Dr. Latour is another individual who you have attracted into what appears to be a dwindling group of “Slayers”. If so you may find that Roger Sowell may be prepared to give you some advice, both on the science as well as the legal side. After all, he appears to have substantial legal qualifications/experience as well as a graduate qualification in a science and I have no reason to doubt what he says about himself (http://www.resowell-law.com/). It appears that he and Dr. Latour know each other very well professionally (http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/chemical-engineer-takes-on-global.html?showComment=1264748335102#c8345378794389516675) and I think that Mr Sowell could be the ideal person to do an in-depth review of “Slaying the Sky Dragon” Chapter 21 “Legal Fallout from False Climate Alarm” in the light of the “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mails.
You complained that “ .. This thread was not addressing any issue connected with PSI but rather something else that put you on the spot. Indeed, it's possible this may have made you so uncomfortable that it explains why you decided to omit the rest of that email thread from yours. .. ”. I remind you that this thread originated from Roger Taguchi with no mention of PSI, “Slaying the Sky Dragon” or the “Slayers”. It was “Slayer” Joe Olson who brought those into the thread in his immediate response on 14th. I simply picked up on that theme, so perhaps you owe me an apology as well as Professor Curry.
Since you seem worried about me not always including all of the E-mails in this thread I have attached the word document in which I maintain copies of them all. Now anyone who is interested can read or search them if they are so inclined. I don’t know if you have the same problem but lots of earlier E-mails appended to new ones end up being distorted to such an extent that they are very cumbersome to read.
I have a similar word document covering the “PSI & Due Diligence” E-mails which I’m happy to pass on to anyone who is interested. I suggest that your new recruits (Nasif, Joe and Pierre) ought to be aware of the exchanges we all had back in Dec/Jan about your grand plans for PSI as a CIC. In my E-mail of 18 Sep I included all of those involved in those earlier exchanges because it was only fair to let them know about my proposal that PSI should make the “PSI & Due Diligence” exchanges available to the general public. After all, your latest PSI promotional pages make a big thing of “transparency” so I suggest that in order to demonstrate that the words in those PSI pages are not simply another example of self-promotion those E-mails be made available on the PSI site. No-one has come back to me objecting to this proposal.
Alternatively Professor Curry, who has provided threads on her blog for discussions about the “Slayers”, “Slaying the Sky Dragon” and PSI, may be interested in providing a forum for discussing the history of PSI. She agreed to provide a thread for scrutiny of Professor Claes Johnson’s contribution to “Slaying the Sky Dragon” (Chapters 18 & 19 US version) but I think that a much more interesting discussion would be of your contribution “Legal Fallout from False Climate Alarm” (Chapter 21) in relation to those “PSI & Due Diligence” exchanges.
BTW, I always regard one-to-one E-mail exchanges that I have as Private & Confidential between the other party and me unless otherwise agreed, as several of the “Slayers” (past and present) can confirm. If any of you wish to discuss things with me privately then you may rest assured that I will not deliberately disclose anything said to me without getting permission.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
===============
From: ... john0sullivan@...
To: peter.ridley@...
CC: houston2000@...; nasifnahle@...; jpostma@...; hanssch@...; alan618034@...; gpetty@...; rtaguchi@...
Sent: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 22:42
Subject: Re: Resolution of conflict between me and Prof. Grant Petty
Peter, I really hope my suspicions are wrong and you are not now stooping to ham-fisted bait and switch antics. This thread was not addressing any issue connected with PSI but rather something else that put you on the spot. Indeed, it's possible this may have made you so uncomfortable that it explains why you decided to omit the rest of that email thread from yours.
I will give you another opportunity to prove to us you that you are genuinely interested in learning more about the science. Therefore, below I copy and paste my last email on this thread and request you address the points I raised.
The issue at hand is that you glibly bad-mouthed our 'Slaying the Sky Dragon' book to others after perusing a few chapters. I called you out on that. You responded by advising us that you have arbitrarily and capriciously selected a self-confessed unqualified 'authority' on thermodynamics (geographer, Dr. Judith Curry) as your guide. Like you, Curry has perused our book. She admits she did not comprehend the higher level of thermodynamics contained within it.
Nonetheless, Curry was disparaging and dismissive of our book - as are you – ridiculing my co-authors in the process. But Curry goofed by posting on her blog that even her students could refute us. I wonder how – is she actually suggesting her students are better educated on the science than her? I know my co-authors are. Aren’t you smelling her brand of BS yet?
So please man up on this or we may reasonably infer that ad hom and ignorance wins the day in the unscientific world of Ridley and Curry.
Best,
John
===============
From: peter.ridley@...
To: john0sullivan@... houston2000@...
CC: timothyball@...; hanssch@...; PF.SMP@...; ruthhertzberg@...; alan618034@...; claesjohnson@...; Charles.R.Anderson@...; ken@...; OMATUMR@...; etc. etc.
Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 19:07
Re: Resolution of conflict between me and Prof. Grant Petty
Hi Joe and John, in the E-mail of 17th Sept. you (Joe) referred to " .. some comments from our lovey 'ally' P Ridley .. ". I would be most surprised if any of the individuals involved in the E-mail exchanges in my “PSI & Due Diligence” thread during December 2010 and January 2011, which included "Slayers" and members of the executive of their embryonic global science association Principia Scientific International (http://principia-scientific.org/ or http://principia-scientific.org/component/content/article/36-frontpage/44-principia-scientific-international-psi – as a matter of interest, why two pages with identical self-promotion?) have any delusions about me being an "ally" (lovely or otherwise) of the Slayers/PSI group as a body.
I believe that I made my position regarding PSI quite clear to all during my December/January due-diligence activities, in my comments early this year on the gofundme page (http://www.gofundme.com/1v39s) and more recently on Professor Judith Curry's "Slaying a greenhouse dragon" thread (http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/31/slaying-a-greenhouse-dragon/).
There were only two responses to that gofundme appeal for people to “ .. Give generously for this good cause .. to counter the creeping folly of misguided societies that appear to have been commandeered by political lobbyists and shills serving self-interested corporations or misguided national governments .. ”. Together they donated only £400 towards the targeted £15,000 of charitable donations to set up PSI as a Community Interest Company. More to the point, according to John on 18th/19th Jan:
- “ .. we have already secured our first donation of $350 within less than an hour .. ”. (or was it £?) and in response to my query
- “ .. I can reveal the first donation of $350 is from a member of my family in the US. .. ”.
I wonder if that family member considers it to be £350 well spent – at least he/she should have received “ .. a copy of ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory’ plus a bonus book (two volume pack RRP: $38.98) .. ” as a consolation prize.
I hope that at that time I made everyone involved fully aware that I did then and still do consider John's proposal to try to form PSI as a CIC to be inappropriate. I predict that attempts to establish PSI as a significant international scientific association with and executive comprising Tim Ball (President), John (CEO), Hans Schroeder (CFO), Rev. Philip Foster (Compliance Officer) plus Dr. Martin Hertzberg, Dr. Claes Johnson, Joe, Alan Siddons and Dr. Charles Anderson (is that still the proposed structure of the executive board?) will be no more successful than the attempt to raise funds on gofundme.
PSI’s “Principles of Association” page (http://principia-scientific.org/about-us/principles-of-association) claims that PSI promotes scientists adhering to the Scientific Method and individuals wishing to expose corruption in science. Professor Curry’s "Slaying a greenhouse dragon" thread (http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/31/slaying-a-greenhouse-dragon/) was kicked back into activity on 4th June after a three month quiet period by one Andrew Skolnick, who questioned the self-promotional claims that John had made. I don’t recall John taking up the challenge from Andrew to provide convincing evidence supporting those claims. (Please Joe, don’t start mistakingly suggesting that Andrew Skolnick and I are allies – see “Beware” at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Andrew_A._Skolnick).
That same “Principles of Association” page refers to the leaked Climate-gate E-mails and claims that they provide substantive evidence about the subversion of science journals by zealous researchers on a mission to save the planet. In a recent E-mail exchange with Professor Petty and Roger Taguchi I quoted from one of those leaked E-mail exchanges, between Tom Wigley and Kevin Trenberth on 14th Oct. 2009. Professor Petty’s response, which I am sure he will not mind me quoting, was “ .. I realize there's a tendency by some to attribute sinister motives or deception to those who wrote some of those emails. But when I read them, I only see people continuing to struggle with the multitude of unanswered questions about the details of the climate system and with how we communicate our certainty that changing the radiative properties of the atmosphere MUST have a significant impact on climate even if we still don't have all the answers.
I'd love to see the emails of those who are out to shoot down the AGW scenario at all costs. .. ”.
Professor Petty could have been directing that comment at you John. I see that you had plenty to say about Climategate in your Jan. 2010 article “Climategate Professor Phil Jones could face ten years on fraud charges” (http://www.climategate.com/climategate-professor-phil-jones-could-face-ten-years-on-fraud-charges). Well, in line with that final sentence of Professor Petty’s comment and the declaration on the “Principles of Association” page about transparency being an important aspect of PSI, here’s another challenge for you. In order to make available to anyone who might be considering applying for membership of PSI and contributing towards its funding all relevant background information, will you provide:
- access to all of the E-mails that we all exchanged during the December/January discussions about setting up PSI as a CIC. I’m happy for all of my E-mails to be made available to the public, how about you and the rest of those receiving this E-mail,
- full substantiated details of your academic and professional training and experience.
This is an opportunity for you to prove that Andrew Skolnick’s opinion about you is wrong and that you do not shy away from such challenges.
John, you said in your E-mail of 17th Sept. at 17:51 that you had forwarded to me the " .. latest in-depth independent review of the book conducted by Dr. Pierre Latour .. ". The impression that I get from reading your attachment is that it was Dr. Joel Shore (also involved in those exchanges on Professor Curry's thread) who did a less than complementary in-depth independent review, not Dr. Latour. Dr. Latour said quite clearly to Joel " .. My review of your book review .. I am not reviewing the book; just your review of it. .. ". If I missed something that indicates that Dr. Latour did indeed undertake an in-depth review of "Slaying the Sky Dragon" rather than merely undertaking an in-depth review of Dr. Shores in-depth review of the book then please point me to it.
For someone who appears to me to have no greater understanding than I of the numerous disciplines contributing towards improving our poor understanding of the processes and drivers of the different global climates, I find your assessment of my “problem” and the solution to it at the very best presumptuous. I prefer to pay heed to the advice of those with qualifications and experience in a relevant discipline and a track record of success recognised by their peers rather than self-promoting individuals who provide little or nothing to substantiate their claims. This too was discussed on Professor Curry’s thread.
Professor Curry commented that " .. I’ve read Slaying the Sky Dragon and originally intended a rubuttal, but it would be too overwhelming to attempt this and probably pointless .. ". She, like I, has a right to express her opinion but she makes her pronouncements as someone with more than a layperson’s understanding of the issue. The discussions on Professor Curry's thread about the contribution made by Professor Claes Johnson involved others with expertise in relevant disciplines. As I recall, in those 2489 comments the only contributors singing the praises of “Slaying the Sky Dragon” were “Slayers” themselves. If I missed any commendations from others then please let me know. (BTW, as I recall you never did respond properly to Andrew Skolnick’s questions, did you.)
I can’t argue with Professor Curry’s comment that “ .. I suspect that many undergrad physics or atmospheric science majors at Georgia Tech could effectively refute these chapters .. " and that is what set me wondering about whether or not it was worth paying to read it. My wife bought me a Kindle in June and I had been tempted to fork out the $6.47 but rather than simply take the word of others I did my own in-depth review of the five free sample chapters and and carefully followed the discussions on Professor Curry’s thread. I wasn’t impressed enough to buy the book. Thanks for providing those free chapters and helping me to avoid wasting my money.
I think that I have included everyone in the circulation who was involved in those PSI & Due Diligence exchanges but if you spot that I’ve missed anybody please would you forward this.
(BTW, you may find the Global Warming Policy Foundation blog article “Judith Curry: Polyclimate” of interest - http://www.thegwpf.org/the-climate-record/2870-judith-curry-polyclimate.html)
Best regards, Pete
=================
You have chosen to publically rebuke the Slayers based on your claim to have read less than 25% of our work....you have publically chosen to embrace a 'denier' who also does not comprehend our work....
at least Dr Curry had the decency to state "she could not understand the Slayer science"....one can be 'correct' on their opinion of an obvious science fraud....yet be clueless on the science that PROVES the fraud....
over the last two years i have had dozens of email exchanges with Dr Curry, two long distance phone calls and posts on her blog....i and my Fellow Slayers have tried every way possible to explain our science....
in spring 2010 Dr Curry said she would 'audit' the Georgia Tech thermo class over the summer....in the fall of 2010 she stated that she had attended a few classes, but didn't get it....
there is a reason she did not get it....Thermodynamics is a complicated course with the following prerequisites....
Intro to Calculus, Intergal Calculus, Differential Calculus, Numberical Methods [the class that Dr Claus Johnson teaches], two semester of sophomore Physics in Dynamics and Electricity....
you THEN qualify for two semesters in thermo....Thermodynamics and Transport Phenoma....no wonder Dr Curry was clueless in thermo class....
you then go further to demean Dr Pierre Latour, PhD Chem Engineering [with Honors] as under Slayer influence....
Dr Latour joined the Slayers after a complete review [two readings] of our book and lengthy email contact with every author...Dr Latour has a FULL understanding of the Physics of reality....
i submit that Engineering is Applied Science....and as such is the emperical leading edge of science....you may have all the theoretical concepts you want....it is testing the physical model that refines science....
Dr Curry has been intentionally misled by an orchestrated Faux Science....regretably she is still resisting the continuing education that will explain these errors....
i do NOT board an aircraft that a Physicist says with theoretically fly....i board an aircraft that engineers have PROVEN will fly....best wishes on your future 'flights'....
Joe Olson
Peter, Right there is your problem. The matter at hand is about comprehending a complex and very poorly understood system and obtaining just a smattering of reading provides no true insight. Moreover, relying on a small clique of generalist academics from within an infant branch of science is not an advisable path, either. Even the IPCC admits climatologists have “low” or “very low” understanding of 80 percent of the factors that drive climate.
For this reason I choose to learn from highly qualified specialists from a whole range of relevant fields including physics, chemistry, thermodynamics, math and statistics, etc. Only then can I put probing questions to those 'experts' of climatology and gauge their replies and tease out their inane assumptions. That is the right way to go to avoid making those sweeping judgments you have made based on a small sample.
Indeed, I suggest you look more closely at Dr. Curry's credentials (a geographer turned 'climatologist') because she openly admits to having little if any formal training in thermodynamics (yet, incredibly, she is actually permitted to teach it at Georgia Tech.).
My colleagues learned much about the inadequacies of Dr. Curry when they engaged in discussions with her about our book. Curry claimed she had read it but admitted she could not comprehend it. To her credit, she honestly admits she doesn't understand the thermodynamics and was going to attend a course to sharpen her skills, but presently has no time to do this.
It's amazing to watch the likes of Curry engaging in discussions about climate with experts far more qualified in physics, chemistry, etc. who are now taking a fervent interest in this subject. Try it for yourself and see - soon you, too, will be picking apart the half-baked and unphysical assumptions of such academics (e.g. the fallacy of ‘back radiation,’ the misuse of IR thermometers, etc.)
So I'll leave it to you to discuss with Dr. Latour what makes him so uniquely qualified to help peer-review (and improve!) our book.
John
www.slayingtheskydragon.com
Hi John and Joe, I formed an opinion as a result of reading those five chapters. Isn't that why they were made available free? - so that potential purchasers could assess whether they wanted to buy the book or not? I decided against it and wouldn't recommend it to others. If others, like Dr. Pierre Latour consider differently that's fine by me, however, I'm more inclined to listen to the opinions of people like Professor Judith Curry than to someone who is “a recognized authority in process automation technology and successful entrepreneur in several process control ventures. Latour began his career in the early 1960s with DuPont and Shell Oil after receiving a PhD in Chemical Engineering at Purdue" (see also https://engineering.purdue.edu/ChE/AboutUs/Pierre%20Latour%202007%20OChE.jpg - assuming that is the same Dr. Latour - please correct me if I'm mistaken).
I do agree with Dr. Latour's opinion that "The tenuous link between CO2 greenhouse effects and the Earth's temperature indicates humanity has no effective manipulated variable to control temperature; the steady-state gain dT/dCO2 is almost zero. If so, the system is uncontrollable. Kyoto will fail no matter what the political consensus may be."
(http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/chemical-engineer-takes-on-global.html).
Best regards, Pete
Joe, I understand your frustrations. Ridley deserves to be roundly rebuked for dismissing the SSD book after admitting he read only the first five chapters. His is the kind of ill-informed bias that confronts us. To put Ridley in his place I am forwarding to him the attached and latest in-depth independent review of the book conducted by Dr. Pierre Latour. I'm sure if Ridley has any conscience he will be issuing an apology to all concerned.
John
www.slayingtheskydragon.com
[so much for a private sidebar with Taguchi....and some comments from our lovey 'ally' P Ridley]
Hi Professor Petty, sorry to keep on flooding your In-box with E-mails but I think that you are entitled to see the E-mails from Roger and from Joe Olson who possibly were respecting your request to be dropped out of the general circulation lists of the "Back Radiation" and "Greenhouse Effect" E-mails.
Joe gave a plug to the "Slayers" book and as I said to you in a previous E-mail, I've read the first five chapters and concluded from those that the book wasn't of any scientific significance and there are more worthy sources of information. There was one chapter that I thought worth raising with you and that is Alan Siddons' Chapter 4 "The Impact of an Atmosphere". The chapter is devoted to looking at graphs of the temperature gradient with height of several planets in the solar system. All of his diagrams show a turning point at about 0.1bar:
- http://cseligman.com/text/planets/saturnstructure.htm
- http://cseligman.com/text/planets/atmospherestructure.htm
- http://cseligman.com/text/planets/saturnstructure.htm
- etc.
Alan repeatedly asks the question "Is that .. the greenhouse effect .. "? When you can find the time I'd be interested to hear your explanation of why most planets demonstrate a similar turning point regardless of the atmospheric composition.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Actually, I've since contacted Prof. Petty and we've had really civil exchanges. He's offered to send me postpaid a free copy of his textbook which I'll read (I'll pay for his book), now that I've straightened out a few misconceptions.
My other conclusions still stand: the IPCC predictions of future warming are a factor of 3 too large, which means we could effectively cut IPCC warming by 67% by just doing nothing, at a cost of zero. And I still think he's wrong about the Boltzmann-Loschmidt paradox, and about the power driving the IR escaping at high altitude. He is, however, the only person (after some nettling to make him angry) to state specific objections instead of just sneering and belittling (I deserved some of his chastisement, which I prefer to remaining ignorant with wrong ideas). Since I have deliberately read little of the literature (first out of laziness, then out of contempt for the errors that were obvious to me, and then out of fear that if I actually spent time learning the Standard Model I would be so brainwashed I couldn't create anything new), I was bound to make mistakes out of ignorance or faulty logic. I am prepared to admit these mistakes, but I hope I am redeemed by new ideas which might be of value.
This kind of research cannot be backed up by literature references or Google searches because they are original thoughts.
Roger, it takes a big man to admit error....that alone makes you bigger than Petty....i challengened Petty in a private sidebar on HIS faulty science....since not all areas of Physics are in my full command....
i did CC several of my Fellow Slayers for the CC chat....we presented evidence that is impossible to refute....at which point Petty claimed he had just begun AGW study and refused any further contact....
the Slayers stand ready to really further your education....increasing CO2 by 100 PPM will actually COOL the atmosphere....the total OLR 'delay' is only 5 milliseconds....
the entire S-B & K-T mantra is fiction....please see articles by Joe Postma and Nasif Nahle at PSI....can forward if needed....Petty was living up to his name with the full CC rebuke he gave to you....
please get a copy of Slaying the Sky Dragon and contact us with any questions....
thanks
Joe 0
Hi all! I admit that I was wrong, wrong, wrong about the idea of a "temperature probe". However, all my previous numerical calculations re the greenhouse effect and the enhanced greenhouse effect still stand. The temperature sensitivity on doubling CO2 from 300 to 600 ppm is 1.2 to 1.4 degrees. Taking the higher figure, the IPCC prediction for future warming as CO2 increases from 400 to 600 ppm is a factor of 3 too high (2.3 degrees instead of 0.7 degrees, since 0.7 degrees has already occurred in historic times as CO2 increased from 300 to 400 ppm).
A better description of how the greenhouse effect warms both the surface and the atmosphere is posted at http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/30/physics-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect/#comment-111965
This is near the end of the thread.
Many thanks to Judith for providing an excellent forum where we can screw up in debates while stumbling toward better understanding.
Many thanks to Prof. Grant Petty for his vigorous objections to a previous posting. I am not afraid to admit mistakes, and make corrections toward a better understanding. I do apologize for misspelling his name in the posting, as I had to leave for a prior commitment before proofreading. There are other awkward wordings that the reader could improve on.
However I do think there are some novel ideas that might be of value toward general understanding.
Colin has also stimulated thinking without sarcasm or condescension (thanks).
From: Grant W. Petty ...
To: Roger Taguchi ...; Colin Davidson ...; Peter Ridley ...; John Nicol ...; alan618034 ...; Charles Anderson ...; geraldo ...; houston2000 ...; Jerry Oliver ...; John Droz ...; John O'Sullivan ...; Ruth Hertzberg ...; Tim Ball ...; colose@...; robert.knuteson@...; Judith Curry
Sent: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 7:17
Subject: RE: Back-radiation
There is an incredible amount of half-baked or misconstrued science being thrown around in this email exchange by certain people who, as far as I can tell, have no interest in changing their minds about anything.
The strange concept of "reflection" by CO2, to give just one example, has neither theoretical nor experimental foundation at the wavelengths you're talking about. There is no way that emission BY the ground has any influence whatsoever in the spectra depicted in my Fig. 8.1 Also, the "dip at the top of the CO2 peak" is due to a common and well-documented phenomenon -- the existence of a strong atmospheric temperature inversion near ground level in the arctic.
Of course, I've learned not to expect everyone to take my word for these things.
But ask yourself this: If mainstream understanding of atmospheric radiative transfer is so erroneous, why can we (a) accurately predict observed radiative spectra from balloon observations of the temperature and humidity structure of the atmosphere and (b) accurately retrieve temperature and humidity profiles from satellite observations of atmospheric spectra?
Please take my address off of future emails about this topic.
Thank you.
...
Prof. Grant W. Petty
Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences
...
----------------------- ------------- --------------------
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011, Roger Taguchi wrote:
“ .. Hi Colin! I can see that we are converging on the same conclusions, despite original differences. This is the ideal hope for rational discussion, sadly a model which does not fit reality in most cases.
I agree with your own wording in your discussions titled "Radiation from a Cold Gas" and "The Altitude of the Thunderstorm Anvil", and am pleased if I had anything to do with your insights.
Re the gaps between the lines: the spectra of atoms or atomic ions show narrow individual lines widely spaced from each other, as the frequencies correspond to quantum jumps of an electron from one orbital to another. In the observed Solar spectrum, widely separated dark lines (Fraunhofer lines) correspond to absorption of certain frequencies of the 5780 K black body spectrum as the energy knocks an electron in an atom or atomic ion in the gas phase from one energy level to a higher one. For molecules and molecular ions, infrared (IR) spectra show absorptions/emissions due to quantum jumps from one vibrational energy level to another. Instead of a narrow line, however, rather broad (by atomic spectrum standards) BANDS are seen. At high resolution, the bands are seen to be the envelopes of sets of narrow vibration-rotation lines.
For the HCl vibration-rotation spectrum of the v=0 to v=1 transition, see http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/molecule/vibrot.html. There are two broad "wings', a P-branch at lower frequencies corresponding to changes of "delta J" = -1 in the rotational quantum number J (e.g. J=1 to J=0, J=2 to J=1, etc.) and an R-branch at higher frequencies corresponding to changes "delta J" = +1 (e.g. J=0 to J=1, J=1 to J=2, etc.). These rules arise from the fact that J is a measure of the rotational angular momentum of the molecule, and the photon is a boson with spin 1, which means that it carries 1 unit of angular momentum. Thus we are seeing the result of Conservation of Angular Momentum when a photon is absorbed or emitted by a rotating molecule. The spacing between the individual vibration-rotation lines is roughly constant, and depends on the value of the rotational constant B, which is inversely proportional to the moment of inertia.
Because there are two common isotopes of chlorine with slightly different masses, the HCl spectrum actually shows two slightly different spectra, one for the molecule containing Cl-37, and the other for the molecule containing Cl-35.Since there are roughly 3 times as many Cl-35 isotopes as Cl-37 isotopes (explaining the average atomic weight of approx. 35.5), you'd expect the Cl-35 lines to be 3 times as high as the Cl-37 lines, but they're not. This has puzzled the article's author. The explanation is that in order to get a strong absorption spectrum, a high concentration was used, so the stronger lines show signs of "saturation". So triple the concentration does not triple the height of the absorption line, unless the height (absorption) is very lowto begin with. Because the H atom has a low mass, the moment of inertia of the HCl molecule is small(a rotating HCl molecule has its center-of-mass essentially in the Cl atom, with the light H atom rotating around it). This means the HCl vibration-rotation lines are widely separated (by about 21 cm^-1). Similarly, the H2O molecule has two light H atoms in a molecule whose center-of-mass is buried inside the O atom, and the vibration-rotation lines should be separated by 18, 29 or 56 cm^-1 (there are 3separate components of the moment of inertia for a non-linear molecule). On the other hand, the CO2 molecule is linear, with heavy O atoms on the ends, so the moment of inertia is high, meaning the vibration-rotation lines are close together (about 1 cm^-1 apart).
This means that the individual CO2 lines (which have a roughly Gaussian shape) overlap each other much more significantly than in HCl orH2O. Since the 15 micron wavelength for CO2 bond-bending absorption coincides with the peak of the 288 K black body spectrum emitted by a warm Earth, the absorption by CO2 is particularly strong, and if there is no temperature difference between the Earth and the CO2 layer, there will be almost complete reflection back to the surface for any IR emitted from the Earth. For central frequencies, this could occur within metres or tens of metres altitude. Frequencies in the wings of the CO2 absorption peak can travel higher in altitude before they are absorbed, because the populations of molecules with high values of J vary as a Boltzmann decreasing exponential function. At higher altitudes the temperature will be lower due to adiabatic expansion, and so there can be net absorption, and some of the excited CO2 molecules can transfer their vibrational energy in inelastic collisions with N2, O2 and Ar molecules which cannot re-emit IR energy. So the rotational and translational energies of the air molecules increase (i.e. the air warms up, altering the lapse rate).
Thus a satellite looking down on the Earth would see IR emitted from a black body surface (or perhaps black body solid or liquid cloud particles), with essentially zero transmission of central CO2 frequencies and two sloping wings due to partial absorption/reflection at off-central frequencies. However, the emission at high altitude from excited CO2 molecules powered by incoming Solar radiation complicates the picture, giving the appearance of a truncated CO2 absorption peak (valley). Because the individual H2O lines are more widely spaced than for CO2, the satellite spectra show separate individual absorption lines which have not been totally saturated (i.e. most show some non-zero transmission).By the way, the H2O lines below 600 cm^-1 are pure rotation spectra, due to "delta J = +/- 1" transitions within the ground state vibration (there is no change in the vibrational quantum number v).
The CO2 bond-bending vibration centred at 667 cm^-1 is one of the lowest vibrational frequencies known. Because the CO2 molecule is linear tri-atomic, it has no electric dipole moment in its equilibrium shape, but bond-bending results in a changing electric dipole moment perpendicular to the molecular axis (because the more-electronegative oxygen atoms attract the bonding electrons more to themselves than does the central carbon atom). This means that CO2 bond-bending also has a Q-branch spike in its spectrum due to lines all at almost the same frequency due to "delta J" = 0 transitions (e.g. J=1 to J=1, J=2 to J=2, etc.). The angular momentum of an absorbed photon ends up in an increased rotation around the molecular axis (the angular momentum vector would point along the axis), something which is not possible for the diatomic molecule HCl whose masses are centered on the inter-atomic axis.
Thus if the spectra looking down on a warm Earth truly showed only partial CO2 absorption at central frequencies, the Q-branch absorption spike should point DOWNWARD, towards zero transmission. Instead, all the spectra (including the ones looking down on Antarctica and a Thunderstorm Anvil) show an UPWARD spike, meaning that it is evidence for CO2 EMISSION. As you so rightly argue, the Thunderstorm Anvil spectrum's interpretation must involve emission from an altitude higher than the cloud top. You wonder about this altitude: 14 or 20 km? I have repeatedly quoted "10 or 20 km" for the literature altitude "at which the IR photons can finally escape to outer space" because the temperature becomes roughly constant at 210 or 220 K in this region. The reason is that increasing absorption of incoming Solar radiation by ozone (O3) in the stratosphere results in warming of that layer, ultimately reversing the trend of decreasing temperature with increasing altitude in the troposphere.
By the way, there IS a spectrum showing a DOWNWARD Q-branch spike indicating CO2 ABSORPTION. It is the spectrum looking UPWARD from the ground at Barrow, Alaska on a cloudless March day, available at www.sundogpublishing.com/AtmosRad/Excerpts/AtmosRad212.pdf. In this spectrum, 245 K (or slightly higher) black body radiation emitted from the ground is reflected from CO2 molecules. But because the sky is clear, the path length is long enough for some of the central frequencies to be absorbed and the energy transferred in inelastic collisions with N2, O2 and Ar molecules at lower temperatures, resulting in a shortfall in the photons returning to the spectrometer. This explains the dip at the top of the CO2 peak. You will note a tiny downward central spike, which is the Q-branch spike.
My interpretation of the 1000-1070 ozone emission in the Barrow, Alaska spectrum is as follows: Because the air is clear, and there is NO OTHER IR detected between 800 to 1200 cm^-1, this is direct observation of emission of IR from excited O3 molecules high in the atmosphere (high troposphere, low stratosphere). What about the higher ozone signal in the Nauru (Tropical Western Pacific) spectrum in the same Fig. 8.1? Ah, but note the strong, continuous sloping background between 800 to 1200 cm^-1 in the Nauru spectrum. Although the authors say that the sky was cloudless, in fact the continuous background is evidence for partial coverage of the field of view by tiny liquid droplets formed high above the ground when the high humidity in the tropics reached the dew point, the temperature at which condensation occurs. These droplets emit blackbody radiation, apparently at a temperature below 300 K, consistent with emission from high altitude. But an altitude not above the ozone emission. Therefore some of the ozone emission is screened out or absorbed by the partial liquid droplets, so the ozone signal ABOVE THE SLOPING BACKGROUND is lower than the signal observed at Barrow, Alaska.
Similar analyses can be made for the two ozone signals in Fig. 8.3 (c) Tropical Western Pacific available at www.sundogpublishing.com/AtmosRad/Excerpts/AtmosRad217.pdf. The top spectrum (labelled Clear)shows that the satellite is looking down at a 300 K surface (as shown by the background black body signal between 800 to 1200 cm^-1, where the Barrow, Alaska spectrum showed zero signal from the atmosphere except for the ozone signal). The 2-branched (P- and R-branches?) downward valley between 1000 to 1070 cm^-1 shows partial absorption by ground state ozone molecules of the IR photons emitted from the 300 K surface of the Earth. On the other hand, the Thunderstorm Anvil spectrum shows a slight bump between 1000 to 1070 cm^-1 HIGHER than the 210 K continuous black body emission from the top of the Thunderstorm Anvil. Since this emission cannot be powered by the weaker 210 K emission, it must be powered by incoming Solar radiation. This emission could be as high as 20 units [see scale at the left axis of the Fig.], if ALL of the 210 K black body photons between 1000 to 1070 cm^-1 are absorbed by intervening ground state ozone molecules. This signal would then be the same as that observed at Barrow, Alaska looking upward from the ground. At the other extreme, ALL of the 210 K black body photons between 1000 to 1070 cm^-1 make it to the satellite, so only the 7 or so units poking above the black body spectrum are due to ozone emission. Probably an intermediate situation is most likely: some of the 210 K black body photons between 1000 to 1070 cm^-1 are absorbed by intervening ground state ozone molecules, but not all, so the actual ozone emission is between 7 and 20 units.
As for back-radiation, our differences could arise from talking about two different things. I do not understand the two different formulae you give for Back_Radiation, and at this stage I do not want to know them. You can, I hope, understand my reluctance to spend time on formulae in climatology textbooks that I do not respect because they have botched understanding of the physics of the greenhouse effect in so many other fundamental ways. I have admitted to having read only a few pages of any climatology text (the published satellite spectra I cite are good, although the interpretations are so wrong), and I cannot bring myself to reading much more without anger and/or despair.
============
From: peter.ridley@...
To: rtaguchi@...; cuibono@...; alan618034@...; gpetty@...
CC: colose@...; charles.r.anderson@...; geraldo@...; houston2000@...; jerryoliver@...; aaprjohn@...; johnosullivan@...; ruthhertzberg@...; timothyball@...; jonicol18@...; judith.curry@...; robert.knuteson@...
Sent: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 19:38
Subject: Re: Back-radiation
Hi Colin (& Roger), I liked Roger’s response to your concern that he has QUOTE: .. inadvertently missed a some terms:
A. The evaporated water from the surface.
B. The conducted energy from the surface.
C. The directly absorbed sunlight.
UNQUOTE.
and look forward to his response to your latest comment, which may cover questions that I have.
You said that “Back Radiation .. is the radiation from the atmosphere intercepted by the Surface .. ” and offered two ways of calculating it but in my confusion it appears that your equations are suspect.
Taking your “Surface Energy Balance” equation as an example, using your terms where appropriate and a model similar to that by Keil & Trenberth 1997 (http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/Climate_Science/EarthsEnergyBalance.html) but adding “Latent_heat_from_condensing_water”, my simplistic view of the situation is:
Surface energy in = Surface energy out
Back_Radiation + Latent_heat_from_condensing_water + Sunlight_absorbed_by_the_surface + Energy_conducted_from_the_atmosphere_to_the_surface = Latent_heat_in_evaporated_water + Energy_conducted_from_the_surface_to_the_atmosphere + Radiation_from_the_Surface i.e:
Back_Radiation = Latent_heat_in_evaporated_water + Energy_conducted_from_the_surface_to_the_atmosphere + Radiation_from_the_Surface - Latent_heat_from_condensing_water - Sunlight_absorbed_by_the_surface
(where Radiation_from_the_surface = Radiation_from_the_surface_the_atmosphere + Radiation_from_the_surface_to_space)
Compared with your
Back_Radiation = Radiation_from_the_Surface - Sunlight_absorbed_by_the_surface + Latent_heat_in_evaporated_water + Energy_conducted_from_the_surface_to_the_atmosphere
which excludes the term “ - Latent_heat_from_condensing_water ”.
Where have I gone wrong?
Hi Alan and Professor Petty, thanks for responding to my “The Greenhouse Effect” comment regarding Chris Colose’s statement that “ .. you need cold air aloft to generate a greenhouse effect .. ”. I’ll get back to you both with any further questions spring up.
I very much appreciate all of the help that everyone gives me.
Best regards, Pete
===========
From: Colin Davidson ...
To: 'Roger Taguchi' ...; 'alan618034' ...; 'Charles Anderson' ...; 'geraldo' ...; 'houston2000' ...; 'Jerry Oliver' ...; 'John Droz' ...; 'John O'Sullivan' ...; 'Ruth Hertzberg' ...; 'Tim Ball' ...; 'John Nicol' ...; 'Peter Ridley' ...; 'Judith Curry' ...
Sent: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 11:54
Subject: RE: Back-radiation
Roger, Thanks as always for this courteous and lengthy reply.
Back Radiation
In your original email you tried to calculate the maximum possible value for Back-Radiation.
By definition, this is the radiation from the atmosphere intercepted by the Surface.
You can either calculate this by calculating the Surface energy balance, or alternatively, calculating the Atmospheric energy balance, ie:
1) Back_Radiation = Radiation_from_the_Surface - Sunlight_absorbed_by_the_surface + Latent_heat_in_evaporated_water + Energy_conducted_from_the_surface_to_the_atmosphere, or,
2) Back_Radiation = Latent_heat_from_condensing_water + Energy_conducted_from_the_surface_to_the_atmosphere +Sunlight_absorbed_by_the_atmosphere + Surface_Radiation_absorbed_by_the_atmosphere - Atmospheric_Radiation_to_Space
I contend that you have done neither. While it is true that looking at the Earth from Space, the values of evaporation and conduction are irrelevant, it does not follow that they are irrelevant in the calculation of Back-Radiation (which itself is also an irrelevant term when looking at Earth from Space).
Radiation from a Cold Gas
Looking at the emission line chart (http://spectralcalc.com/spectral_browser/db_intensity.php) there is no way that a cold gas can radiate as a black body (you put me on to this, thanks). That’s a worry when I look at the outgoing spectra – I expect to see more evidence of the gaps between the lines, and I am worried that I don’t see them. Up ‘til now I have been assuming that this is due to the resolution bandwidth of the spectrometer. Can anyone advise?
The implication, as you point out, is that you cannot infer altitude from the spectrum of emissions from a cold gas.
The Altitude of the Thunderstorm Anvil
You kindly cited a really interesting case, at http://www.sundogpublishing.com/AtmosRad/Excerpts/AtmosRad217.pdf (No longer active but see http://www.patarnott.com/atms749/pdf/Chapter8IRradTran.pdf Fig. 8.3c) . In this spectrum, the CO2 emissions are the same whether or not the thunderstorm is present. The implication is that these emissions are generated from above the cloud tops.
The emission from the cloud tops is essentially blackbody (it is either solid ice or liquid water, not a cold gas), with a temperature of about 210oC (-63K). The assumption is that this is below the Tropopause. The latitude is not stated, but if this is roughly the Guam area (13.5oN), this equates to EITHER 14km or 20km.
So which is it?
Look at the Ozone portion around wavenumber 1050. (I have long been wondering about this.) The thundercloud spectrum is very different from, the clear. I think the only way to explain this is that Ozone is not very dense –there is not much of it. The majority of the photons in this band in the clear are coming from the ground and are not absorbed. But there is some absorption and emission by ozone, resulting in the characteristic spectrum. But in the thunderstorm case the ozone action is disrupted – the cloud top is in the ozone layer, and the ozone is only weakly absorbing and emitting.
So I reckon the cloud top is probably ABOVE the Tropopause.
And that makes the CO2 emissions from higher than 20km. Which is what I would expect from the absorption data on CO2. (50% attenuation of wavenumber 650 emissions within 1atmcm).
In Conclusion: I disagree with your calculation of Back Radiation. I think the spectra provide prima-facie evidence of a Stratospheric source for most of the 14W/m2 CO2 emissions to space.
Best Regards, Colin
===========
From: Roger Taguchi ...
Sent: Saturday, 10 September 2011 1:58 PM
To: Colin Davidson; alan618034; Charles Anderson; geraldo; houston2000; Jerry Oliver; John Droz; John O'Sullivan; Ruth Hertzberg; Tim Ball; John Nicol; Peter Ridley; Roger Taguchi; Judith Curry
Subject: RE: Back-radiation
Hi Colin! I believe I have answered most of your objections in a long reply to Pete Ridley, who asked me for an explanation in a more recent email which I answered first.
(1) I'm glad you agree that back-radiation is not black body. You are a rare person whose mind can be changed by rational argument (I have noted in other websites that discussions end up in name-calling because no one wants to admit they were wrong, and therefore typing arguments in search of convergence to the truth is a waste of time for all concerned, except for momentary delusions of victory).
(2)(a) Evaporation of water from the surface of course takes energy, but I assume that in the course of 24 hours this evens out as water condenses at night or at high altitude. Even if there is a net change for the entire Earth over 24 hours, I assume that over the course of 1 year there will be no net change. The reason is that energy lost to space as IR balances the net input of Solar energy during the daytime, after taking into account the fraction reflected from clouds and the surface back to outer space before absorption takes place (the albedo). Cycles of water evaporating and condensing do not change the energy balance unless there is a net change in albedo and IR black body back radiation (e.g. with changing cloud cover). Since I have shown that increasing CO2 alone can account for 6/7 of the historic rise of 0.7 +/- 0.1 degree in global climate from 1750 (or 1850 to today), then the difference of 0.1 degree is the net result of all other changes (e.g. changing clouds, water vapor pressure, dust, etc.). There might be oscillations up and down from the main trend due to El Nino, sunspot variations, etc., but the IPCC contends that CO2 is the cause of the main trend, and I agree. If I am wrong, then so is the IPCC in this regard. But the IPCC is wrong in assuming that positive feedback due to water vapor is twice the effect of increasing CO2 alone.
(b) Energy conducted from the surface is important in quantitatively profiling the temperature change over the course of a day or a year, but once again, the energy balance depends on heat lost as IR to outer space. Conduction upwards has little effect, unless you ASSUME (incorrectly) that the IR lost to outer space is black body emission from layers high in the troposphere. I don't know how many times I ought to repeat this mantra, because it seems to me that the "equivalent" black body temperature is confused by many (most?) to be an ACTUAL black body temperature of a layer at 10 or 20 km altitude. This is just wrong. What about IR emitted at CO2 resonant frequencies lost to space? Yes, this exists, at about 14 W/m^2, and shows up most clearly in spectra obtained by a satellite looking down on a cloudless Antarctica, or on a Thunderstorm Anvil. But because the black body radiation emitted by these cold solid surfaces (or possibly supercooled liquid droplets in clouds) is SMALLER than the CO2 IR emission, the observed CO2 emission is not IR emitted from the Earth's surface or cloud top, but from layers much higher up in the atmosphere, powered by INCOMING Solar radiation.
(c) Directly absorbed Sunlight at the Earth's surface is mainly in the visible and near-infrared regions of the spectrum. Even though the Sun's photosphere is very hot (at 5780 K), there is very little energy at 15 microns in the incoming Solar spectrum. Therefore very little of the observed IR back-radiation has come directly from the Sun. Somewhere in climatology textbooks there must be a graph showing the Solar black body spectrum at 5780 K, and the 288 K black body spectrum emitted by a 15 C Earth's surface; there is very little overlap between the two black body curves. Because the energy of a photon varies directly as the frequency, shouldn't the energy of the incoming Solar spectrum be way higher than the outgoing IR spectrum emitted by the Earth?
No. The incoming Solar flux in W/m^2 is only 2 times that of the average outgoing IR flux in the daytime and the nighttime.
This must be so because the incoming flux hits only 1 hemisphere of the Earth, but the outgoing IR is emitted simultaneously from the entire spherical surface of the Earth. The energy balance is produced by having roughly 30 times more IR photons emitted per second from the Earth's surface compared to the incoming visible and near-IR photons from the Sun (the energy of a visible light photon at 5000 Angstrom wavelength = 500 nm = 0.5 microns is 30 times that of a single 15 micron IR photon).
Therefore I conclude that references in the literature to back-radiation much higher than 123 W/m^2 (e.g. 380 W/m^2) are simply wrong, probably calculated by blindly plugging one flux reading at a certain frequency interval (e.g. at 15 microns, the CO2 absorption peak) converted to a "temperature" into the Stefan-Boltzmann law (which ASSUMES the complete spectrum is that of a black body). This is not to insult good physicists who know the difference between an "equivalent" temperature, and an actual physical temperature.
(3) I agree that GHGs are good absorbers (which by Kirchhoff's law means that they are also good emitters). They can either reflect IR emitted from the Earth's surface back to the surface after 100% absorption followed by 100% emission, or else if there is a temperature difference between the Earth's surface and the layer of the atmosphere in which the absorbing molecule is located, there can be a net transfer of absorbed IR energy via inelastic collisions to other air molecules (N2, O2, Ar) which cannot re-emit IR energy. Hence both the Earth's surface and the air can warm up due to the presence of even trace amounts of GHG molecules.
(4) The importance of a temperature difference for net absorption of IR is not obvious to most chemists or physicists, who are used to IR emitted from a warm black body acting as a source in a spectrometer, with some of that IR being absorbed by molecules in a sample cell, and the net absorption measured by some detector. Usually the sample cell contains molecules at a temperature much lower than the warm black body source, so there will be a net absorption which follows the Beer-Lambert law. However, the Earth's surface is in thermal equilibrium with the boundary layer of molecules at grass level, and so there is no net absorption in that layer. DeWitt Payne pointed out this textbook fact to me, for which I am grateful. [I am willing to admit when others are right, and I have something to learn from them.]
==========
From: Chris Colose ...
To: cuibono@...; rtaguchi@...; jonicol18@...; charles.r.anderson@...; alan618034@...; geraldo@...; houston2000@...; jerryoliver@...; aaprjohn@...; johnosullivan@...; ruthhertzberg@...; timothyball@...; gpetty@...; peter.ridley@...; Robert Knuteson ...
Sent: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 19:56
Subject: Back-Radiation
Grant Petty forwarded me this conversation. I'm not really sure what the main points are supposed to be and as far as I can see there are no errors in this section of Petty's text.
After skimming over Roger's post on another web blog, he seems to think the "back-radiation" from CO2 is due to reflection and not absorption. This is demonstrably wrong. You can actually generate a greenhouse effect by IR reflection (this is of some importance on Venus, and has been proposed to be important in paleoclimates on Mars where it can be cold enough for CO2 clouds to persist), but it has no relevance for Earthlike conditions. The physical difference between a greenhouse effect from absorption/emission vs. reflection has to do with the dependence on the vertical temperature structure. The traditional "absorption" greenhouse effect requires a lapse rate, since you need to have cold air aloft in order to reduce the OLR (at a given temperature) when you add greenhouse gases. Grant Petty's text provides the reader with the physical intuition to think this through, although he never explicitly discusses the greenhouse effect in terms of the top of the atmosphere energy budget in any detail, or in connection to climate change applications (Ray Pierrehumbert's Principles of Planetary Climate text is the best option for this, his recent 2011 Physics Today article is also more accessible and a good resource on spectra interpretation and the link to the greenhouse effect). The interpretation of the Barrow/Nauru spectra looking up from the surface is also straightforward, but not the best way to think about how CO2 increases the greenhouse effect. In transparent regions, you are basically "seeing" the ~3 K background radiation from space, and in opaque regions, you are seeing emission in the lower boundary layer. The overlaid Planck curves are mostly there for reference, but the brightness temperature tends to be pretty close to the physical temperature in the IR where emissivity is near unity.
Chris
Chris Colose
http://blog.timesunion.com/weather/author/chriscolose/
==========
From: Grant W. Petty ...
To: peter.ridley@...
CC: robert.knuteson@...; cuibono@...; rtaguchi@...; jonicol18@...; charles.r.anderson@...; alan618034@...; geraldo@...; houston2000@...; jerryoliver@...; aaprjohn@...; johnosullivan@...; ruthhertzberg@...; timothyball@...
Sent: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 15:24
Subject: Re: Back-radiation
Folks, I'll weigh in if and when I can find time to read the argument. Busy first week of class. Grant
_______________________________________
Prof. Grant W. Petty
Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences
... University of Wisconsin-Madison ...
------------------ ----------- ------------
On Wed, 7 Sep 2011, peter.ridley@talktalk.net wrote:
“ .. Hi Dr. Knutsen, thanks for the speedy response. Roger’s initial comment was with regard to the textbook treatment given in Chapter 8 (see Page 212) “A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation” (http://www.sundogpublishing.com/AtmosRad/Excerpts/index.html) by Professor Petty.
Roger commented on this on September 5, 2011 at 3:21 pm at Professor Judith Curry’s “Physics of the atmospheric greenhouse(?) effect” thread (http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/30/physics-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect/#comment-108941).
I hope that you will be able to make more time to follow up on this and add to the discussion here. Comments from Professor Petty would also be welcome.
Best regards Pete Ridley
==========
From: Robert Knuteson ...
To: peter.ridley@...
CC: cuibono@...; rtaguchi@...; jonicol18@...; charles.r.anderson@...; alan618034@...; geraldo@...; houston2000@...; jerryoliver@...; aaprjohn@...; johnosullivan@...; ruthhertzberg@...; timothyball@...; gpetty@...
Sent: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 14:13
Subject: Re: Back-radiation
Dear All,
A good definition of "brightness temperature" as conventionally used in the field of high spectral resolution infrared atmospheric science is given in Wallace and Hobbs (2nd Edition). Here is a link to the relevant section on Page 140: ...
I hope this clarifies the difference between the definition as used for total flux radiometers which integrate over all wavelengths and infrared spectrometers which measure radiance within a spectral resolution element. In either case, the observed "brightness temperature" is subject to interpretation and can not be attributed to a physical atmospheric temperature, instead it is a convenient proxy for the energy collected by an observer viewing the atmosphere within a given solid angle and over a given spectral resolution element. When we do our detailed analysis we do the computations in terms of energy units (milliWatt per sq meter per steradian per wavenumber, as defined in the JAOT paper) so that we can compare directly the measured radiance in the same units. That approach avoids the problem of interpretation of observed brightness temperatures in terms of physical atmospheric temperatures.
I couldn't follow the rest of the argument in this email chain since I have not seen the document which is under discussion.
Best wishes, Bob Knuteson
Uni. of Wisconsin-Madison
Attachment: Atmospheric_Emitted_Radiance_Interferometer_-_Part_I.doc
Hi Roger & Colin, I think that these most recent exchange is deserving of a wider audiance, particularly those who were involved in the original textbook analysis. I understand that the two examples (Barrow and Nauru) of measured atmospheric emission spectra as seen from ground level looking up were sourced from Dr. Robert Knuteson of the Space Science and Engineering Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison and the textbook was written by Dr. Grant W. Petty, Professor of Atmospheric Science in the Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences department at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
It will be interestng to see what if anything they have to say about Roger's analysis and Colin's objections.
You may find the attached of interest.
Best regards, Pete.
Sorry to disagree again, Roger.
In your para 2, I agree (because you convinced me) that the back-radiation is not BlackBody, so no temperature can be assigned using a Plank curve. One only has to look at the emission lines to see that they will not produce anything resembling a Plank distribution.
However, I don’t agree with “the difference is 383 - 260 = 123 W/m^2 which is the MAXIMUM possible amount of back-radiation,
because SOME of this 123 W/m^2 would go to warming the atmosphere (see my article for the explanation of the mechanism), with the rest reabsorbed by the Earth's surface which at steady-state is maintained at a temperature higher than it would be in the absence of greenhouse gases. “ This seems to be an attempt to describe the energy balance of the atmosphere. You have inadvertently missed a some terms:
A. The evaporated water from the surface.
B. The conducted energy from the surface.
C. The directly absorbed sunlight.
This pushes the Back Radiation to much higher values. I believe that these higher values may have been measured – perhaps John could comment.
I also do not agree that GHGs act just as a throttle. If they are active absorbers they will also be active emitters.
Best Regards
Colin
After Pete Ridley sent me a link to a Climate Textbook showing spectra of back-radiation, I have posted my comments at
http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/30/physics-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect/#comment-108941.
There's enough there to tick off everyone:
(1) Yes, back-radiation is real, and can be measured by a spectrometer looking upward from the ground.
(2) The textbook explanation of the spectra is wrong. In particular, the spectra show that the atmosphere emits ZERO BLACK BODY radiation. There IS back-radiation from greenhouse gases such as CO2, ozone, and water vapor, but it cannot be called BLACK BODY radiation. Therefore it is simply wrong to fit the CO2 peak to a black body curve, call the CO2 peak a "temperature probe" and then use this value of "temperature" in the Stefan-Boltzmann law to calculate the power/m^2 of back-radiation. The true amount of back-radiation corresponds to the area of the measured peaks. IF there were BLACK BODY radiation emitted by the atmosphere, it would correspond to the ENTIRE area under the dashed curve which fits the Planck radiation law. e.g. in the MODTRAN computer simulated spectrum published at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing, the outgoing flux at altitude is 260 W/m^2, with the Earth's surface at a mean temperature of 288.2 K (15 Celsius) which emits 383 W/m^2 (assuming emissivity = 0.98).
Therefore the difference is 383 - 260 = 123 W/m^2 which is the MAXIMUM possible amount of back-radiation, because SOME of this 123 W/m^2 would go to warming the atmosphere (see my article for the explanation of the mechanism), with the rest reabsorbed by the Earth's surface which at steady-state is maintained at a temperature higher than it would be in the absence of greenhouse gases. Since the Earth's atmosphere does NOT emit black body radiation at 20 km (or at any other altitude), all complications caused by convection, etc. can be ignored, as it is IR photons emitted by the SURFACE (plus a lesser amount from cooler clouds) that escape to outer space that balance the incoming Solar energy during the daytime. Greenhouse gases act as a throttle, reducing the outflow of IR photons to outer space.
Since I have not been able to stomach reading more than a few pages of any climatology textbook, I leave it to you to inform me of gross errors in back-radiation calculations. These should be easy to spot: any values close to 383 W/m^2 have simply and wrongly used the CO2 peak as a "temperature probe".
Note: When Penzias and Wilson first measured the cosmic background radiation around 1965, they got one flux value which in the Stefan-Boltzmann law gave a temperature of about 3 K. They deservedly won the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics because others measured the flux AT OTHER FREQUENCIES, and the results all fit ONE Planck black body curve at a temperature of 3 K. There is, however, no comparable BLACK BODY emission from the Earth's atmosphere.
From: houston2000 ...
To: peter.ridley@... john0sullivan@...
CC: nasifnahle@... jpostma@... hanssch@... alan618034@... sr2@... gpetty@... rtaguchi@... judith.curry@...
Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2011 19:05
Subject: Worshipping False Science Idols....
You have chosen to publically rebuke the Slayers based on your claim to have read less than 25% of our work....you have publically chosen to embrace a 'denier' who also does not comprehend our work....
at least Dr Curry had the decency to state "she could not understand the Slayer science"....one can be 'correct' on their opinion of an obvious science fraud....yet be clueless on the science that PROVES the fraud....
over the last two years i have had dozens of email exchanges with Dr Curry, two long distance phone calls and posts on her blog....i and my Fellow Slayers have tried every way possible to explain our science....
in spring 2010 Dr Curry said she would 'audit' the Georgia Tech thermo class over the summer....in the fall of 2010 she stated that she had attended a few classes, but didn't get it....
there is a reason she did not get it....Thermodynamics is a complicated course with the following prerequisites....
Intro to Calculus, Intergal Calculus, Differential Calculus, Numberical Methods [the class that Dr Claus Johnson teaches], two semester of sophomore Physics in Dynamics and Electricity....
you THEN qualify for two semesters in thermo....Thermodynamics and Transport Phenoma....no wonder Dr Curry was clueless in thermo class....
you then go further to demean Dr Pierre Latour, PhD Chem Engineering [with Honors] as under Slayer influence....
Dr Latour joined the Slayers after a complete review [two readings] of our book and lengthy email contact with every author...Dr Latour has a FULL understanding of the Physics of reality....
i submit that Engineering is Applied Science....and as such is the emperical leading edge of science....you may have all the theoretical concepts you want....it is testing the physical model that refines science....
Dr Curry has been intentionally misled by an orchestrated Faux Science....regretably she is still resisting the continuing education that will explain these errors....
i do NOT board an aircraft that a Physicist says with theoretically fly....i board an aircraft that engineers have PROVEN will fly....best wishes on your future 'flights'....
Joe Olson
===============
From: JOHN OSULLIVAN ...
To: peter.ridley@...
CC: houston2000@...; nasifnahle@...; jpostma@...; hanssch@...; alan618034@...; sr2@...; gpetty@...; rtaguchi@...
Sent: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 23:40
Subject: Re: Resolution of conflict between me and Prof. Grant Petty
Peter, Right there is your problem. The matter at hand is about comprehending a complex and very poorly understood system and obtaining just a smattering of reading provides no true insight. Moreover, relying on a small clique of generalist academics from within an infant branch of science is not an advisable path, either. Even the IPCC admits climatologists have “low” or “very low” understanding of 80 percent of the factors that drive climate.
For this reason I choose to learn from highly qualified specialists from a whole range of relevant fields including physics, chemistry, thermodynamics, math and statistics, etc. Only then can I put probing questions to those 'experts' of climatology and gauge their replies and tease out their inane assumptions. That is the right way to go to avoid making those sweeping judgments you have made based on a small sample.
Indeed, I suggest you look more closely at Dr. Curry's credentials (a geographer turned 'climatologist') because she openly admits to having little if any formal training in thermodynamics (yet, incredibly, she is actually permitted to teach it at Georgia Tech.).
My colleagues learned much about the inadequacies of Dr. Curry when they engaged in discussions with her about our book. Curry claimed she had read it but admitted she could not comprehend it. To her credit, she honestly admits she doesn't understand the thermodynamics and was going to attend a course to sharpen her skills, but presently has no time to do this.
It's amazing to watch the likes of Curry engaging in discussions about climate with experts far more qualified in physics, chemistry, etc. who are now taking a fervent interest in this subject. Try it for yourself and see - soon you, too, will be picking apart the half-baked and unphysical assumptions of such academics (e.g. the fallacy of ‘back radiation,’ the misuse of IR thermometers, etc.)
So I'll leave it to you to discuss with Dr. Latour what makes him so uniquely qualified to help peer-review (and improve!) our book.
John
www.slayingtheskydragon.com
==================
From: peter.ridley@...
To: john0sullivan@...; houston2000@...
CC: nasifnahle@...; jpostma@ucalgary.ca; hanssch@...; alan618034@...; sr2@...; gpetty@...; rtaguchi@...
Sent: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 20:33
Subject: Re: Resolution of conflict between me and Prof. Grant Petty
I do agree with Dr. Latour's opinion that "The tenuous link between CO2 greenhouse effects and the Earth's temperature indicates humanity has no effective manipulated variable to control temperature; the steady-state gain dT/dCO2 is almost zero. If so, the system is uncontrollable. Kyoto will fail no matter what the political consensus may be."
(http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/chemical-engineer-takes-on-global.html).
Best regards, Pete
=====================
From: john0sullivan@...
To: houston2000@...
CC: nasifnahle@...; jpostma@...; hanssch@...; alan618034@...; peter.ridley@...; sr2@...
Sent: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 17:51
Subject: Re: Fwd: Resolution of conflict between me and Prof. Grant Petty
John
www.slayingtheskydragon.com
===============
From: houston2000
To: nasifnahle@...; jpostma@...; john0sullivan@...
Cc: hanssch@...; alan618034@...
Sent: Saturday, 17 September, 2011 16:53:56
Subject: Re: Fwd: Resolution of conflict between me and Prof. Grant Petty
[so much for a private sidebar with Taguchi....and some comments from our lovey 'ally' P Ridley]
==================
From: peter.ridley@...
Sent: Sep 17, 2011 4:01 AM
To: gpetty@...
Cc: rtaguchi@..., houston2000@...,
nasifnahle@..., jpostma@...
Subject: Fwd: Resolution of conflict between me and Prof. Grant Petty
Hi Professor Petty, sorry to keep on flooding your In-box with E-mails but I think that you are entitled to see the E-mails from Roger and from Joe Olson who possibly were respecting your request to be dropped out of the general circulation lists of the "Back Radiation" and "Greenhouse Effect" E-mails.
Joe gave a plug to the "Slayers" book and as I said to you in a previous E-mail, I've read the first five chapters and concluded from those that the book wasn't of any scientific significance and there are more worthy sources of information. There was one chapter that I thought worth raising with you and that is Alan Siddons' Chapter 4 "The Impact of an Atmosphere". The chapter is devoted to looking at graphs of the temperature gradient with height of several planets in the solar system. All of his diagrams show a turning point at about 0.1bar:
- http://cseligman.com/text/planets/saturnstructure.htm
- http://cseligman.com/text/planets/atmospherestructure.htm
- http://cseligman.com/text/planets/saturnstructure.htm
- etc.
Alan repeatedly asks the question "Is that .. the greenhouse effect .. "? When you can find the time I'd be interested to hear your explanation of why most planets demonstrate a similar turning point regardless of the atmospheric composition.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
==================
From: rtaguchi@...
To: houston2000@...; alan618034@...; charles.r.anderson@...; geraldo@...; jerryoliver@...; aaprjohn@...; johnosullivan@...; ruthhertzberg@...; timothyball@...; peter.ridley@...; cuibono@...; jonicol18@...
Sent: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 8:21
Subject: RE: Resolution of conflict between me and Prof. Grant Petty
Actually, I've since contacted Prof. Petty and we've had really civil exchanges. He's offered to send me postpaid a free copy of his textbook which I'll read (I'll pay for his book), now that I've straightened out a few misconceptions.
My other conclusions still stand: the IPCC predictions of future warming are a factor of 3 too large, which means we could effectively cut IPCC warming by 67% by just doing nothing, at a cost of zero. And I still think he's wrong about the Boltzmann-Loschmidt paradox, and about the power driving the IR escaping at high altitude. He is, however, the only person (after some nettling to make him angry) to state specific objections instead of just sneering and belittling (I deserved some of his chastisement, which I prefer to remaining ignorant with wrong ideas). Since I have deliberately read little of the literature (first out of laziness, then out of contempt for the errors that were obvious to me, and then out of fear that if I actually spent time learning the Standard Model I would be so brainwashed I couldn't create anything new), I was bound to make mistakes out of ignorance or faulty logic. I am prepared to admit these mistakes, but I hope I am redeemed by new ideas which might be of value.
This kind of research cannot be backed up by literature references or Google searches because they are original thoughts.
=======================
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 16:04:24 -0500
From: houston2000@...
To: rtaguchi@...; nasifnahle@...; jpostma@...
Subject: Re: Resolution of conflict between me and Prof. Grant Petty
Roger, it takes a big man to admit error....that alone makes you bigger than Petty....i challengened Petty in a private sidebar on HIS faulty science....since not all areas of Physics are in my full command....
i did CC several of my Fellow Slayers for the CC chat....we presented evidence that is impossible to refute....at which point Petty claimed he had just begun AGW study and refused any further contact....
the Slayers stand ready to really further your education....increasing CO2 by 100 PPM will actually COOL the atmosphere....the total OLR 'delay' is only 5 milliseconds....
the entire S-B & K-T mantra is fiction....please see articles by Joe Postma and Nasif Nahle at PSI....can forward if needed....Petty was living up to his name with the full CC rebuke he gave to you....
please get a copy of Slaying the Sky Dragon and contact us with any questions....
thanks
Joe 0
================
From: Roger Taguchi
Sent: Sep 14, 2011 2:38 PM
To: Colin Davidson , Judith Curry , Peter Ridley , John Nicol , alan618034 , Charles Anderson , geraldo , houston2000 , Jerry Oliver , John Droz , John O'Sullivan , Robert Knuteson , Ruth Hertzberg , Tim Ball
Subject: Resolution of conflict between me and Prof. Grant Petty
Hi all! I admit that I was wrong, wrong, wrong about the idea of a "temperature probe". However, all my previous numerical calculations re the greenhouse effect and the enhanced greenhouse effect still stand. The temperature sensitivity on doubling CO2 from 300 to 600 ppm is 1.2 to 1.4 degrees. Taking the higher figure, the IPCC prediction for future warming as CO2 increases from 400 to 600 ppm is a factor of 3 too high (2.3 degrees instead of 0.7 degrees, since 0.7 degrees has already occurred in historic times as CO2 increased from 300 to 400 ppm).
A better description of how the greenhouse effect warms both the surface and the atmosphere is posted at http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/30/physics-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect/#comment-111965
This is near the end of the thread.
Many thanks to Judith for providing an excellent forum where we can screw up in debates while stumbling toward better understanding.
Many thanks to Prof. Grant Petty for his vigorous objections to a previous posting. I am not afraid to admit mistakes, and make corrections toward a better understanding. I do apologize for misspelling his name in the posting, as I had to leave for a prior commitment before proofreading. There are other awkward wordings that the reader could improve on.
However I do think there are some novel ideas that might be of value toward general understanding.
Colin has also stimulated thinking without sarcasm or condescension (thanks).
=======================
===================
From: Grant W. Petty ...
To: Roger Taguchi ...; Colin Davidson ...; Peter Ridley ...; John Nicol ...; alan618034 ...; Charles Anderson ...; geraldo ...; houston2000 ...; Jerry Oliver ...; John Droz ...; John O'Sullivan ...; Ruth Hertzberg ...; Tim Ball ...; colose@...; robert.knuteson@...; Judith Curry
Sent: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 7:17
Subject: RE: Back-radiation
There is an incredible amount of half-baked or misconstrued science being thrown around in this email exchange by certain people who, as far as I can tell, have no interest in changing their minds about anything.
The strange concept of "reflection" by CO2, to give just one example, has neither theoretical nor experimental foundation at the wavelengths you're talking about. There is no way that emission BY the ground has any influence whatsoever in the spectra depicted in my Fig. 8.1 Also, the "dip at the top of the CO2 peak" is due to a common and well-documented phenomenon -- the existence of a strong atmospheric temperature inversion near ground level in the arctic.
Of course, I've learned not to expect everyone to take my word for these things.
But ask yourself this: If mainstream understanding of atmospheric radiative transfer is so erroneous, why can we (a) accurately predict observed radiative spectra from balloon observations of the temperature and humidity structure of the atmosphere and (b) accurately retrieve temperature and humidity profiles from satellite observations of atmospheric spectra?
Please take my address off of future emails about this topic.
Thank you.
...
Prof. Grant W. Petty
Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences
...
----------------------- ------------- --------------------
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011, Roger Taguchi wrote:
“ .. Hi Colin! I can see that we are converging on the same conclusions, despite original differences. This is the ideal hope for rational discussion, sadly a model which does not fit reality in most cases.
I agree with your own wording in your discussions titled "Radiation from a Cold Gas" and "The Altitude of the Thunderstorm Anvil", and am pleased if I had anything to do with your insights.
Re the gaps between the lines: the spectra of atoms or atomic ions show narrow individual lines widely spaced from each other, as the frequencies correspond to quantum jumps of an electron from one orbital to another. In the observed Solar spectrum, widely separated dark lines (Fraunhofer lines) correspond to absorption of certain frequencies of the 5780 K black body spectrum as the energy knocks an electron in an atom or atomic ion in the gas phase from one energy level to a higher one. For molecules and molecular ions, infrared (IR) spectra show absorptions/emissions due to quantum jumps from one vibrational energy level to another. Instead of a narrow line, however, rather broad (by atomic spectrum standards) BANDS are seen. At high resolution, the bands are seen to be the envelopes of sets of narrow vibration-rotation lines.
For the HCl vibration-rotation spectrum of the v=0 to v=1 transition, see http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/molecule/vibrot.html. There are two broad "wings', a P-branch at lower frequencies corresponding to changes of "delta J" = -1 in the rotational quantum number J (e.g. J=1 to J=0, J=2 to J=1, etc.) and an R-branch at higher frequencies corresponding to changes "delta J" = +1 (e.g. J=0 to J=1, J=1 to J=2, etc.). These rules arise from the fact that J is a measure of the rotational angular momentum of the molecule, and the photon is a boson with spin 1, which means that it carries 1 unit of angular momentum. Thus we are seeing the result of Conservation of Angular Momentum when a photon is absorbed or emitted by a rotating molecule. The spacing between the individual vibration-rotation lines is roughly constant, and depends on the value of the rotational constant B, which is inversely proportional to the moment of inertia.
Because there are two common isotopes of chlorine with slightly different masses, the HCl spectrum actually shows two slightly different spectra, one for the molecule containing Cl-37, and the other for the molecule containing Cl-35.Since there are roughly 3 times as many Cl-35 isotopes as Cl-37 isotopes (explaining the average atomic weight of approx. 35.5), you'd expect the Cl-35 lines to be 3 times as high as the Cl-37 lines, but they're not. This has puzzled the article's author. The explanation is that in order to get a strong absorption spectrum, a high concentration was used, so the stronger lines show signs of "saturation". So triple the concentration does not triple the height of the absorption line, unless the height (absorption) is very lowto begin with. Because the H atom has a low mass, the moment of inertia of the HCl molecule is small(a rotating HCl molecule has its center-of-mass essentially in the Cl atom, with the light H atom rotating around it). This means the HCl vibration-rotation lines are widely separated (by about 21 cm^-1). Similarly, the H2O molecule has two light H atoms in a molecule whose center-of-mass is buried inside the O atom, and the vibration-rotation lines should be separated by 18, 29 or 56 cm^-1 (there are 3separate components of the moment of inertia for a non-linear molecule). On the other hand, the CO2 molecule is linear, with heavy O atoms on the ends, so the moment of inertia is high, meaning the vibration-rotation lines are close together (about 1 cm^-1 apart).
This means that the individual CO2 lines (which have a roughly Gaussian shape) overlap each other much more significantly than in HCl orH2O. Since the 15 micron wavelength for CO2 bond-bending absorption coincides with the peak of the 288 K black body spectrum emitted by a warm Earth, the absorption by CO2 is particularly strong, and if there is no temperature difference between the Earth and the CO2 layer, there will be almost complete reflection back to the surface for any IR emitted from the Earth. For central frequencies, this could occur within metres or tens of metres altitude. Frequencies in the wings of the CO2 absorption peak can travel higher in altitude before they are absorbed, because the populations of molecules with high values of J vary as a Boltzmann decreasing exponential function. At higher altitudes the temperature will be lower due to adiabatic expansion, and so there can be net absorption, and some of the excited CO2 molecules can transfer their vibrational energy in inelastic collisions with N2, O2 and Ar molecules which cannot re-emit IR energy. So the rotational and translational energies of the air molecules increase (i.e. the air warms up, altering the lapse rate).
Thus a satellite looking down on the Earth would see IR emitted from a black body surface (or perhaps black body solid or liquid cloud particles), with essentially zero transmission of central CO2 frequencies and two sloping wings due to partial absorption/reflection at off-central frequencies. However, the emission at high altitude from excited CO2 molecules powered by incoming Solar radiation complicates the picture, giving the appearance of a truncated CO2 absorption peak (valley). Because the individual H2O lines are more widely spaced than for CO2, the satellite spectra show separate individual absorption lines which have not been totally saturated (i.e. most show some non-zero transmission).By the way, the H2O lines below 600 cm^-1 are pure rotation spectra, due to "delta J = +/- 1" transitions within the ground state vibration (there is no change in the vibrational quantum number v).
The CO2 bond-bending vibration centred at 667 cm^-1 is one of the lowest vibrational frequencies known. Because the CO2 molecule is linear tri-atomic, it has no electric dipole moment in its equilibrium shape, but bond-bending results in a changing electric dipole moment perpendicular to the molecular axis (because the more-electronegative oxygen atoms attract the bonding electrons more to themselves than does the central carbon atom). This means that CO2 bond-bending also has a Q-branch spike in its spectrum due to lines all at almost the same frequency due to "delta J" = 0 transitions (e.g. J=1 to J=1, J=2 to J=2, etc.). The angular momentum of an absorbed photon ends up in an increased rotation around the molecular axis (the angular momentum vector would point along the axis), something which is not possible for the diatomic molecule HCl whose masses are centered on the inter-atomic axis.
Thus if the spectra looking down on a warm Earth truly showed only partial CO2 absorption at central frequencies, the Q-branch absorption spike should point DOWNWARD, towards zero transmission. Instead, all the spectra (including the ones looking down on Antarctica and a Thunderstorm Anvil) show an UPWARD spike, meaning that it is evidence for CO2 EMISSION. As you so rightly argue, the Thunderstorm Anvil spectrum's interpretation must involve emission from an altitude higher than the cloud top. You wonder about this altitude: 14 or 20 km? I have repeatedly quoted "10 or 20 km" for the literature altitude "at which the IR photons can finally escape to outer space" because the temperature becomes roughly constant at 210 or 220 K in this region. The reason is that increasing absorption of incoming Solar radiation by ozone (O3) in the stratosphere results in warming of that layer, ultimately reversing the trend of decreasing temperature with increasing altitude in the troposphere.
By the way, there IS a spectrum showing a DOWNWARD Q-branch spike indicating CO2 ABSORPTION. It is the spectrum looking UPWARD from the ground at Barrow, Alaska on a cloudless March day, available at www.sundogpublishing.com/AtmosRad/Excerpts/AtmosRad212.pdf. In this spectrum, 245 K (or slightly higher) black body radiation emitted from the ground is reflected from CO2 molecules. But because the sky is clear, the path length is long enough for some of the central frequencies to be absorbed and the energy transferred in inelastic collisions with N2, O2 and Ar molecules at lower temperatures, resulting in a shortfall in the photons returning to the spectrometer. This explains the dip at the top of the CO2 peak. You will note a tiny downward central spike, which is the Q-branch spike.
My interpretation of the 1000-1070 ozone emission in the Barrow, Alaska spectrum is as follows: Because the air is clear, and there is NO OTHER IR detected between 800 to 1200 cm^-1, this is direct observation of emission of IR from excited O3 molecules high in the atmosphere (high troposphere, low stratosphere). What about the higher ozone signal in the Nauru (Tropical Western Pacific) spectrum in the same Fig. 8.1? Ah, but note the strong, continuous sloping background between 800 to 1200 cm^-1 in the Nauru spectrum. Although the authors say that the sky was cloudless, in fact the continuous background is evidence for partial coverage of the field of view by tiny liquid droplets formed high above the ground when the high humidity in the tropics reached the dew point, the temperature at which condensation occurs. These droplets emit blackbody radiation, apparently at a temperature below 300 K, consistent with emission from high altitude. But an altitude not above the ozone emission. Therefore some of the ozone emission is screened out or absorbed by the partial liquid droplets, so the ozone signal ABOVE THE SLOPING BACKGROUND is lower than the signal observed at Barrow, Alaska.
Similar analyses can be made for the two ozone signals in Fig. 8.3 (c) Tropical Western Pacific available at www.sundogpublishing.com/AtmosRad/Excerpts/AtmosRad217.pdf. The top spectrum (labelled Clear)shows that the satellite is looking down at a 300 K surface (as shown by the background black body signal between 800 to 1200 cm^-1, where the Barrow, Alaska spectrum showed zero signal from the atmosphere except for the ozone signal). The 2-branched (P- and R-branches?) downward valley between 1000 to 1070 cm^-1 shows partial absorption by ground state ozone molecules of the IR photons emitted from the 300 K surface of the Earth. On the other hand, the Thunderstorm Anvil spectrum shows a slight bump between 1000 to 1070 cm^-1 HIGHER than the 210 K continuous black body emission from the top of the Thunderstorm Anvil. Since this emission cannot be powered by the weaker 210 K emission, it must be powered by incoming Solar radiation. This emission could be as high as 20 units [see scale at the left axis of the Fig.], if ALL of the 210 K black body photons between 1000 to 1070 cm^-1 are absorbed by intervening ground state ozone molecules. This signal would then be the same as that observed at Barrow, Alaska looking upward from the ground. At the other extreme, ALL of the 210 K black body photons between 1000 to 1070 cm^-1 make it to the satellite, so only the 7 or so units poking above the black body spectrum are due to ozone emission. Probably an intermediate situation is most likely: some of the 210 K black body photons between 1000 to 1070 cm^-1 are absorbed by intervening ground state ozone molecules, but not all, so the actual ozone emission is between 7 and 20 units.
As for back-radiation, our differences could arise from talking about two different things. I do not understand the two different formulae you give for Back_Radiation, and at this stage I do not want to know them. You can, I hope, understand my reluctance to spend time on formulae in climatology textbooks that I do not respect because they have botched understanding of the physics of the greenhouse effect in so many other fundamental ways. I have admitted to having read only a few pages of any climatology text (the published satellite spectra I cite are good, although the interpretations are so wrong), and I cannot bring myself to reading much more without anger and/or despair.
============
From: peter.ridley@...
To: rtaguchi@...; cuibono@...; alan618034@...; gpetty@...
CC: colose@...; charles.r.anderson@...; geraldo@...; houston2000@...; jerryoliver@...; aaprjohn@...; johnosullivan@...; ruthhertzberg@...; timothyball@...; jonicol18@...; judith.curry@...; robert.knuteson@...
Sent: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 19:38
Subject: Re: Back-radiation
Hi Colin (& Roger), I liked Roger’s response to your concern that he has QUOTE: .. inadvertently missed a some terms:
A. The evaporated water from the surface.
B. The conducted energy from the surface.
C. The directly absorbed sunlight.
UNQUOTE.
and look forward to his response to your latest comment, which may cover questions that I have.
You said that “Back Radiation .. is the radiation from the atmosphere intercepted by the Surface .. ” and offered two ways of calculating it but in my confusion it appears that your equations are suspect.
Taking your “Surface Energy Balance” equation as an example, using your terms where appropriate and a model similar to that by Keil & Trenberth 1997 (http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/Climate_Science/EarthsEnergyBalance.html) but adding “Latent_heat_from_condensing_water”, my simplistic view of the situation is:
Surface energy in = Surface energy out
Back_Radiation + Latent_heat_from_condensing_water + Sunlight_absorbed_by_the_surface + Energy_conducted_from_the_atmosphere_to_the_surface = Latent_heat_in_evaporated_water + Energy_conducted_from_the_surface_to_the_atmosphere + Radiation_from_the_Surface i.e:
Back_Radiation = Latent_heat_in_evaporated_water + Energy_conducted_from_the_surface_to_the_atmosphere + Radiation_from_the_Surface - Latent_heat_from_condensing_water - Sunlight_absorbed_by_the_surface
(where Radiation_from_the_surface = Radiation_from_the_surface_the_atmosphere + Radiation_from_the_surface_to_space)
Compared with your
Back_Radiation = Radiation_from_the_Surface - Sunlight_absorbed_by_the_surface + Latent_heat_in_evaporated_water + Energy_conducted_from_the_surface_to_the_atmosphere
which excludes the term “ - Latent_heat_from_condensing_water ”.
Where have I gone wrong?
Hi Alan and Professor Petty, thanks for responding to my “The Greenhouse Effect” comment regarding Chris Colose’s statement that “ .. you need cold air aloft to generate a greenhouse effect .. ”. I’ll get back to you both with any further questions spring up.
I very much appreciate all of the help that everyone gives me.
Best regards, Pete
===========
From: Colin Davidson ...
To: 'Roger Taguchi' ...; 'alan618034' ...; 'Charles Anderson' ...; 'geraldo' ...; 'houston2000' ...; 'Jerry Oliver' ...; 'John Droz' ...; 'John O'Sullivan' ...; 'Ruth Hertzberg' ...; 'Tim Ball' ...; 'John Nicol' ...; 'Peter Ridley' ...; 'Judith Curry' ...
Sent: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 11:54
Subject: RE: Back-radiation
Roger, Thanks as always for this courteous and lengthy reply.
Back Radiation
In your original email you tried to calculate the maximum possible value for Back-Radiation.
By definition, this is the radiation from the atmosphere intercepted by the Surface.
You can either calculate this by calculating the Surface energy balance, or alternatively, calculating the Atmospheric energy balance, ie:
1) Back_Radiation = Radiation_from_the_Surface - Sunlight_absorbed_by_the_surface + Latent_heat_in_evaporated_water + Energy_conducted_from_the_surface_to_the_atmosphere, or,
2) Back_Radiation = Latent_heat_from_condensing_water + Energy_conducted_from_the_surface_to_the_atmosphere +Sunlight_absorbed_by_the_atmosphere + Surface_Radiation_absorbed_by_the_atmosphere - Atmospheric_Radiation_to_Space
I contend that you have done neither. While it is true that looking at the Earth from Space, the values of evaporation and conduction are irrelevant, it does not follow that they are irrelevant in the calculation of Back-Radiation (which itself is also an irrelevant term when looking at Earth from Space).
Radiation from a Cold Gas
Looking at the emission line chart (http://spectralcalc.com/spectral_browser/db_intensity.php) there is no way that a cold gas can radiate as a black body (you put me on to this, thanks). That’s a worry when I look at the outgoing spectra – I expect to see more evidence of the gaps between the lines, and I am worried that I don’t see them. Up ‘til now I have been assuming that this is due to the resolution bandwidth of the spectrometer. Can anyone advise?
The implication, as you point out, is that you cannot infer altitude from the spectrum of emissions from a cold gas.
The Altitude of the Thunderstorm Anvil
You kindly cited a really interesting case, at http://www.sundogpublishing.com/AtmosRad/Excerpts/AtmosRad217.pdf (No longer active but see http://www.patarnott.com/atms749/pdf/Chapter8IRradTran.pdf Fig. 8.3c) . In this spectrum, the CO2 emissions are the same whether or not the thunderstorm is present. The implication is that these emissions are generated from above the cloud tops.
The emission from the cloud tops is essentially blackbody (it is either solid ice or liquid water, not a cold gas), with a temperature of about 210oC (-63K). The assumption is that this is below the Tropopause. The latitude is not stated, but if this is roughly the Guam area (13.5oN), this equates to EITHER 14km or 20km.
So which is it?
Look at the Ozone portion around wavenumber 1050. (I have long been wondering about this.) The thundercloud spectrum is very different from, the clear. I think the only way to explain this is that Ozone is not very dense –there is not much of it. The majority of the photons in this band in the clear are coming from the ground and are not absorbed. But there is some absorption and emission by ozone, resulting in the characteristic spectrum. But in the thunderstorm case the ozone action is disrupted – the cloud top is in the ozone layer, and the ozone is only weakly absorbing and emitting.
So I reckon the cloud top is probably ABOVE the Tropopause.
And that makes the CO2 emissions from higher than 20km. Which is what I would expect from the absorption data on CO2. (50% attenuation of wavenumber 650 emissions within 1atmcm).
In Conclusion: I disagree with your calculation of Back Radiation. I think the spectra provide prima-facie evidence of a Stratospheric source for most of the 14W/m2 CO2 emissions to space.
Best Regards, Colin
===========
From: Roger Taguchi ...
Sent: Saturday, 10 September 2011 1:58 PM
To: Colin Davidson; alan618034; Charles Anderson; geraldo; houston2000; Jerry Oliver; John Droz; John O'Sullivan; Ruth Hertzberg; Tim Ball; John Nicol; Peter Ridley; Roger Taguchi; Judith Curry
Subject: RE: Back-radiation
Hi Colin! I believe I have answered most of your objections in a long reply to Pete Ridley, who asked me for an explanation in a more recent email which I answered first.
(1) I'm glad you agree that back-radiation is not black body. You are a rare person whose mind can be changed by rational argument (I have noted in other websites that discussions end up in name-calling because no one wants to admit they were wrong, and therefore typing arguments in search of convergence to the truth is a waste of time for all concerned, except for momentary delusions of victory).
(2)(a) Evaporation of water from the surface of course takes energy, but I assume that in the course of 24 hours this evens out as water condenses at night or at high altitude. Even if there is a net change for the entire Earth over 24 hours, I assume that over the course of 1 year there will be no net change. The reason is that energy lost to space as IR balances the net input of Solar energy during the daytime, after taking into account the fraction reflected from clouds and the surface back to outer space before absorption takes place (the albedo). Cycles of water evaporating and condensing do not change the energy balance unless there is a net change in albedo and IR black body back radiation (e.g. with changing cloud cover). Since I have shown that increasing CO2 alone can account for 6/7 of the historic rise of 0.7 +/- 0.1 degree in global climate from 1750 (or 1850 to today), then the difference of 0.1 degree is the net result of all other changes (e.g. changing clouds, water vapor pressure, dust, etc.). There might be oscillations up and down from the main trend due to El Nino, sunspot variations, etc., but the IPCC contends that CO2 is the cause of the main trend, and I agree. If I am wrong, then so is the IPCC in this regard. But the IPCC is wrong in assuming that positive feedback due to water vapor is twice the effect of increasing CO2 alone.
(b) Energy conducted from the surface is important in quantitatively profiling the temperature change over the course of a day or a year, but once again, the energy balance depends on heat lost as IR to outer space. Conduction upwards has little effect, unless you ASSUME (incorrectly) that the IR lost to outer space is black body emission from layers high in the troposphere. I don't know how many times I ought to repeat this mantra, because it seems to me that the "equivalent" black body temperature is confused by many (most?) to be an ACTUAL black body temperature of a layer at 10 or 20 km altitude. This is just wrong. What about IR emitted at CO2 resonant frequencies lost to space? Yes, this exists, at about 14 W/m^2, and shows up most clearly in spectra obtained by a satellite looking down on a cloudless Antarctica, or on a Thunderstorm Anvil. But because the black body radiation emitted by these cold solid surfaces (or possibly supercooled liquid droplets in clouds) is SMALLER than the CO2 IR emission, the observed CO2 emission is not IR emitted from the Earth's surface or cloud top, but from layers much higher up in the atmosphere, powered by INCOMING Solar radiation.
(c) Directly absorbed Sunlight at the Earth's surface is mainly in the visible and near-infrared regions of the spectrum. Even though the Sun's photosphere is very hot (at 5780 K), there is very little energy at 15 microns in the incoming Solar spectrum. Therefore very little of the observed IR back-radiation has come directly from the Sun. Somewhere in climatology textbooks there must be a graph showing the Solar black body spectrum at 5780 K, and the 288 K black body spectrum emitted by a 15 C Earth's surface; there is very little overlap between the two black body curves. Because the energy of a photon varies directly as the frequency, shouldn't the energy of the incoming Solar spectrum be way higher than the outgoing IR spectrum emitted by the Earth?
No. The incoming Solar flux in W/m^2 is only 2 times that of the average outgoing IR flux in the daytime and the nighttime.
This must be so because the incoming flux hits only 1 hemisphere of the Earth, but the outgoing IR is emitted simultaneously from the entire spherical surface of the Earth. The energy balance is produced by having roughly 30 times more IR photons emitted per second from the Earth's surface compared to the incoming visible and near-IR photons from the Sun (the energy of a visible light photon at 5000 Angstrom wavelength = 500 nm = 0.5 microns is 30 times that of a single 15 micron IR photon).
Therefore I conclude that references in the literature to back-radiation much higher than 123 W/m^2 (e.g. 380 W/m^2) are simply wrong, probably calculated by blindly plugging one flux reading at a certain frequency interval (e.g. at 15 microns, the CO2 absorption peak) converted to a "temperature" into the Stefan-Boltzmann law (which ASSUMES the complete spectrum is that of a black body). This is not to insult good physicists who know the difference between an "equivalent" temperature, and an actual physical temperature.
(3) I agree that GHGs are good absorbers (which by Kirchhoff's law means that they are also good emitters). They can either reflect IR emitted from the Earth's surface back to the surface after 100% absorption followed by 100% emission, or else if there is a temperature difference between the Earth's surface and the layer of the atmosphere in which the absorbing molecule is located, there can be a net transfer of absorbed IR energy via inelastic collisions to other air molecules (N2, O2, Ar) which cannot re-emit IR energy. Hence both the Earth's surface and the air can warm up due to the presence of even trace amounts of GHG molecules.
(4) The importance of a temperature difference for net absorption of IR is not obvious to most chemists or physicists, who are used to IR emitted from a warm black body acting as a source in a spectrometer, with some of that IR being absorbed by molecules in a sample cell, and the net absorption measured by some detector. Usually the sample cell contains molecules at a temperature much lower than the warm black body source, so there will be a net absorption which follows the Beer-Lambert law. However, the Earth's surface is in thermal equilibrium with the boundary layer of molecules at grass level, and so there is no net absorption in that layer. DeWitt Payne pointed out this textbook fact to me, for which I am grateful. [I am willing to admit when others are right, and I have something to learn from them.]
==========
From: Chris Colose ...
To: cuibono@...; rtaguchi@...; jonicol18@...; charles.r.anderson@...; alan618034@...; geraldo@...; houston2000@...; jerryoliver@...; aaprjohn@...; johnosullivan@...; ruthhertzberg@...; timothyball@...; gpetty@...; peter.ridley@...; Robert Knuteson ...
Sent: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 19:56
Subject: Back-Radiation
Grant Petty forwarded me this conversation. I'm not really sure what the main points are supposed to be and as far as I can see there are no errors in this section of Petty's text.
After skimming over Roger's post on another web blog, he seems to think the "back-radiation" from CO2 is due to reflection and not absorption. This is demonstrably wrong. You can actually generate a greenhouse effect by IR reflection (this is of some importance on Venus, and has been proposed to be important in paleoclimates on Mars where it can be cold enough for CO2 clouds to persist), but it has no relevance for Earthlike conditions. The physical difference between a greenhouse effect from absorption/emission vs. reflection has to do with the dependence on the vertical temperature structure. The traditional "absorption" greenhouse effect requires a lapse rate, since you need to have cold air aloft in order to reduce the OLR (at a given temperature) when you add greenhouse gases. Grant Petty's text provides the reader with the physical intuition to think this through, although he never explicitly discusses the greenhouse effect in terms of the top of the atmosphere energy budget in any detail, or in connection to climate change applications (Ray Pierrehumbert's Principles of Planetary Climate text is the best option for this, his recent 2011 Physics Today article is also more accessible and a good resource on spectra interpretation and the link to the greenhouse effect). The interpretation of the Barrow/Nauru spectra looking up from the surface is also straightforward, but not the best way to think about how CO2 increases the greenhouse effect. In transparent regions, you are basically "seeing" the ~3 K background radiation from space, and in opaque regions, you are seeing emission in the lower boundary layer. The overlaid Planck curves are mostly there for reference, but the brightness temperature tends to be pretty close to the physical temperature in the IR where emissivity is near unity.
Chris
Chris Colose
http://blog.timesunion.com/weather/author/chriscolose/
==========
From: Grant W. Petty ...
To: peter.ridley@...
CC: robert.knuteson@...; cuibono@...; rtaguchi@...; jonicol18@...; charles.r.anderson@...; alan618034@...; geraldo@...; houston2000@...; jerryoliver@...; aaprjohn@...; johnosullivan@...; ruthhertzberg@...; timothyball@...
Sent: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 15:24
Subject: Re: Back-radiation
Folks, I'll weigh in if and when I can find time to read the argument. Busy first week of class. Grant
_______________________________________
Prof. Grant W. Petty
Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences
... University of Wisconsin-Madison ...
------------------ ----------- ------------
On Wed, 7 Sep 2011, peter.ridley@talktalk.net wrote:
“ .. Hi Dr. Knutsen, thanks for the speedy response. Roger’s initial comment was with regard to the textbook treatment given in Chapter 8 (see Page 212) “A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation” (http://www.sundogpublishing.com/AtmosRad/Excerpts/index.html) by Professor Petty.
Roger commented on this on September 5, 2011 at 3:21 pm at Professor Judith Curry’s “Physics of the atmospheric greenhouse(?) effect” thread (http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/30/physics-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect/#comment-108941).
I hope that you will be able to make more time to follow up on this and add to the discussion here. Comments from Professor Petty would also be welcome.
Best regards Pete Ridley
==========
From: Robert Knuteson ...
To: peter.ridley@...
CC: cuibono@...; rtaguchi@...; jonicol18@...; charles.r.anderson@...; alan618034@...; geraldo@...; houston2000@...; jerryoliver@...; aaprjohn@...; johnosullivan@...; ruthhertzberg@...; timothyball@...; gpetty@...
Sent: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 14:13
Subject: Re: Back-radiation
Dear All,
A good definition of "brightness temperature" as conventionally used in the field of high spectral resolution infrared atmospheric science is given in Wallace and Hobbs (2nd Edition). Here is a link to the relevant section on Page 140: ...
I hope this clarifies the difference between the definition as used for total flux radiometers which integrate over all wavelengths and infrared spectrometers which measure radiance within a spectral resolution element. In either case, the observed "brightness temperature" is subject to interpretation and can not be attributed to a physical atmospheric temperature, instead it is a convenient proxy for the energy collected by an observer viewing the atmosphere within a given solid angle and over a given spectral resolution element. When we do our detailed analysis we do the computations in terms of energy units (milliWatt per sq meter per steradian per wavenumber, as defined in the JAOT paper) so that we can compare directly the measured radiance in the same units. That approach avoids the problem of interpretation of observed brightness temperatures in terms of physical atmospheric temperatures.
I couldn't follow the rest of the argument in this email chain since I have not seen the document which is under discussion.
Best wishes, Bob Knuteson
Uni. of Wisconsin-Madison
================
From: peter.ridley...
To: cuibono@... rtaguchi@... jonicol18@... charles.r.anderson@... alan618034@... geraldo@... houston2000@... jerryoliver@... aaprjohn@... johnosullivan@... ruthhertzberg@... timothyball@...: gpetty@... robert.knuteson@...
Date:Wed, 7 Sep 2011 10:52
Subject: Re: Back-radiation
Attachment: Atmospheric_Emitted_Radiance_Interferometer_-_Part_I.doc
Hi Roger & Colin, I think that these most recent exchange is deserving of a wider audiance, particularly those who were involved in the original textbook analysis. I understand that the two examples (Barrow and Nauru) of measured atmospheric emission spectra as seen from ground level looking up were sourced from Dr. Robert Knuteson of the Space Science and Engineering Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison and the textbook was written by Dr. Grant W. Petty, Professor of Atmospheric Science in the Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences department at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
It will be interestng to see what if anything they have to say about Roger's analysis and Colin's objections.
You may find the attached of interest.
Best regards, Pete.
==============
From: Colin Davidson ...
To: 'Roger Taguchi' ...; 'John Nicol' ...; 'Peter Ridley' ...; 'Charles Anderson' ...; 'alan618034' ...; 'geraldo' ...; 'houston2000' ...; 'Jerry Oliver' ...; 'John Droz' ...; 'John O'Sullivan' ...; 'Ruth Hertzberg' ...; 'Tim Ball' ...
Sent: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 0:57
Subject: RE: Back-radiation
Sorry to disagree again, Roger.
In your para 2, I agree (because you convinced me) that the back-radiation is not BlackBody, so no temperature can be assigned using a Plank curve. One only has to look at the emission lines to see that they will not produce anything resembling a Plank distribution.
However, I don’t agree with “the difference is 383 - 260 = 123 W/m^2 which is the MAXIMUM possible amount of back-radiation,
because SOME of this 123 W/m^2 would go to warming the atmosphere (see my article for the explanation of the mechanism), with the rest reabsorbed by the Earth's surface which at steady-state is maintained at a temperature higher than it would be in the absence of greenhouse gases. “ This seems to be an attempt to describe the energy balance of the atmosphere. You have inadvertently missed a some terms:
A. The evaporated water from the surface.
B. The conducted energy from the surface.
C. The directly absorbed sunlight.
This pushes the Back Radiation to much higher values. I believe that these higher values may have been measured – perhaps John could comment.
I also do not agree that GHGs act just as a throttle. If they are active absorbers they will also be active emitters.
Best Regards
Colin
===============
From: Roger Taguchi ...
Sent: Wednesday, 7 September 2011 7:16 AM
To: Colin Davidson; John Nicol; Peter Ridley; Roger Taguchi; Charles Anderson; alan618034; geraldo; houston2000; Jerry Oliver; John Droz; John O'Sullivan; Ruth Hertzberg; Tim Ball
Subject: Back-radiation
After Pete Ridley sent me a link to a Climate Textbook showing spectra of back-radiation, I have posted my comments at
http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/30/physics-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect/#comment-108941.
There's enough there to tick off everyone:
(1) Yes, back-radiation is real, and can be measured by a spectrometer looking upward from the ground.
(2) The textbook explanation of the spectra is wrong. In particular, the spectra show that the atmosphere emits ZERO BLACK BODY radiation. There IS back-radiation from greenhouse gases such as CO2, ozone, and water vapor, but it cannot be called BLACK BODY radiation. Therefore it is simply wrong to fit the CO2 peak to a black body curve, call the CO2 peak a "temperature probe" and then use this value of "temperature" in the Stefan-Boltzmann law to calculate the power/m^2 of back-radiation. The true amount of back-radiation corresponds to the area of the measured peaks. IF there were BLACK BODY radiation emitted by the atmosphere, it would correspond to the ENTIRE area under the dashed curve which fits the Planck radiation law. e.g. in the MODTRAN computer simulated spectrum published at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing, the outgoing flux at altitude is 260 W/m^2, with the Earth's surface at a mean temperature of 288.2 K (15 Celsius) which emits 383 W/m^2 (assuming emissivity = 0.98).
Therefore the difference is 383 - 260 = 123 W/m^2 which is the MAXIMUM possible amount of back-radiation, because SOME of this 123 W/m^2 would go to warming the atmosphere (see my article for the explanation of the mechanism), with the rest reabsorbed by the Earth's surface which at steady-state is maintained at a temperature higher than it would be in the absence of greenhouse gases. Since the Earth's atmosphere does NOT emit black body radiation at 20 km (or at any other altitude), all complications caused by convection, etc. can be ignored, as it is IR photons emitted by the SURFACE (plus a lesser amount from cooler clouds) that escape to outer space that balance the incoming Solar energy during the daytime. Greenhouse gases act as a throttle, reducing the outflow of IR photons to outer space.
Since I have not been able to stomach reading more than a few pages of any climatology textbook, I leave it to you to inform me of gross errors in back-radiation calculations. These should be easy to spot: any values close to 383 W/m^2 have simply and wrongly used the CO2 peak as a "temperature probe".
Note: When Penzias and Wilson first measured the cosmic background radiation around 1965, they got one flux value which in the Stefan-Boltzmann law gave a temperature of about 3 K. They deservedly won the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics because others measured the flux AT OTHER FREQUENCIES, and the results all fit ONE Planck black body curve at a temperature of 3 K. There is, however, no comparable BLACK BODY emission from the Earth's atmosphere.
====================
NOTES:
1) John O’Sullivan, Joe Olson, Nasif Nahle, Joe Postma, Hans Schreuder, Alan Siddons, Oliver Manuel, Tim Ball, Philip Foster, Martin Hertzberg, Claes Johnson, Charles Anderson, Ken Hoffman, Geraldo Lino, Jerry Oliver, Vincent Gray, Fred Goldberg, Pier Corbyn, Kent Clizbe, Miso Alkalaj, Pierre Latour, Grant Petty, Judith Curry, John Nicol, Roger Sowell, Tom Neveu, Roger Taguchi, Andrew Skolnick, Pete Ridley
2) These E-mail exchanges mainly concern an allegation by PSI CEO and Legal Consultant John O’Sullivan on 13th Dec 2011 that “ .. Mr. Skolnick .. maliciously sought to impersonate my identity .. ” (see also John O’Sullivan’s article “Desperate Climate Campaigner Stoops to Criminality to Smear Skeptics” at http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/43274.html and Lucia Liljegren’s article http://rankexploits.com/protect/2011/12/not-proof-of-photoshopping/ for further discussion of this issue).
In response to my E-mail of 28 Sep 2011 (@ 23:44) when I questioned the claimed membership of the “Slayers” group John O’Sullivan said “ .. I can say that currently the most active/influential members of the Slayers team are Hans Schreuder, Alan Siddons, Joe Olson, Joe Postma, Dr Nasif Nahle, Dr Tim Ball, Dr Martin Hertzberg, Derek Alker, plus our publishers, Ken Coffman and Philip Foster .. ” (29 Sep 2011 9:42)
It is interesting to see that in his E-mail of 16th Dec. 2011 Professor Nasif Nahle Sabag of the Scientific Research Director at Biology Cabinet said “ .. Please, stop sending me your e-mails .. I ask John O'Sullivan to do the same, erase my address from your Cc and BCc; I am not interested in personal lives .. ”. Of those "most active/influencial members" only Professor Nahle is excluded from the current list of PSI members (http://principia-scientific.org/index.php/about/why-psi-is-proposed-as-a-cic.html).
It would be interesting to know which of those individuals currently listed as PSI members actually remain so today. As I say in my article “Professor Judith Curry threatened with blog closure attempt” (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/professor-judith-curry-threatened-with.html) “ .. I prefer not to accept anything from the “Slayers” or PSI on face value. As far as the claimed or implied membership is concerned I would only be convinced by each named individual publicly acknowledging having joined and remained a member – of course excluding John O’Sullivan, Hans Schreuder, Joe Olson, Joseph E. Postma and last but by no means least, dear old Dougy Cotton .. ”.
”.
3) The additional E-mails formed a part of long discussions between those who support or reject of the Catastrophic Anthopogenic Climate Change (CACC) hypothesis. More recent discussions not involving the "Slayers" have resulted in a revision of a 73-page review/analysis of the hypothesis by chemist Roger Taguchi. In his "Comments on Grant W. Petty’s A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation, Second Edition ” Roger presents his scientific arguments that the claimed “consensus” view of the impact of increasing atmospheric CO2 is flawed. He also shows that the counter argument by the “Slayers” that there is no "Greenhouse Effect” is also flawed.
I am considering posting Roger's analysis on a separate thread, supported by any further E-mail exchanges resulting from further discussions with "Slayers"/PSI members.
Appendix - Updates
2012-05-27
Numerous E-mails from Sept./Oct. added, including Professor Grant Petty's " .. 14 Oct 2011 5:01 Subject: My final message to the Slayers .. " (see also http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/professor-judith-currys-letter-to.html).
2012-07-08
Added E-mails that were exchanged during the period 12 Dec 2011 15:45 to 16 Dec 2011 14:18 sent by Andrew Skolnick and “Slayers” Joe Olson, John O’Sullivan, Jo Postma, Alan Siddons and Nasif Nahle (see Note 2 below).
2012-07-15 Added E-mails from 17th and 12th Oct 2011
2012-07-22
Added twleve E-mails from between 18th and 7th Sept. 2011 (19:05 to 07:16) - see Note 3 below).
2012-07-25 added E-mails from 27th Sept. 1st-10th Oct. 2011
2012-08-17
Added E-mails of 26 Sep 2011 22:01 in which Joe Olson declared that " .. there is NO BACKRADIATION....no CO2 warming.... " and Sep 27, 2011 12:45 PM in which Roger Taguchi presented his analysis of the "Greenhouse Effect". This has been added because of recent related exchanges to be posted subsequently.
2012-11-21, 23 and 24 added E-mails of 4th/5th May 2012 with Roger Sowell, "------original E-mail-----" to E-mail of 11 Oct 2011 15:26 and E-mail of 23rd Dec 2011 @ 18:37
2012-12-06 added E-mail of 9th Jan 2012 at 09:50 regarding substantiation of claims about qualification.
2012-12-20 Added E-mails from 23rd August 2012
2012-12-30 Added E-mails from 30th Sept. to 19 Oct. about CO2's impact upon OLR to space.
2013-01-05 Added several E-mail exchanges during 12th and 13th Oct 2011 involving Professor Grant Petty, Joe Postma, John O'Sullivan and me. Also added exchanges during 7th to 11th Sept. 2011 involving the "Slayers" and others regarding "Back Radiation".
2012-12-20 Added E-mails from 23rd August 2012
2012-12-30 Added E-mails from 30th Sept. to 19 Oct. about CO2's impact upon OLR to space.
2013-01-05 Added several E-mail exchanges during 12th and 13th Oct 2011 involving Professor Grant Petty, Joe Postma, John O'Sullivan and me. Also added exchanges during 7th to 11th Sept. 2011 involving the "Slayers" and others regarding "Back Radiation".
No comments:
Post a Comment
Open debate is encouraged but please be civil and if quoting from others please give a citation and provide a link when appropriate.