@Siliggy et al

Gee, still at then guys!

Yes it’s entertaining that OhReally thinks Rayleigh scattering involves infrared when it is visible phenomena. In fact it is SCATTERING of shorter wavelengths of visible light (blue) that are greatest and most visibly apparent. The longest wavelengths (red) are also scattered but much less so and thus totally swamped by blue.

Re your earlier Velikovsky comment:
I’ve read all of his books I think back in the seventies. He was a brilliant multidisciplinary researcher who made Egyptologists wriggle the toes in their shoes and his geology and palaeontology work was required reading at some US universities back then. He was apparently a close friend of Einstein, but I’m rather doubtful about his Venus hypothesis.

For instance if an emergent Venus passed near to Earth sufficient to cause Bible descriptions of disasters in Exodus, then I think there would be a more direct description of a large glowing orb in the sky, particularly at night. Additionally, I obtained a translation (Victoria State Library) of the “lamentations of Ipuwer” which Velikovsky quoted and which allegedly also described stuff. However, I think it was a bit of a stretch and maybe concatenated within translations. My brother obtained a notably different translation in London which also seems a stretch.

Nevertheless he was brilliant elsewhere, for instance he was apparently the first to find significant implications in the rate of retreat of Niagara Falls and his fossil and prehistory research was remarkable. He also made some astonishing predictions other than “Venus surface is hot not cool” that “experts” scorned. For instance he correctly predicted that one of the gas giants emits strong radio waves, not from guesswork but from detailed and complex analysis of the physics.

I too think it was abhorrent how he was treated after the first print of his book, including scholarly threats to publishers against reprints. There were several learned professors who proudly declared that they had no intention to read the book because it was heretical crap. Carl Sagan was disgusting.

@Siliggy,

I was nearing the 350-word limit and Re Velikovsky:

The doubts I mentioned re Exodus do not exclude consideration of an earlier event, which might fit better with more subdued suspected geothermal actvity. I guess it’s at least thirty years since I’ve read ‘Worlds in Collision’ but I seem to recall some plausible Newtonian physics and other stuff that are well worth study.

@JF Aus
Have been looking about at things that may interest you regarding the surface of water. First up earthquake prediction is sometimes possible using SST's and other information. Heat loss from the hot innards of the planet could be the anomalies you see.
The short abstract sayys it all on this one about the stratification breaking.
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/291986650_Ocean_surface_temperature_anomalies_from_underwater_earthquakes

Chlorophyll concentration and surface temperature changes associated with earthquakes.
"We were successful in detecting pre-earthquake anomalies prior to all three earthquakes."
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11069-012-0264-8

Chlorophyll absorbs energy from light strongly at visible frequencies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorophyll#/media/File:Chlorofilab.svg

This one is the best of all! Infra red absorbtion into a surface water phase change. Am curious about you being able to photograph any of this action. Temperature may remain constant while energy is stored or discharged in huge volume.
Often absent pass fail short course climate scientists would have no idea.
http://youtu.be/i-T7tCMUDXU

@Bob Fernley-Jones
Have only read worlds in collision and that was also thirty years ago. Still have my copy though. Amazed you and your brother went to the effort of digging up the old texts.
Exodus 13:21 "21 The LORD was going before them in a pillar of cloud by day to lead them on the way, and in a pillar of fire by night to give them light, that they might travel by day and by night."
Sounds like a comet tail to me. Would a large glowing orb be as bright as a thick comet tail? Not sure how it can park between Pharoah's army and the fleeing slaves or outside a tent other than reflection of water into fog.
http://biblehub.com/exodus/13-21.htm

@O'Reilly I like it here so if you do not like being corrected when you post crap. Stop posting it.

@anyone
Above I linked to a line chart that may not show absorbtion lines exactly correctly due to it being for electrical gas discharge.
This chart does not seem a lot different but may be more accurate for absorbtion and emission of Nitrogen and Oxygen.
http://edu-observatory.org/olli/tobbc/emission_lines.gif
What the chat means.
https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-content/nasa/measuringuniverse/spectroscopy/a/absorptionemission-lines

@Bob Fernley-Jones and @Siliggy:

LOL do try follow along with what was said and try better to stop making stuff up as you go.

Did I mention that "Rayleigh scattering involves infrared"? No.

Did a provide refs to science? Yes.

Did I suggest should find things out for themselves and read the science repeatedly for 2.3 months now? Yes I did.

Are you possessed of delusional untrue beliefs on the subject of climate science that flies in face of maths and physics?

Most certainly.

Are you wrong?

Absolutely yes.

Do you both post unscientific 'crap' similar to Nicol and Marohasy's articles?

For certain yes.

Is this provable.

Absolutely yes.

Do you discuss anything that is accurate and based on genuine climate science?

Never.

Are you both so cognitively biased and utterly illogical?

Absolutely yes.

Do you both deny reality?

Absolutely yes.

Does this indicate either intentional deception and/or some kind of psychopathy or personality.

Um, I believe it does, but am unsure of the specifics.

-

@Siliggy says: "I like it here so if you do not like being corrected when you post crap. Stop posting it."

Says the person who posted info about Venus being ejected from Jupiter? ROTFLMAO

And Bob Fernley-Jones supports you on this and labels Sagan as "disgusting"? Far out man!

@Siliggy says: "I like it here..."

And I like you being here too Siliggy.

There is nothing better than a STARK CONTRAST to highlight the essential veracity of one's position and reliance on scientific rigor and credible evidence as opposed to fantasies.

Please, don't leave, stick around.

-

Science being explained to non-science literate people (which perfectly fits Bob Fernley-Jones, Siliggy, JF Aus, Marohasy, John Nicol and many more)

For Mack @47: That 324 w/sq m from the atmosphere is the reason earth’s global mean temperature is 15C instead of -18C. In other words, you’ve just put your finger on the greenhouse effect.

---

One of the simplest refutations of such nonsense is how halogen lamps are improved by putting a thin IR reflecting dielectric mirror on the inside of the glass envelope. The IR component of the light from the filament is reflected back and heats the filament further resulting in more visible light being emitted. The IR coating improves efficiency by about 40% making the visible output of a 60 watt bulb equivalent to that of a 90.

Eli did about the same thing many years ago by putting a thin foil of aluminum around a light bulb which resulted in a strong warming of the outside of the lamp, and, of course, a survival blanket, a think aluminized piece of plastic will keep everybunny warm and toasty.

---

Jim Eager @54
“That 324w/sq.m. from the atmosphere is the reason earth’s global mean temp is 15C instead of -18C.”
Hell Jim, earth’s global mean temp of -18C would have the earth as one FROZEN ball….even the oceans would be frozen solid. Are you seriously telling me that radiation from the atmosphere..or some atmospheric effect, is actually keeping the whole planet from totally freezing up !!?. I always thought it was the sun that melted ice.

[Response: This was the mystery that Fourier thought a lot about in 19th Century. Turns out it is an atmospheric effect. Pretty well accepted now though. – gavin]

---
M 66: Are you seriously telling me that radiation from the atmosphere..or some atmospheric effect, is actually keeping the whole planet from totally freezing up !!?

BPL: Yes, that’s exactly what we’re telling you. Without the greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere, it would be frozen over. Sunlight alone is not enough to keep the Earth habitable at its orbital distance.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/09/can-a-blanket-violate-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/comment-page-2/#comment-660690
-

Mack @66: “Are you seriously telling me that radiation from the atmosphere..or some atmospheric effect, is actually keeping the whole planet from totally freezing up !!?”

Yes, that is exactly what I’m telling you.

It’s hardly news, Joseph Fourier first calculated it in 1824. It’s basic earth science based on the amount of sunlight reaching the top of earth’s atmosphere (1350 w/m^2), earth’s reflectivity or albedo (.33), and earth’s cross section area integrated over earth’s surface area. See Surface temperature of a planet down the Effective temperature wiki page at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_temperature

---
> Paul Donohue … but doesn’t …?

Only for a “black body” continuous spectrum source.
If you slowly heat a chunk of iron (or a sufficiently large ball of hydrogen), it does go through color changes corresponding to temperature.

It’s a very common confusion (confused by (among others) streetlight vendors who are eager to sell cheap LED lights with a large blue emission spike in the spectrum but a “warm white” color temperature by also boosting the red end phosphors).

Color temperature is what you, as a human with normal color vision, will perceive.
A dog or a honeybee sees a different ‘color temperature’

The emissivity of the surface of a material is its effectiveness in emitting energy as thermal radiation.

Black cast iron skillet — high emissivity
Shiny stainless steel skillet — low emissivity

This may help: http://lowel.tiffen.com/edu/color_temperature_and_rendering_demystified.html

To bring it back to topic: what the ‘niers miss is that the visible light carries energy through the atmosphere.

Lie down outdoors while the sun shines; your blanket will warm up, whether you’re alive or not.

The visible light hits the blanket, ground or water, transfers that energy to the solid or liquid (which being solid or liquid shares that energy with what surrounds it, warming up.

The soil and water warm up and emit – infrared, and water and CO2 and other gases in the atmosphere do interact with some of the infrared, capturing some of that energy and re-radiating it in all directions, up sideways and down.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/09/can-a-blanket-violate-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/comment-page-2/#comment-660690

Stop Talking and Read the damned SCIENCE!