They were unable to answer my question so on 20th April I contacted Professor Eric Wolff of the British Antarctic Survey. Professor Wolff responded with several detailed and helpful comments, but I remained unconvinced. In his final submission on 2nd May, after having discussed my question with Professors Richard Alley and Jeff Severinghaus, Professor Wolff responded with “.. the specific answer is that they use collision diameter because this is what allows them to rationalise the data that they observe”. That fits with the responses I had previously been given by other specialists last year but I am still not persuaded by that argument on the basis that the use of collision diameter rather than kinetic diameter only fits their interpretation of the data, which may well be flawed.

In a nut shell I say that it can be flawed because the deep firn in an ice sheet is a nanoporous medium and expert practitioners in the movement of individual gas molecules in nanoporous media, such as zeolites, use kinetic diameter in their design analyses and in their models. Professor Zbiniew Jaworowski, who has repeatedly challenged the validity of the ice core record snce 1992, said in an E-mail last June that “I am also not versatile in diffusion, and writing my paper in 1994 I was advised and enlightened by a geologist from the Norwegian oil industry, who was specializing in diffusion, a subject of great importance for oil industry. This is a highly specialized field of science. My impression is that it is a terra incognita for glaciologists”.

That comment by Jaworowski needs to be taken into consideration alongside Professor Wolff’s statement that “I think that none of us has a definite molecular level understanding of the physical process occurring at close-off, and it would be great if someone can do the experiments in the lab to understand that better. But it won’t alter the empirical facts”.

I can’t argue with that but if this process was properly understood it could change the way that those empirical facts are interpreted. I have just contacted an expert in the modelling of the porous structure of zeolites, Professor Christodoulos Floudas, Princeton University. NJ, USA. Hopefully he can make some time to add his expertise to the discussion.

Anyone interested in finding out more about the discussion with Professor Wolff should read the comments on the “Another Hockey Stick Illusion?” thread. There is also another interesting set of related exchanges on another thread “What does Iain Stewart’s “CO2 experiment” Demonstrate” http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=38723 (both of which have now been locked by The Naked Scientists admin team and my access rights removed) and on the Global Warming (or is it Global Cooling?) blog:
- “Hasn’t anyone ever heard of the Medieval Warm Period?” thread
http://rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com/2010/01/02/globalwarmingorisitcooling/ and
- “SUZUKI ELDERS:-We’re doomed” thread http://globalwarmingsupporter.wordpress.com/2011/05/08/suzuki-elders-we%E2%80%99re-doomed/.

Please drop in for a chat.

Best regards, Pete Ridley

http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/open-threads/climate/disproving-agw/#comment-26342

Topics in that index are as follows but you will find a different index using the Open Threads button:-

Disproving AGW
Controversy and scandal
Climate
Economics
Politics
Energy and fuel
ETS and carbon taxes
CO2
Climate science
Atmosphere
Water Vapour
Temperature records
Ocean and Heat
Solar and Cosmic
NIPCC
IPCC science
IPCC organisation
IPCC politics
UN
News
New Zealand
Australia
UK
USA
Europe
Asia
Pacific
South America
Africa
Sea levels
Polar regions, glaciers and ice
Global warming
Ocean acidification

If you subscribe to the blog with Google reader you will keep up with comments to all posts and additions to Open Threads topics.

One of my favourites under “Climate Science”

A NULL HYPOTHESIS FOR CO2
Roy Clark, Ph.D.

ABSTRACT
Energy transfer at the Earth’s surface is examined from first principles. The effects on surface temperature of small changes in the solar constant caused by the sunspot cycle and small increases in downward long wave infrared (LWIR) flux due to a 100 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration are considered in detail. The changes in the solar constant are sufficient to change ocean temperatures and alter the Earth’s climate. The surface temperature changes produced by an increase in downward LWIR flux are too small to be measured and cannot cause climate change. The assumptions underlying the use of radiative forcing in climate models are shown to be invalid. A null hypothesis for CO2 is proposed that it is impossible to show that changes in CO2 concentration have caused any climate change, at least since the current composition of the atmosphere was set by ocean photosynthesis about one billion years ago.

http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/open-threads/climate/climate-science/#comment-26629

Another possibility is “Open threads as promised” where you can explore something topical that is not being covered elsewhere. There’s some rubbish at the top from when it was first introduced but further down I’ve made good use of it. Nothing to stop you commandeering this thread of course to continue documenting your ice core investigation and anything else (the blog master Richard Treadgold may issue directions so keep an eye out for that).

http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2010/10/open-threads-as-promised/

I’ve used it to explore radiative transfer models and climate models in general (there’s more of that in “Climate” and “Climate Science”. I’ve also used it for pollution as related to the climate change issue.

I’m sure you will find access to as much useful climate change related science at this blog as anywhere on the internet.

I’m off to the kiwifruit harvest for the next few months so “see ya all” (11/7 first few weeks from tomorrow)

I Googled – “Joseph E. Postma” biography – and the first site up was Climate Realists (http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=7457&linkbox=true&position=2) with some interesting exchanges between Postma and others, particularly Stephen Wilde. The comment that impressed me most was “Posted by Bomber_the_Cat on Mar 29th @ 7:23 AM EDT: Joseph, this sort of nonsense is not very helpful to the sceptic cause. Your article, apart from being unsound, is best described as very rambling. Sorry, I tried to persist but gave up about page 28,; there is only so much nonsense you can absorb in one day”.

What I found even more interesting were the bios of who are behind that blog, including Hans Schreuder (proposed PSI Executive Board Member and CFO) and Piers Corbyn (closely involved with PSI). Who should be on the Home–page but Tim Ball (“Slayer” and proposed PSI Chairman). Then, offering an article about him and “ .. the second of two libel lawsuits from North Vancouver law firm of Roger D. McConchie on Friday (March 25, 2011). Global warming doomsaying professor Michael Mann files the latest writ .. ” (http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=7445&linkbox=true&position=1), was no less than John O’Sullivan, the Slayers “project leader” and proposed CEO of Principia Scientific International (PSI).

Talking about “hockey team” captain Michael Mann, “the Slayers” and PSI reminds me of exchanges I have been having recently on the Bishop’s Hill blog run by Andrew Montford, author of that excellent CACC exposé “The Hocket Stick Illusion”. During those exchanges I made reference to “The Slayers” (Mar 29, 2011 at 1:04 PM and Mar 30th at 2:56 PM) which you might like to have a look at. I have also suggested to Andrew that he might be interested in looking at “Another Hockey Stick Illusion?” created from air “trapped” in ice for millennia (http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/3/28/light-blogging.html#comments Mar 28th at 10:07 PM). Andrew is due back today so I hope that he takes an interest in this.

Dr. Jeffrey Glassman, who runs the Rocket Scientist’s Journal blog (http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html), has made a couple of helpful comments on this issue on Judith Curry’s “Agreeing” thread (http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/26/agreeing/#comment-57880) which may be of interest to you.

Best regards, Pete Ridley

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

5 Physicist’s Summary [relevant points]

A thorough discussion of the planetary heat transfer problem in the framework of theoretical
physics and engineering thermodynamics leads to the following results:

1. There are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses
and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effect, which explains the relevant physical
phenomena. The terms “greenhouse effect” and “greenhouse gases” are deliberate misnomers.

6. Re-emission is not reflection and can in no way heat up the ground-level air against the actual heat flow without mechanical work.

7. The temperature rises in the climate model computations are made plausible by a perpetuum mobile of the second kind. This is possible by setting the thermal conductivity
in the atmospheric models to zero, an unphysical assumption. It would be no longer
a perpetuum mobile of the second kind, if the \average” fictitious radiation balance,
which has no physical justification anyway, was given up.

8. After Schack 1972 water vapor is responsible for most of the absorption of the infrared
radiation in the Earth’s atmosphere. The wavelength of the part of radiation, which is
absorbed by carbon dioxide is only a small part of the full infrared spectrum and does
not change considerably by raising its partial pressure.

9. Infrared absorption does not imply “backwarming”. Rather it may lead to a drop of
the temperature of the illuminated surface.
—————————————————————————————————————————–
Basically, LWIR does not equate to solar SW in heating effect and is degraded by scattering, re-emission, reflection and wavelength change to such an extent that is does not heat oceans, lakes or rivers and does not heat the earth beyond what solar SW has already heated it. Add to that the limited part of the infrared spectrum that CO2 absorbs and the case for catastrophic global warming is lost.

It doesn’t matter how “dependable” a paper or article is in detail because in the real world the phenomena of accumulating heat is not being observed i.e. the AGW hypothesis is being disproved by the scientific method but conventional physics provides the most plausible explanations for what we do observe even though the interpretations may differ from paper to paper to some degree. To those still wedded to AGW, those explanations from conventional physics are unpalatable and to be villified at every available opportunity so presenting G&T will just garner a dismissive reaction from the likes of MattB.

The main point is that the most credible, comprehensive and persuasive arguments against AGW are coming from first, the empirical measurements and second, the thermodynamic explanations coming from physicists (or astrophysicists) that are in sync with what is being observed. G&T and Postma are not the only voices from physics that present similar arguments but compare the relative compatibility of their explanations to each other and to the observed condition to that of climate scientists notably Kevin Trenberth who are now at odds with the observed condition because they cannot accept that their AGW hypothesis is being falsified by the metrics that they have assumed would prove it.

A further delusion for AGW is that erroneous and over simplistic physical mechanisms have been transferred to the models with the predictable result that the simulations do not mimic real world conditions now that the apparent 1977-1997 CO2/temp correlation has run its course. Bob Tisdale is highlighting how the GISS model is not mimicing ocean heat partly because of the assumption that CO2 plays a greater role than it does and partly because natural phenomena are ignored.

http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/10/why-are-ohc-observations-0-700m.html

http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/03/climate-models-fail-stupendously-at-predicting-ocean-warming-new-data-shows.html

As I have said before, I’m a retired Chartered Electrical Engineer, not a scientist, but the small amount of science that I studied conflicts with what Postma says there. In my ignorance I understand that “radiative transfer means the transfer of any energy by radiation away from the source” not only by the limited range of E/M radiation within the band 4000 (violet) to about 7700 (red) angstroms.

Related to this is Postma’s claim that “ .. A blackbody is simply exactly what it sounds like: an object which is completely black. The reason why it is black is because it absorbs 100% of all the light that strikes it, and doesn’t reflect any of it back. Therefore it appears black! .. ”. Once again my understanding differs because to me a black body is a QUOTE: .. full radiator (a hypothetical object capable of absorbing all the electromagnetic radiation falling on it) “a black body maintained at a constant temperature is a full radiator at that temperature because the radiation reaching and leaving it must be in equilibrium” UNQUOTE (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=black%20body). Note that reference to ALL e/m radiation, not just light.

When I reached the point where Postma said “ .. So strictly speaking, although the blackbody absorbs all the light that strikes it, it wouldn’t actually appear perfectly black at all wavelengths because the thermal energy it re-emits is also a form of light. But it appears black because this re-emitted light is of a much lower energy than the light being absorbed. For example if the object absorbs visible light, then it will re-emit infrared light which we can‟t see, and therefore it still appears black .. ” I decided to stick with more dependable analyses such as provided by retired award-winning Canadian science teacher Roger Taguchi on Judith Curry’s “Physics of the atmospheric greenhouse(?) effect” thread (http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/30/physics-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect/) and I once again recommend that you read them (my comment of March 30th at 3:54 am on http://joannenova.com.au/2011/03/david-evans-carbon-modeler-says-its-a-scam/comment-page-5/#comment-249733). As I said then, in particularly see Roger’s comments of 7th, 9th, and 22nd Feb.

At that point I decided not to waste my time reading further to skipped to the end and realised why Postma’s article struck me as less than reliable. He says “I would like to thank the organization of scientists known as the “Slayers” for their support, their insight, and most importantly, their inspiration. Your work and your intellectual standards are the highest and closest representation of the ideals of our Natural Philosophy, extending across the thousands of years of history in our human development. A special thanks goes out to Hans Schreuder, for editing this manuscript, for his moral support, and for his friendship”.

I was closely involved with “The Slayers” during December 2010 and Jan/Feb 2011 at the invitation of their leader John O’Sullivan and at one time he expressed interest in including a chapter on my hypothesis about the dubious ice-core record in their next book. That same team put out an appeal for charitable donations to help them set up their company Principia Scientific International which you can read about on the GoFundMe site (http://funds.gofundme.com/1v39s). I leave it to you to guess where that first £350 came from. Don’t forget to read the comments on that page. There are plenty more if you want them.

In my humble opinion there are more dependable sources of information than Postma’s article, but of course I may have this all wrong because once again as you said before of me (March 25, 2011 at 12:45 pm) “ .. If you can’t see this you obviously have no conception of scale and are totally out of your depth. .. ”. Perhaps you will have enough patience to get round to explaining for me where I have misled myself. After all, I’m always happy to learn something new, unlike some.

Best regards, Pete Ridley

Understanding the Thermodynamic Atmosphere Effect

Joseph E. Postma (M.Sc. Astrophysics, Honours B.Sc. Astronomy)

Page 24 onwards being most useful.

Theory of the Greenhouse Effect vs. the Thermodynamic Atmosphere Effect

http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Understanding_the_Atmosphere_Effect.pdf

AGW vs physics basically

A jumper makes me hotter on a hot day Richard. No?

No. The jumper prevents air circulation (is there a wind blowing?) so the heat that your body has already generated by metabolic means is unable to disperse but you have two heat sources – solar and metabolic (the earth’s internal heat source is hardly comparable to physical metabolism). So on a hot day, what makes you hot is the combination of factors: solar heat, body metabolism, no wind and unnecessary insulation.

Also, on a hot day there is no heat gradient through the jumper, its hot on both sides. If it was a cold day with no wind and direct sunlight you would be able to take off your jumper to receive direct sunlight illustrating that not only does insulation prevent heat going out, it prevents heat coming in in the form of solar radiation (think bikini skiing in the Alps). I live at the beach and see this demonstrated especially at this time of year (Autumn). If there is no wind, you can take your shirt off and be warm from the direct sunlight, meanwhile there are people bundled up in jackets looking cold, because they are not receiving the benefit of the heating effect of the solar SW radiation.

Even if there was a “greenhouse” barrier surrounding the earth preventing heat diffusion or convection the statement would still be rubbish. As soon as night-time comes and the solar heat source is removed, you are reliant on your bodies metabolism to keep you warm even with a jumper on. If you have no fuel to burn (food), your jumper wont help you much i.e. you will not be made hotter by your jumper.

“temperature is higher than it would be if heated solely by incoming solar radiation.” is CLEARLY an accurate statement.

Rubbish. The earths geothermal heat source aside, there is only one heat source, the sun. The greatest heating effect is from solar SW radiation. Once that radiation is re-radiated the heating effect is reduced due to the change in wavelength, SW to LW. The heating effect of the radiation is progressively spent every time it is reflected or re-emitted so a lessor form of radiation in terms of heating effect will never heat the earth’s surface to a temperature that is higher than the superior form does.

In summary: insulation is not a heat source. The more effective the insulation is as barrier to heat transfer and the less heat gradient there is, the more super-heating (heat accumulation) will occur over time (making you hot on a hot day with your jumper on) but no new energy is introduced by the insulation. There is not enough CO2 in the atmosphere to even come close to being that effective as an insulator, it is water vapour that does the bulk of work e.g. Sahara desert vs Singapore.

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/03/david-evans-carbon-modeler-says-its-a-scam/

Mike Palin March 28, 2011 at 3:53 pm

Well little Johnny, here’s how it works. CO2 acts as an important greenhouse gas by absorbing thermal (IR) energy radiated from Earth’s surface and re-radiating it in all directions, including back down toward the surface. (A YouTube video of this process:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo.) As a result, the surface temperature is higher than it would be if heated solely by incoming solar radiation. This permits our planet to have liquid water and sustain life rather be an icy ball in space.

http://hot-topic.co.nz/people-talkin-open-thread/#comment-25304

Apparently CO2 has a magnificent capacity to replenish the heating effect of LWIR back to what it was as SW, this then heats the earth’s surface even more than what incoming solar SW can. A truly amazing trace gas and all that from only 0.00029ppm atmospheric concentrations.

Here’s a link to an excellent length convertor which includes nanometer (10 power -9 metres) to Angstrom (1 power -10)
http://www.convertworld.com/en/length/

Best regards, Pete Ridley