Weekend Open Thread

open_thread

Just a bit burnt out today. Need to take a rest from blogging. Here’s some tidbits from email submissions to chew on though:


Sing for the Climate: http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/12/a-commie-song-for-climate.html#comment-form

======================

ClimateProgress/Forecast the fact Brad Johnson makes an idiot of himself:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/valerie-jarrett-climate-activist-speech-grassroots-organizers_664311.html

======================

Michael Mann -vs- Marc Morano:

Marc writes: Note, i was asked at very end to respond to Mann, but my answer was cut off from air or at least transcript.

Source: BBC World Service: Newshour URL: http://www.bishop-hill.net/storage/MannvsMoranoNewshour.mp3

Date: 30/11/2012
Event: Michael Mann: Marc Morano “uses language that makes it sound like we should be subject to death threats”
Credit: Bishop Hill and BBC World Service

Transcript: https://sites.google.com/site/mytranscriptbox/home/20121130_nh

About these ads

142 thoughts on “Weekend Open Thread

  1. I wonder if Mann realizes that , if those threats against him actually happened, they are the result of his ethics and personality rather than anything having to do with his theories.

  2. Enjoy your view of that wonderous mountain (Shasta) and revel in its probable World Record single storm snowpack. I heard it was supposed to get up to 217″ (18′) of snow by monday.

  3. Marc is going on about “echo chambers” again.

    Anthony has published lots of stories about climate scientists disagreeing with each other passionately. So there is no “echo chamber”.

    Marc just can’t let that evidence stuff invade his head when it conflicts with stuff he made up.

  4. Reblogged this on pindanpost and commented:
    burnt out? I am not surprised, Anthony, you have done a brilliant job in getting the truth out there. Your video presentations of the 24 hour live special are very good. Thanks again.

  5. I thought the 256, 512 and 1024 year cycles was interesting (Abstract only available) in this study.

    In the mid-latitude regions of the Asian continent, Zhuye Lake is located in the northwest margin of the Asian monsoon, where the modern climate is affected by the Asian monsoon and Westerlies. In this study, we investigated the absolutely dated Holocene records in Zhuye Lake for detecting the Holocene climate cycles. Totally, 14 14C dates and 6 optically simulated luminescence (OSL) dates are obtained from the QTH01 and QTH02 sections. The proxies of grain-size, total organic carbon content (TOC), C/N and δ13C are used for wavelet analysis, and the results show obvious ∼256, ∼512 and ∼1024-year climate cycles, which are consistent with the Holocene millennial and centennial scale climate cycles in the typical Asian summer monsoon domain. In different parts of the Zhuye Lake, the Holocene sediments show variable climate cycles that are affected by the lake basin topography. In the Zhuye Lake, the Holocene climate cycles are mainly correlated with the solar-related Asian summer monsoon variability and the North Atlantic ice-rafting events.

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11769-012-0551-z?LI=true

  6. In the original version of Bella ciao the guy just longs for being buried in a grave up on the mountain, shaded by flowers.

    I wonder if these Belgian fools knew they were regurgitating a death song.

  7. LazyTeenager says:
    December 1, 2012 at 5:25 pm

    “Marc is going on about “echo chambers” again.

    Anthony has published lots of stories about climate scientists disagreeing with each other passionately. So there is no “echo chamber”.

    Marc just can’t let that evidence stuff invade his head when it conflicts with stuff he made up.”

    ————————————————-
    Translation: Yew don’no how thim MAGIC GAS dun MADE thuh ATMUSFEAR HEET UP & WE aint evun GOT no MUhSHEENS tuh CHEK! Yew kin KETCH on FIRE frum thuh..

    MAGICAL INFER REDS up thair in thuh AIR wat there AINT NO INFER RED TELESCOPES or INFER RED SENTSURs kin SEE
    caws it’s MAGIC GAS an’ YEW caint LOOK inna MAGIC GAIS! YEW gotta have uh…. HOCKIE STICK so yew kin LOOK IN thuh TREEMOMITUR BOREHOLES & tell thuh WETHER!
    Yew’s AWL Uh..DICTED tuh… DURDIE COLE & YEW DON’T LAIK AL GORE’S CLEEN OCCIDENTAL OIL YEW AWL WANNA BY EVURBODIE ELSE’S OIL!
    Yew HATE MAGIC GAS!
    Yew CAINT REED thuh MAGIC HOCKIE STICK cawS YEW’uns dont BUhLEEVe!

    ———————————————————

    How does someone go around looking into people’s eyes after claiming they think magic hockey stick scrawls that aren’t real math

    are what’s needed to see we need to buy Al Gore Brand Alternative Energy
    and shut down civilization for not electing him president

    after we use every instrument in the arsenal of mankind’s radar proof, bullet proof, deep-space proof, electronic internet & space age

    to check for the largest HEATER in the WORLD, in the sky and find the MAGIC HEATER isn’t there?

    With pathologically distorted thinking is how.

    People coming on the internet claiming they don’t think there’s a way to check for the rise of infrared light, in the atmosphere, after nitrogen cooled infrared detectors and infrared astronomy worldwide haven’t found any for the entire history of man.

    People coming in claiming they think it’s possible for CO2 to have undiscovered heat handling properties after men in nuclear submarines with their finger on the nuclear button for 50 years have been living in submarines with 4,000 ppm CO2 so they don’t have to comb it out –

    and all those nuclear, thermodynamic, mechanical, electronic, electrical, hydraulic, engineers, locked into those submarines FIFTY YEARS with 4,000 PPM CO2 and not ONE extra part; not ONE word of observed heat-handling characteristics of air with all that CO2 in it

    never noticed a thing but everyone needs to shut down civilization because hicks with sticks said magical treemomiturs indicate it’s never been this hot, AND, that it’s obvious it’s from the MAGIC GAS
    HIDING the MAGIC INFRARED LIGHT
    from ALL MANKIND.

    What kind of mindset do you as an adult or soon to be adult human being, think operates with that kind of quack-factor in their mind?

    Re-read everything and ask yourself where in the world, hillbillies form worthless scrawls yielding hockey sticks from calibration data

    then put that scrawl forth as part of a ‘whole separate branch of mathematics’ and THEN tell people ‘caint reed it caws awl yew wawnt too doo is find sumthin rong withit.’

    It’s crime and it’s criminality masking itself as ‘belief’. Political ‘belief.’
    It’s crime.

  8. Phillip Bradley,

    Since the 256, 512, and 1024 cycles “correspond” with the base 4/16 (English) memory modules in your computer, surely it must be an artifact.

  9. Bryan A says:
    December 1, 2012 at 5:01 pm

    Enjoy your view of that wonderous mountain (Shasta) and revel in its probable World Record single storm snowpack. I heard it was supposed to get up to 217″ (18′) of snow by monday.

    ________________________________________________

    isn’t global warming grand….. wait till spring run off starts…

  10. LazyTeenager says:
    December 1, 2012 at 5:25 pm
    Your ears are not working, and you seem to be mumbling. You should see a doctor.

  11. Interesting tweet that has just hit the ether. From Brian Sussman

    @Brian_Sussman: UN admits at Qatar climate talks that there has been NO global warming for the last 16 years!

  12. Bill H,
    Seriously hope you don’t think 18′ of snow (it won’t be that much) is unusual for a weeklong storm period on Mt. Shasta. Part of the candybottomed hysteria that pervades. I watch the weatherbeautifulpeople on tv (as I walk by) discussing the pinapple express. Those kids have never seen a real PE. In 1983 satellite images were pretty new to tv and you had to pay a princely fee to get them privately. The PE set up as a couple hundred mile wide band SW of Hawaii aimed straight at the Golden Gate. Three days of torrential rains like the hardest of the current series. BTW, the last of series storm cued up for tonite will dissapoint. Synoptics are all wrong. Quoting the NWS “scientific forecaster” on duty,

    “a large area of light
    to moderate rain just off the California coast continues to move
    east toward the region. This area of precipitation is coming in at
    least 3 hours earlier than any model forecast. This is a bit concerning…”

    Not concerned. It will leave early too.

  13. LazyTeenager says:
    December 1, 2012 at 5:25 pm
    Marc is going on about “echo chambers” again.
    Anthony has published lots of stories about climate scientists disagreeing with each other passionately. So there is no “echo chamber”.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    LOL. The reference was to the way things were among the climate science “team” members before ClimateGate.

    Of course you knew that…. you were just hoping the rest of us didn’t?

    BTW, I don’t think you meant to do this, but you just admitted that the science is NOT settled. Do you still get paid your regular troll fees when you screw up and go off message like that?

  14. What Did I Tell You!? says:
    December 1, 2012 at 6:10 pm
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Quite the rant. If you are going to rant on about all the holes in climate science, by all means do so, but please, get your own science right. What happens in a submarine is not remotely comparable to what happens in the atmosphere. One is a closed system with very limited scale, the other is an open system with a massive scale thousands of times that of a submarine.

    Here is an excellent paper on exactly what does happen when IR passes through an artificial atmosphere with different amounts of CO2:

    http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm

    After you’ve read that, please read the .zip file at the top, which explains why the experiment might have some validity in a closed system like a submarine, but not at the scale of the atmosphere.

    Bottom line: IR does get absorbed by CO2 and does elevate temperatures to some extent. What that extent is, and what the feedback effects are, is unknown for certain, but the data indicates very low.

  15. Kent, how do you know what motivates people to make those threats against Mann? Are you one of the ones who are doing the threatening?

  16. gymnosperm says:
    December 1, 2012 at 7:44 pm

    For a single storm this is a pretty good amount.. More than I have seen in my life time. it may not be a record or it might.. not really sure.. But remembering the record snow falls in 1981/1982 and then watching as early and warm springs took off… i know what happens when warming occurs and given the burn off this year in a lot of areas its going to be a major mud bath and unstable soil conditions..

  17. Interesting Climate reference in a 1967 movie I watched last night.
    The movie: Five Million Years to Earth. Also known as Quatermass and the Pit.
    The Quotes:
    “Professor Bernard Quatermass: The will to survive is an odd phenomenon. Roney, if we found out our own world was doomed, say by climatic changes, what would we do about it?
    Dr. Mathew Roney: Nothing, just go on squabbling like usual.
    Professor Bernard Quatermass: Yes, but if we weren’t men? ”
    ————–
    I wonder if the Alarmists watched this movie when they were younger.

  18. davidmhoffer says
    BTW, I don’t think you meant to do this, but you just admitted that the science is NOT settled. Do you still get paid your regular troll fees when you screw up and go off message like that?
    ———
    David I am willing to forego my troll fees and donate them to you. You will not notice a change in your bank balance.

    As for the “science being settled” I am not into mischievous interpretations. The scientists did not shut up shop and stop their research after the IPCC report came out, so it’s reasonable to conclude they did not mean that phrase in the sense the climate skeptic land wants to interpret it.

    Science is always predicated on the possibility that mistakes can be made. That means that normal science talk is full of if buts and maybes no matter how well the science is settled.

    For example we can put a lander on mars to within a few meters using just Newtonian mechanics. But the science of gravity is not settled. So if someone objects to paying for space missions and starts complaining about the whole enterprise is worthless because the science of gravity is not settled, how are you going to explain “settled” to the listening public.

    If you wanted to communicate honestly to the public you would say the science of gravity is settled where settled means what the public understands settled to mean, and not what scientists understand what settled means.

    For climate science settled means we know enough to start planning and acting for the future. It does not mean we have to understand every little detail.

  19. Kent Beuchert on December 1, 2012 at 4:54 pm
    I wonder if Mann realizes that , if those threats against him actually happened, they are the result of his ethics and personality rather than anything having to do with his theories.
    ———–
    Well Ken the evidence is against you.

    Because just about anyone who has taken a position that climate skeptics don’t like has been subject to accusations of incompetence and or dishonesty. In some cases nasty emails have been sent.

    So name one climate scientist who has put the AGW position but has earned the respect of skeptic land. I can’t think if any.

    On the other hand I have seen some pretty mediocre scientists who are anti-AGW lauded to the skies, simply because they tell climate skeptic land what they want to here.

  20. what did I tell you says
    It’s crime and it’s criminality masking itself as ‘belief’. Political ‘belief.’
    It’s crime.
    ———–
    You seem to be way off on the science since CO2 is not a magic gas. I can’t begin to explain the Green house effect to you since it’s beyond your inclination to understand it. Nothing impedes understanding more than a desire not to understand.

  21. gymnosperm on December 1, 2012 at 6:13 pm
    Phillip Bradley,

    Since the 256, 512, and 1024 cycles “correspond” with the base 4/16 (English) memory modules in your computer, surely it must be an artifact.
    ———-
    Good call.

    It’s also the standard data set length for a Fourier transform. Cant say the suspicion is correct until its been checked in detail. Don’t like to jump to concussions.

  22. davidmhoffer says:
    December 1, 2012 at 7:58 pm

    What Did I Tell You!? says:
    December 1, 2012 at 6:10 pm
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    “Quite the rant. If you are going to rant on about all the holes in climate science, by all means do so, but please, get your own science right. What happens in a submarine is not remotely comparable to what happens in the atmosphere. One is a closed system with very limited scale, the other is an open system with a massive scale thousands of times that of a submarine.”

    I’ve watched you try to bark Magic Gas at anyone who’ll visit your Area51 region where reality is overcome by ‘this zip file’ for years. You haven’t transmitted, captured, and analyzed electromagnetic energy through the atmosphere, space, and industrial compounds for money, and never been fired. I have. You’re a debutante with a ‘magic gas zip file.’

    LIke all debutantes who can’t explain their flawed fascination with fantasy physics, you can’t produce an instrument noting special handling of heat by a gas either.

  23. Dear Moderators, PLEASE fix the original post!

    It should have said (going from page source, toss in correction to first line):


    ClimateProgress/Forecast the Facts’ Brad Johnson makes an idiot of himself:

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/valerie-jarrett-climate-activist-speech-grassroots-organizers_664311.html

    ======================

    Michael Mann -vs- Marc Morano:

    Marc writes: Note, i was asked at very end to respond to Mann, but my answer was cut off from air or at least transcript.

    Source: BBC World Service: Newshour
    URL: http://www.bishop-hill.net/storage/MannvsMoranoNewshour.mp3

    Resumes at bolded “Date:”

    [Reply: Odd. Text was there, but some odd HTML was hiding it. Removed some wrong looking bits and now it shows. Hope it’s right. -ModE ]

  24. Hoffman you’ve already started trying to claim light handling by a gas is dependent on whether it’s in a submarine’s experimental greenhouse, or a planet.

    If you keep barking that Magic Gas at me I’m going to embarrass you and it’s going to take awhile as you see how many ways you can refuse to confess you heard a question but refuse to speak to it, but it’s going to be so easy for me, it’s going to be with the offhand ease of taking candy from a child – which is why ALL Magic Gas sites have censorship of comments by site owners.

    There are no Magic Gas sites where comments aren’t carefully monitored and people removed, who create laughing stocks of the Magic Gassers.

  25. Dear Moderators,

    Found in my last comment:
    [Reply: Odd. Text was there, but some odd HTML was hiding it. Removed some wrong looking bits and now it shows. Hope it's right. -ModE ]

    It’s not, first link still messed up, end part missing carriage return. I supplied a “looks like what was intended” block that presumably you could have pasted right in that section as a replacement, since on your end you have the “code” version of my comment.

  26. u.k.(us) says (Dec 1, 7:16 pm )
    “FWIW, the new fonts are freaking me out.”

    Thank you! I thought it was just my recent browser update, and was wondering where the setting was so I could change it back.

    Anthony – Please don’t burn out. Dr. Steve prescribes a long, relaxing soak in a hot bath, followed by a bit of “downtime” helping the family put up the Christmas decorations. Or should that be the Mayan Doom decorations this year? ;-)

  27. LazyTeenager says:
    December 1, 2012 at 10:39 pm

    “You seem to be way off on the science since CO2 is not a magic gas. I can’t begin to explain the Green house effect to you since it’s beyond your inclination to understand it. Nothing impedes understanding more than a desire not to understand.”

    Here’s the way this shakes out, stupid: YOU believe in a magical gas whose heat-handling characteristics are somehow different from every other class of gaseous matter, adjusted for spectral affinity.

    You’ve been at this site years yourself claiming you see no problem with a scientific foundation based on ‘the world might end but I can’t show you my algorithms I might need them for something bigger in the future.’

    Your the hick who thought it was possible for the infrared astronomy field to miss the steady rise of infrared in the atmosphere as the entire human scientific establishment from small boys in Niger to top-level government organizations from the first world poured every angle they could possibly contrive to find out if a GIANT HEATER
    was TRAPPING the HEAT from the EARTH in.

    You FORGOT the ENTIRE TIME that if those GASES which you claim to be fascinated with block light’s travel OUT,
    they had to first block it’s travel IN: meaning that if there’s MORE of it, there is MORE of it, blocking light coming IN, in the FIRST place.

    You think the INSULATED BLANKET SHIELDING YOU from the GIANT BALL of FIRE out in space,
    is MAKING you HOT.

    THAT is the level of non reality-based thinking MAGIC GAS brings it’s ADHERENTS.

    You’re the class thinker which sees NO PROBLEM with the RESEARCH of a FIELD which TO A MAN couldn’t tell that a SCRAWL making HOCKEY sticks from CALIBRATION DATA

    wasn’t real math.

    You’re the class thinker which sees NO PROBLEM with the RESEARCH of a FIELD which TO A MAN couldn’t tell that a TREE
    can’t be turned into a MAGIC TREEMOMITUR because of that ‘heat, light, oxygen-roots/carbon dioxide-canopy, physical damage-canopy/physical damage-roots,
    13-15 SEPARATE ELEMENTS in PROPORTION thing.

    You’re the class thinker which sees NO PROBLEM with the RESEARCH of a FIELD which TO A MAN couldn’t tell that a WHOLE SET of INFRARED FREQUENCIES were NOT GROWING in the ATMOSPHERE while SIMULTANEOUSLY CLAIMING that both the AMOUNT GIVEN OFF by EARTH,
    and, the AMOUNT RETAINED by said atmosphere WERE growing.

    To a MAN not ONE of them thought to simply review the infrared astronomy records of students and organizations through the years through various filters, on various instruments

    and find out that OH! well WHAT do you KNOW it’s NOT only NOT GROWING there’s LESS earth-shine frequency atmospheric infrared.
    After looking for TWENTY YEARS, infrared sensors out on the plains of AGW Ground Central the Midwest USA at night find LESS atmospheric infrared, coming down striking their sensor arrays.
    But you’re here to inform us that magic hockey stick math and magic bore holes and magic gas are very much the cutting edge of science, and so you don’t have to listen to the side that
    DISCOVERED the HOCKEY stick scrawls are TRASH
    DISCOVERED the atmospheric infrared is DECLINING not RISING
    DISCOVERED the magic gas isn’t really magic when Tony Watts did ALGOR’s ‘let’s add some gas to the bottle’ experiment, on the internet.

    You’re a hick. You’ve got the scientific literacy of your peers. The MAGIC GAS crowd.

  28. LazyTeenager;
    For climate science settled means we know enough to start planning and acting for the future. It does not mean we have to understand every little detail.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    A global temperature increase of ZERO over the last 16 years, during which CO2 went from 364 ppm to 392 ppm is a…. detail?

    Declining Accumulated Cyclone Energy is a…. detail?

    Decelerating sea level rise is a…. detail?

    Inability to measure an energy increase in any planetary system that would account for the “missing heat” is a…. detail?

    Antarctic ice setting new records that nearly off set the decline in Arctic ice is a…. detail?

    OK, if you’re not being paid for what you write on this blog, I’ll believe you. I’ll have to come up with some other explanation for your mind numbing inability to discuss the facts with any degree of intellectual honesty.

  29. What Did I Tell You!? says:
    December 1, 2012 at 11:57 pm
    Hoffman you’ve already started trying to claim light handling by a gas is dependent on whether it’s in a submarine’s experimental greenhouse, or a planet.
    If you keep barking that Magic Gas at me
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Hmmmmm…. ya know, the last time I got suckered into a debate about this it turned out to be Doug Cotton and his Slayer garbage. Doug can’t get my name right either, he calls me Hoffman all the time…..hmmmm…. Yaps about Magic Gas….hmmmm…. He also says things like:

    “You haven’t transmitted, captured, and analyzed electromagnetic energy through the atmosphere, space, and industrial compounds for money, and never been fired. I have.”

    Well Doug (or whichever Slayer acolyte you happen to be), perhaps if you’d done your job properly, you wouldn’t have been fired.

    MODS ~ SLAYER ALERT

    [Reply: No not Doug Cotton this time - mod]

  30. LazyTeenager:

    The slogan “The science is settled” was not coined by the skeptics but by those who share your your views. This slogan has been used as a justification for closing the issue and ignoring the skeptic point of view. Somehow I get the impression that you approve such a goal. If you do not, then you should repudiate the slogan publicly and now. You have not done this. What you have done is claim that “climate skeptic land” has misunderstood the intention of those who use it.

    So, LazyTeenager, get out of the sack and do it right: repudiate the use of this slogan and those who employ it. The world of science is watching and waiting.

    Your humble and obedient servant, mpainter

  31. To davidmhoffer: What whatdiditellyou wrote was: “You haven’t transmitted, captured, and analyzed electromagnetic energy through the atmosphere, space, and industrial compounds for money, and never been fired. I have.”

    I think you may have parsed this incorrectly. I read it that he did this stuff and has never been fired.

    So, I don’t see him/her as a complete “slayer”. He has measured energy radiation, presumably realizes some of it comes from radiation by CO2, but says that there is no evidence that it is increasing (and perhaps the reverse). The radiative balance is no doubt complex, but the fact (if so) that increasing CO2 has not led to increasing absorption and re-radiation is surely of some interest to those trying to figure out what the heck is going on.

    Rich.

  32. New topic: peer review.

    I thought I’d share some current peer review experiences. I am trying to publish my first paper in climate science (statistical). I chose a journal which had published most of my reference list, and submitted a manuscript in April (2012). It took them 2 months to email me to say that I had made a small error in the online submission process. I fixed this and resubmitted in July. In October I thought it was about time that I herd something about peer review, but the online system had a negative message on this front.

    So I emailed the editor, and she explained that she was finding it hard to find anyone who wanted to review my paper. Apparently there are a lot of papers out there in the AR5 submission window, and I suppose all the cronies are reviewing the other cronies’ papers.

    I am definitely not a crony. I have previously failed to get two papers published, the first a statistics paper against my 1978 thesis, and the second a number theory paper in the 90s. So I am not sanguine about getting this one published either. The only reason I am doing it is that the UK Met Office challenged me to. I sent them an earlier version and they said “we’re very busy, to consider your paper properly you should get it into the peer-reviewed literature.”

    So wish me luck! Alternatively, you might think that anyone with an existing 0 and 2 count isn’t good enough to get published. Well, if I fail I’ll share it with you here, and then you can judge.

    Rich.

  33. I’m curious about something… As we know, the earth is very hot in its interior. Anywhere from Al Gore’s “millions of degrees” to, well, at least hot enough to melt iron and form [Dr. Evil voice] li-quid MAG-ma. As I recall from my physics classes, the only means of transferring heat are via conduction, radiation, or convection. As a result, all of that heat has to pass through the crust — us — on its way out; however, since we are not at those temperatures the rate of heat transfer is slow enough to not cook us up here.

    Now, for what I’m curious about. Obviously that’s a lot of heat in there. My degree is in geology, so I’m also very aware of the slowness of the processes involved (in general — once that sloooowly rising magma intrusion makes it to the surface, things happen very quickly indeed). But what conditions would be required for enough more of that heat to be transferred to us and increase the “global average temperature”?

    Convection requires hotter (less dense) parts of the material to rise, cool, then sink again. This does not necessarily require that the temperatures are even throughout each plume. Is there any possibility that a particularly hot batch could come along and warm the upper regions enough to make a measurable difference? Has anyone been checking the temps in deep mines around the world to see if there’s any noticeable rise in temperature?

    Like I said, I’m just curious and floating my thoughts out there. I just can’t recall geothermal heat fluctuations ever being considered as a factor in global temps.

  34. I was just writing an article on global cooling when I swigged the tipex instead of my coffee. Now I keep getting corrections!

  35. See – Owe to Rich
    I think you may have parsed this incorrectly. I read it that he did this stuff and has never been fired.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    On second read, I did parse it incorrectly.

    That said, he rants about what he has measured and what I haven’t, though he has no knowledge of what I have or haven’t measured. Itz an argument from authority, a tactic that I take a dim view of. The then rants on hollering “magic gas” over an over again, but never addresses the specifics of the detailed spectroscopy experiment that I directed him to, despite claiming to have expertise in that field. Nor does he address the specifics of the .zip file I pointed him to which explain in detail why the experiment is not valid at the scale of the atmospheric column, which applies directly to the failure of an enclosed submarine being at all representative of the atmospheric column also.

    So far all I’ve heard from his in an assertion of his opinion. He has not entered into a discussion of the science at all, and one can only wonder why.

  36. LazyTeenager says:
    December 1, 2012 at 10:44 pm
    gymnosperm on December 1, 2012 at 6:13 pm
    Phillip Bradley,

    Since the 256, 512, and 1024 cycles “correspond” with the base 4/16 (English) memory modules in your computer, surely it must be an artifact.
    ———-
    Good call.

    It’s also the standard data set length for a Fourier transform. Cant say the suspicion is correct until its been checked in detail. Don’t like to jump to concussions.

    Good Grief, man. Have you ever done a Fourier Transform? There is no standard length of Fourier Transform. It is true that a discrete Fourier Transform done as a fast Fourier Transform (FFT) runs fastest if the data length factors into small prime numbers, and what could be better than a power of 2? But even in this case the actual data might simply be padded with zeros or expanded in some fashion out to a power of two.

  37. What Did I Tell You!? says: “DISCOVERED the atmospheric infrared is DECLINING not RISING”

    Is that right? Very interesting.

    Note on submarines: I was once, recently, told by an AGW GHE alarmist advocate that the GHE is the same thing as cavitation on a submarine propeller! lol

    I could ask for someone to explain that to me…but, I’d also like to avoid the brain damage in reading the answer.

  38. 3. EPA Rejects Governors’ Plea Over Ethanol

    The governors of seven drought-afflicted states petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency, asking for a suspension of rules requiring refiners to blend biofuel — mostly ethanol — into the nation’s gasoline supply.

    The governors of Georgia, Texas, Arkansas, North Carolina, Maryland, New Mexico, and Delaware contended that the renewable fuel standard (RFS) program requiring the use of biofuel, combined with the worst drought in 40 years, had pushed corn prices to record highs and harmed the states’ meat and dairy producers, who use corn as an animal feed.

    On Friday, Nov. 16, the Obama administration’s EPA turned down the petition. This year about 4.7 billion bushels, or 40 percent of the nation’s corn crop, will be used for ethanol production, and ethanol production is set to increase next year.

  39. China is aggressively seeking steep water and agricultural sustainability control agreements from the EU. The list at the end of the article would set Agriculture back to Medieval ages:

    EU, China agree on ag sustainability

    http://www.seeddaily.com/reports/EU_China_agree_on_ag_sustainability_999.html

    The conflict between ever-increasing food production and sustainability was spotlighted in a U.N. Food and Agricultural Organization released last month, which stresses that better governance of agriculture and food systems is the key to making sustainability possible for a projected world population of 9 billion by 2050.

    The FAO said agriculture and food systems consume 30 percent of the world’s energy, while crop and livestock sectors are responsible for 70 percent of all water withdrawals. In the future, however, farmers will have fewer water and energy resources, meaning they will have to produce more with less.

    In response, the United Nations is advocating agricultural techniques that draw on “nature’s contribution to agricultural growth,” for example, soil organic matter, water flow regulation, pollination and natural predation of pests.

  40. AGU’s annual San Francisco Fall Mtg starts tomorrow and goes until Friday.

    The presenter list is public at the AGU website.

    It is intetesting that four of Dr Rob Wilson’s co-authors on the new dentro paper (critical of some Mann research) are sceduled to attend.

    Leif Svalgaard is scheduled to attend.

    Also Judith Curry.

    There is attendance scheduled for a notably strong representation of scientists who are uncritical / non-skeptical of the IPCC’s consensus of bias toward alarmism:

    Gleick is scheduled to participate.

    Lewandowsky and his very close associate John Cook will attend along will Cook’s supporter Dana N.

    As will Mandia of the climate science rapid response team and member of Mann legal defense fund.

    Ditto Oreskes and Trenberth and Santer etc etc . . . plus many more advocates of IPCC bias toward alarmism.

    John

  41. So name one climate scientist who has put the AGW position but has earned the respect of skeptic land. I can’t think if any.
    –LazyTeenager

    Off the top of my head, I can name four: Cliff Mass, Judith Curry, Grant Petty and Spencer Weart. These folks believe the CO2 concentration:global warming correlation, but are sane. They are worthy of respect.

  42. Joseph E Postma says:
    December 2, 2012 at 8:00 am
    You’ll find the atmosphere at WUWT has been polluted with the same type of thinking that was experienced at the beginning of “the global warming debate” by skeptics. Closed minds unable to consider that they may have gauged the science incorrectly. I am happy that my posts are ignored on every thread. It means I am on the right track. Every day that goes by, the empirical evidence ( the stuff that is untampered with) mounts against the alarmists and the lukewarmers and is ignored. As you are aware GHE remains unproven on an atmospheric scale.

  43. The ethanol program is simply an agricultural subsidy and was pushed by the agricultural lobby, which does not give a hoot about any issue other than boosting prices of grain. This program has suceeded marvelously and grain prices rocketed upward. The grain farmers are prospering like never before. Methanol, the alternative to ethanol, can be produced more cheaply than ethanol. You now pay the grain subsidies at the gas pump. CO2, pollution, environment, etc., have nothing to do with the issue except as fodder for the CAGW dupes.

  44. DavidMHoffer, you argue against Stephen Mosher (successfully, I might add) and then turn around and accuse people of being “slayer” acolytes. See the problem?

  45. The Gas is not magic. The 15-micron band outgoing IR can be “absorbed” by the Gas. This can result in several things. The Gas molecule can vibrate and bounce into its neighbor air molecules, producing some heat. Or, it can re-radiate, in which case the IR has a chance of hitting the Earth again. In any case, the Second Law tells us that cool things do not heat warm things, as there is no magic Gas!
    Is there a physicist on here who can definitively state the probabilities of the Gas’s absorbed photon producing vibration-and-heat, or re-radiation? I understand it has to do with the length of time until re-radiation might happen. Bueller? Anyone?

  46. Spiegel Online (http://www.spiegel.de) headlines with a report from Doha claiming 5 C warming are imminent. One can only hope that the recent wave of redundancies in the German publishing industry soon sweeps away those propagandists as well.

  47. “I stood up and asked Valerie Jarrett to have the president speak about the reality of climate change,” the activist told the Huffington Post. “This nation is facing a fundamental threat to its existence

    That’s too funny. Susan Rice, major part of the fundamental threat to the existence of her host nation, is heavily invested. In TransCanada.

    http://video.foxnews.com/v/2000536982001/bias-bash-susan-rice-investments/

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TransCanada_Corp.

  48. LazyTeenager says:
    December 1, 2012 at 10:44 pm

    “gymnosperm on December 1, 2012 at 6:13 pm
    Phillip Bradley,

    Since the 256, 512, and 1024 cycles “correspond” with the base 4/16 (English) memory modules in your computer, surely it must be an artifact.
    ———-
    Good call.

    It’s also the standard data set length for a Fourier transform. Cant say the suspicion is correct until its been checked in detail. Don’t like to jump to concussions.”

    That’s really smart of you LT, as the original comment explicitly mentioned Wavelet analysis, which is not Fourier transformation.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavelet_transform

    That being said, I’m pretty sure that guy fell for some artifacts. Probably he just didn’t use a proper window function or something.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window_function

  49. “The ethanol program is simply an agricultural subsidy and was pushed by the agricultural lobby”

    The ethanol program is a destructive mandate in which coercions are used to force citizens to put food in their fuel tanks. Fuel for tanks can be located in ANWR, Canadian oil sands (thus cleaning the natural oil spill from natural habitats), and offshore in our coastal waters. Using corn for our fuel is in fact driving up food prices to 2008 levels, and as a result, people are being pushed from poverty into extreme poverty.

    There is no reason for this, and the governors are correct in asking for redress. And this unelected, unaccountable radical environmentalist is allowed to deny the elected people’s representatives release from this nasty government mandate.

  50. David Ball says:
    December 2, 2012 at 9:08 am
    DavidMHoffer, you argue against Stephen Mosher (successfully, I might add) and then turn around and accuse people of being “slayer” acolytes. See the problem?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    The stuff that Mosher gets wrong and the stuff that the slayers get wrong is completely different stuff.

  51. LazyTeenager says:
    December 1, 2012 at 10:19 pm

    For example we can put a lander on mars to within a few meters using just Newtonian mechanics. But the science of gravity is not settled.

    Wrong again, as with pretty much everything you utter on WUWT.

    My copy of the JPL Technical Report 32-1527 Mathematical Formulation of the Double-Precision Orbit Determination Program (DPODP) by Theodore E Moyer dated May 15, 1971 says otherwise. Developed between 1964 and 1968 it was first used operationally for Mariner VI and Mariner VII which flew by Mars in 1969.

    The Viking program, the first successful landings on Mars in 1975 would undoubtedly have used the DPODP. Paragraph II of the 160 page paper is entitled Relativistic Terms of the DPODP Formulation.

    You will find this JPL paper cited in many celestial mechanics papers right up to the present eg:

    http://paduaresearch.cab.unipd.it/796/1/phd_thesis_Bardella_Massimo.pdf

  52. Michael Moon: where you say “the Second Law tells us that cool things do not heat warm things”, I say “the Second Law tells us that cool things do not heat warm things as fast as warm things heat cool things”. In other words, radiation (heat) is always happening in all directions, but there is a direction to the net flow.

    The GHG hypothesis, which seems to be admirably confirmed by temperatures on a cloudy night, is that the GHG’s can (and do) reduce the net rate of heat loss from the ground and low atmosphere. I’d love to believe the “Slayers”, but currently I don’t and I am not expecting to see a solid proof of their position. But perhaps I will prove to be wrong.

    Rich.

  53. Michael Moon;
    In any case, the Second Law tells us that cool things do not heat warm things,
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    No, the 2nd Law tells us that the net flow of energy is from the warm thing to the cold thing. If the cold thing is replaced by nothing, the temperature of nothing is absolute zero, so the warm thing cools faster than it would have were it next to the cold thing instead (unless we define the cold thing as also being absolute zero).

    The laws of physics play nice with each other. There is no other way for the 2nd Law and the SB Law to co-exist.

  54. Ball, I reviewed Postma. He does not seem to address this point. The warmist meme of “re-radiation” needs to be slain, once and for all, by a recognized authority. Hoffer, the Second Law is well-understood by most, does not need to be restated by you, Rich, or anyone. “Heat” can be used as a verb, which I did, correctly. The vast majority of citizens have not studied these matters, and can easily be fooled by pseudo-science such as “Re-radiation.” Once again, any physicists here, who could tell us exactly how a Gas molecule reacts when a 15-micron “Photon” is “absorbed?” Without violating the 2nd?

  55. gymnosperm says:

    Since the 256, 512, and 1024 cycles “correspond” with the base 4/16 (English) memory modules in your computer, surely it must be an artifact.

    They are also multiples of 256. Wonder if someone will attempt to define the PDO as being 64 years. Thus making the 256 “cycle” an integer number of PDOs.

  56. mpainter says:

    The ethanol program is simply an agricultural subsidy and was pushed by the agricultural lobby, which does not give a hoot about any issue other than boosting prices of grain. This program has suceeded marvelously and grain prices rocketed upward. The grain farmers are prospering like never before. Methanol, the alternative to ethanol, can be produced more cheaply than ethanol. You now pay the grain subsidies at the gas pump. CO2, pollution, environment, etc., have nothing to do with the issue except as fodder for the CAGW dupes.

    When it comes producing ethanol using Saccharomyces cerevisiae all that is required is glucose. If would be perfectly possible to use something inedible by either humans or domestic animals as a source of glucose.

  57. Michael Moon;
    Hoffer, the Second Law is well-understood by most, does not need to be restated by you, Rich, or anyone.
    >>>>>>>>

    REPLY: Because you keep misrepresenting it and showing that you DON’T understand it.

    Michael Moon;
    tell us exactly how a Gas molecule reacts when a 15-micron “Photon” is “absorbed?” Without violating the 2nd?

    REPLY: There you go again!

  58. Just start from the premise that when energy is absorbed in a molecule the energy is internalised. Energy can only be transformed. Heat is a result of one form of that transformation.

  59. See-owe, GHGs don’t change the rate of energy loss. They merely increase the capacity of the atmosphere to contain energy.

    It’s like substituting a larger bathtub for a smaller one, under an open and constantly flowing tap. The larger tub can contain more water, but it then fills up. At that point, the overflow is at the same rate it was previously with the smaller tub.

    Given the solar constant, more GHGs means the atmosphere is a bigger tub for energy. But at the hypothetical equilibrium (when the “tub” is full), the energy outflux attains the previous rate, and equals (constant) rate of energy influx.

    The temperature question, of course, is how much of that extra atmospheric energy becomes sensible heat. Climate models say a lot of it does. But there’s zero evidence they’re right.

  60. LazyTeenager: “Because just about anyone who has taken a position that climate skeptics don’t like has been subject to accusations of incompetence and or dishonesty

    I’ve looked at climate modeling and found (and can demonstrate) that modelers never propagate methodological systematic errors through their temperature projections. When one does so, the uncertainties are revealed to become very large and their projections are revealed to be physically meaningless.

    I’ve looked in some detail at the surface temperature record (and can demonstrate): the scientists involved — at GISS, at CRU/UEA, at UKMet, and even Miller at BEST — have completely ignored systematic instrumental error. They all implicitly assume the CLT applies, and then go on to ignore the problem. When systematic error is recognized and propagated into the global average temperature statistic, the uncertainty bars are at least (+/-)0.5 C.

    I’ve looked at the reconstruction of paleotemperatures. In the first place, the use of statistics to assign physical meaning is generally invalid. Tree ring so-called paleotemperatures are not founded in any physical theory and have no physical meaning. Likewise it is completely invalid physically to use statistics to sort ‘temperature-responsive’ corals, calcareous diatoms, and spleothems, and then assign “temperature” merely by rescaling to some recent measurement record. The scientists in the field (and nearly everyone else) ignore that fact.

    Second, (and I’ve posted on this) even the most physically well-grounded proxy, the d-O18 temperatures, have an uncertainty in accuracy of about (+/-)0.6 C, because of systematic errors arising from the laboratory methods used to extract CO2. When biological variables are included, such as the change in the biological incorporation of 18-CO2 with ocean depth and temperature, the uncertainty in the derived proxy temperature can increase to (+/-)2 C. This is all noted in the specialist literature. Nevertheless, climate scientists who reconstruct d-O18 paleotemperatures completely ignore these uncertainties.

    So, there is a virtually universal neglect of uncertainty throughout the AGW climate literature. What would you call this, if not incompetence?

  61. I may be suffering from reverse Alzheimer’s .. I remember reading Bill McKibbens post from Omaha, NE here. It is gone now. Is WUWT adopting Bill McKibben’s moderation rules?

  62. Kevin Kilty says: December 2, 2012 at 7:57 am
    Yes, I did compute discrete Fast Fourier Transforms (DFTs) in the 70s and they do rely on the amount of data being an exact power of 2, such as 512, 1024 etc. In fact Texas instruments produced a computer chip around that time especially adapted to ‘twiddle’ the components of the power of 2 array. ….and NO, you cannot pad them with zeros and hope to get the right answer.

    Michael Moon says: December 2, 2012 at 12:16 pm
    “The Second Law is well-understood by most”.
    Well, maybe, but not by Sky Dragons or it seems Michael Moon. Take davidmhoffer’s advice as at December 2, 2012 at 11:45 am.
    You ask what happens when CO2 absorbs a photon but you seem to have answered it yourself in an earlier post. Is it just the timings you are unsure about? The CO2 molecule will only maintain its ‘excited’ state for a few nanoseconds. At low altitudes this means that it is more likely to ‘thermalise’ and pass its energy on to other gas molecules by collision. At high altitudes the atmosphere is rarer and from there it may perform a cooling function by re-radiating directly to space.

  63. Hi guys here is the latest data for ice sheet melting from reconciled multi-satelite measurements.

    You could try your wind theory out on this one to see if it can explain all this melting.

    Or maybe the ice age is just around the corner so burn more carbon to make it go away theory. Even though we dont believe in the green house gas, or that people can’t burn enough stuff to affect CO2 concentrations.

    http://imbie.org/data-downloads/

  64. Curious George says:
    December 2, 2012 at 2:52 pm

    I may be suffering from reverse Alzheimer’s .. I remember reading Bill McKibbens post from Omaha, NE here.

    I had a full case of Alzheimer’s one time.

    Forgot where I put it though………

  65. MikeB, OK, now we are getting somewhere. Low in the atmosphere CO2 will absorb a photon and heat the atmosphere, to the extent that 390 ppm is able. Higher up, 50% of such incidents result in cooling, the rest a similar heating. Thank you. I think that is very very important. Nanoseconds huh? That is pretty quick.

    Just for fun, here is why cool things cannot heat warmer things. We posit a binary star, one star with surface temp 5,000 K, one at 6,000 K. The warmer one heats the cooler one, which would be at a lower temperature without it. If the cooler one warmed the warmer one, the warmer one would get even warmer, which would make the cooler one warmer still, a runaway process which would result in both stars becoming hotter and hotter. This is perpetual motion, which we all know is impossible. Hoffer is this clear?

    Let’s have no Alzheimer’s jokes, killed my mother, God rest her soul.

  66. No Michael, you haven’t got it yet have you? The hotter star will not get hotter. Thinks ….am I wasting my time here?. Stars, like all warm objects, lose heat by radiation according to the 4th power of their own temperature. The hot star will receive some heat (via radiation) from the cooler star but this will not be sufficient to compensate for its own losses. Therefore the hot star will still cool but not as fast as it would if the cooler star was not warming it to some extent. Is that clear? As Michelle says, “ I will say this only once”.

  67. MikeB;
    Thinks ….am I wasting my time here?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>

    I heard a rumour that the first person to come up with an explanation that convinces Myrrh, Greg House, and Michael Moon wins a Nobel Prize and a letter of thanks from Anthony and all the mods. The value of the Nobel Prize is rather tainted these days, but I really want that letter! Talk about valuable memorabilia!

    Michael Moon;
    Your binary star I presume is a 5000 degree star and a 6000 degree star when they are apart, and you want to understand what happens when you push them close to each other? If so, yes, the facing surfaces of the stars would both become warmer. However, the process is subject to the law of diminishing returns. If you were to break it down into increments, yes, each face of the star would get warmer, and so would be radiating at a higher temperature, warming the opposing face of the other star even more. BUT….each incremental increase would be smaller than the one before and after some number of increments the change would become zero. This would then be a new equilibrium temperature for the facing portion of each star. This is why it doesn’t run off to infinity.

    If you’ve ever built a log fire, you can see the exact same process happening. If you try and light a log on fire, even a very dry one, even with lots of tinder, it doesn’t burn well. But arrange several logs in a “teepee” shape, put the tinder in the middle, and the logs will burn very well. If you pay attention, you’ll notice that the outside of the logs are barely burning at all, even with a big fire. But “inside” where the logs are facing one another, the fire is hottest and burns most vigorously. The log faces heat each other up to a temperature that supports a roaring flame that could not be reached any other way. You can double prove this to yourself by building a roaring fire in this manner, and the separating the logs and spreading them out. In just a minute or so, the roaring fire will be gone and all you will have is smoldering logs.

    Your log fire doesn’t run off to infinity when you build it in a teepee, but it gets and awful lot hotter than it would otherwise. The starts would, on their facing surfaces, also be hotter, but would not run off to infinity.

    The formula for Stefan-Boltzmann Law by the way is P=5.67*10^-8*T^4 with T being in degrees K. Since P varies with T to the fourth power, every increase in T requires an ever larger increase in P. For example:

    400K requires +14.6 w/m2 to get to 401K
    500K requires +28.4 w/m2 to get to 501K
    600K requires +49.1 w/m2 to get to 601K

    See what’s happening? The hotter something gets, the more w/m2 are required to generate just one more degree of temperature change. And that sir, is why there is no runaway process and no perpetual motion.

  68. Joseph E Postma says:
    December 2, 2012 at 8:00 am

    What Did I Tell You!? says: “DISCOVERED the atmospheric infrared is DECLINING not RISING”

    Is that right? Very interesting.

    ————————————

    Yes it is true. I never remember who did the test, it lasted 14 years, infrared detectors were lain out in fields in the American Midwest, ground zero for mannmade global warming.

    The test ended I believe in 2010. The fourteen year span showed LESS infrared radiation pinging back out of the atmosphere than when the test started. The test results were released in April of 2010 or 11.

  69. WUWT’s very owne David A. Evans says: December 2, 2012 at 10:46 am
    There’s that Agenda 21 again.

    DaveE.

    Yes, having looked at it I finally figured out that when Agenda 21/Rio +20 declares you have a “right” to sustainable water and sustainable energy, it means you have no choice in the matter. You have a “right” to biomass (burning wood instead of coal), wind, solar, and hydro. And the whole agenda rests on the abuse and misuse of science to end debate and implement sustainability.

    **http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/14/wuwt-tv-lineup-and-schedule/

  70. davidmhoffer says:
    December 2, 2012 at 10:58 am

    “The stuff that Mosher gets wrong and the stuff that the slayers get wrong is completely different stuff.”

    Elaborate to enlighten, please.

  71. What Did I Tell You!? says:
    December 2, 2012 at 6:05 pm

    “Yes it is true. I never remember who did the test, it lasted 14 years, infrared detectors were lain out in fields in the American Midwest, ground zero for mannmade global warming.

    The test ended I believe in 2010. The fourteen year span showed LESS infrared radiation pinging back out of the atmosphere than when the test started. The test results were released in April of 2010 or 11.”

    Remember once the initial levels in the night-time atmosphere are known, THEY are KNOWN forEVER so ANY TIME – that ANY ONE

    goes out and lays out detector arrays, THE SPAN of THE TESTING OVERALL, covers ALL TIME-FRAMES when ACCURATE LEVELS were first established. Individual tests aren’t nulled simply because the initial testers ended theirs. Accurate levels are, whenever attained, a check on the overall situation, and widely diverse testing ability – there are universities all over this world whose students own radiation detectors of varying quality – not to mention the deployed professional-grade national and international, meteorological groups’ equipment –

    once those levels’ accuracy is no longer disputed, each and every additional time some student is shown how they work, is in fact, another check – of course they don’t get printed because they ARE NOT CONTRARY to the WELL-KNOWN FACT that ATMOSPHERIC INFRARED LEVELS, are WHAT they ARE.

    Just sayin there, fellow who remarked on the infrared tests showing REDUCING atmospheric infrared.

    I don’t think the group who did the test in the midwest that lasted fourteen years, that was released April of last year, or year before last, were well funded, but oddly enough there wasn’t ever: not EVER – any rebuff to the claim of the people who did the test.

    There’s an additional element to this very conversation. YOU DON’T NEED A RADIATION DETECTOR to CHECK the ATMOSPHERE for MORE INFRARED RADIATION. INFRARED ASTRONOMY has been able to CHECK ON ATMOSPHERIC INFRARED, since… I really don’t know the number of CENTURIES, but earthshine infrared can be checked by putting colored filters over cameras that photograph through telescopes.

    Have you heard a single word with the HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of dollars’ INFRARED EQUIPMENT, or the WELL established INFRARED ASTRONOMY FIELD, a single syllable about the ‘atmospheric infrared in the earthshine spectrum gradually rising, as postulated by Magic Gassers’ ….?
    No
    you
    have
    not.

    Because there IS no rising atmospheric infrared. The levels of atmospheric HEAT in the EARTHSHINE SPECTRA have FALLEN.
    This is WELL KNOWN to ALL who are more intimately acquainted with the Magic Gas religion.

  72. Hoffer,
    Go back to school, need to pass the finals this time. The simple expanation of Thermo follows:
    “You cannot win, you cannot break even, and you cannot drop out of the game.” Shall I elaborate?

  73. Read the rest of it. No, Hoffer, stars spin, no facing surfaces. If you believe that cool things are able to heat warm things, back that up, every single electric utility in the world will bid higher and higher for your services, yes, get some more watts from those last two degrees of temp in the steam for which we are already pulling a vacuum to get the last three degrees before that.

    Apparently anyone is allowed to post here. Keep it up, but you should hope your boss does not see any of this…..

  74. Michael Moon,

    Aside from your misunderstanding of the 2nd Law, you presume that David Hoffer has not ‘passed the finals’. You are a noob who needs some basic education.

    It is you who needs to get up to speed. David Hoffer is very knowledgeable on the subject of climatology, and you would benefit from paying attention to what he says. Whether you will or not is entirely up to you.

  75. “YaYUh but … YEW don’ GODDA PUD’it LAIK THAYuT!!!”

    THAT is the Magic Gas religion’s refrain when you remind them that THEIR WHOLE FIELD INSISTS
    the ENTIRE WORLD FORGET

    that THOSE EARTHSHINE FREQ-RELEVANT GASES
    B L O C K
    far, more light in relevant spectra coming in
    but that they don’t block it all, which is why you can look at the sun from earth with an earthshine frequency filter and see a highly energetic light source.

    The earthshine spectra relevant gases
    CAN’T BLOCK it ALL.

    They block SOME incoming relevant frequency radiation. But since there’s only a certain amount they can’t block it all.

    But if you put MORE INFRARED BLOCKING GAS IN THE SKY guess, WHAT:

    more gets blocked before it can warm the earth.

    This, Magic Gassers, is called ‘cooling.’

    Now you folks watch Magic Gassers come here and say they don’t think putting a light blocking screen of molecule sized particles between an object and the one that it irradiates
    is cooling.

  76. And, MikeB, you disappoint me. You were doing so well, cleared that up with the nanoseconds, then you lay this egg. We mechanical engineers think heat is very important. We like to know what it will do. You apperently only like to know what photons will do, much different thing. Once again, heat being as important as it is, show how to get heat from cold, become a famous billionaire, and I will come and shake your hand…….

  77. D Böehm says:
    December 2, 2012 at 8:54 pm

    Michael Moon,

    “Aside from your misunderstanding of the 2nd Law, you presume that David Hoffer has not ‘passed the finals’. You are a noob who needs some basic education.

    It is you who needs to get up to speed. David Hoffer is very knowledgeable on the subject of climatology”

    Which is why he’s in here with a story about magic gas that blocks infrared radiation coming in acting as a refractive-hence ultimately reflective screen arrayed in space just above the surface of the earth
    but in doing this first, COOLING the object it is blocking radiation from ever reaching,

    it’s heating the earth and I’ll quote ‘it’s probably not much though.’

    Yeah he’s right about that. It’s not much. It’s not happening at all.

    His stories of 2nd law magic are as ill advised as the rest of his stretched Magic Physiks

    “at thuh levul yew awl caint unnerstayund caws yew jes’ don’ wawnuh buhLEEvE.”

  78. Michael Moon says:
    December 2, 2012 at 8:49 pm
    Read the rest of it. No, Hoffer, stars spin, no facing surfaces
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

    Oddly Mr Moon, even if they stars are spinning, they have facing surfaces at any given point in time, a fact that ought to be obvious, as should be the fact that photons travel at the speed of light and by comparison the surface speed of a star expressed as a percentage of that and rounded off to a few decimal places would be zero.

    Odder still Mr Moon, when I discuss physics with engineers and physicists designing things like communication satellites, space arms, shuttle instrumentation, anti-missiles, command and control systems for naval destroyers and so on, I’ve always been commended on my knowledge and problem solving skills. It is only when I start talking to you that I become an idiot.

  79. Yeah. The magic warming sunlight reflector in the sky. Thairs thangs yew don’ noe abowt what’s HOT & COLD, BOY; yEW ain’ NOE CLImuHTaHLuHjist!”

    Indeed.

    Can you imagine someone opening an umbrella to block sunlight in the Mohave Desert to see that instead of a standard black umbrella, the fabric between the ribs had been replaced with 50% light blocking standard agriculture shade fabric,

    and as you stood there watching them examine that umbrella, hearing them say to you in ALL SERIOUSNESS, that ‘This here umbrella shore is makin me hot. If there was any more light reflecting fabric up there I think it would get THAT MUCH HOTTER.’

    And then, asking them, ‘Why?’ having them reply to you that “Wayle, thair’s sum sunlight gittn thru thim holes. And wat gits thru thim holes, hits me an ruhflecks awff. Then it hits that ‘tair fabric & turns arownd and comes down and makes me hotter.”

    Then you, in awe of this blinding intellectual light, reply to him ‘So, if you had some 90% sunlight blocking fabric what would happen?”

    Says the Magic Gais Zombee to you with a STRAIGHT FACE mind you, “Wayle, yuh see, if’n we put up some 90 per cent then whatever got through thair would be reflected back to me once it reflected off of me, 90 percent: so I wud jus git hotter.”

    You reply one last time to this insaniac who’s obviously living in a land called “Climate Mental Illness”

    “But the 90% blocking fabric, BLOCKS more than it reflects back TO you because what is being reflected back to you is REDUCED as you add more light blocking fabric.”

    His reply to YOU is, ‘YEW AIN’ NO CLIMuHTAHLuHjiST! YEW HAYTE YUR CHILDRIN! yEW don’t NOE nuthin bowt HOT & COLD, i ROTE uh PAPur!”

    This hick looking you straight in your eye.
    You know what that’s called?
    ‘Magic
    Gas
    Zombie.’

  80. It is only when I start talking to you that I become an idiot.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    I stand corrected. When I converse with What Did I Tell You!, and Myrrh, and Greg House, I’m an idiot also. Can someone help me figure out how talking to them makes me so incredibly stupid?

    Perhaps I should stop before I get permanent brain damage?

  81. davidmhoffer says:
    December 2, 2012 at 9:26 pm

    Odder still Mr Moon, when I discuss physics with engineers and physicists designing things like communication satellites, space arms, shuttle instrumentation, anti-missiles, command and control systems for naval destroyers and so on, I’ve always been commended on my knowledge and problem solving skills. It is only when I start talking to you that I become an idiot.

    ———————————————–
    That’s because you don’t tell them you believe in Magic Gas and why you believe in it.

    No electronic engineer ever suffered to listen to your blather about Magic Gas and a Magic Gas Zip File that makes a light blocking reflective gas shade, a heater.

    Go tell one of the electronic engineers where you work that you have an electronic engineer here, who said you, and your magic gas story are full of baloney, and you have that electronic engineer come here and I’ll compare HIS grasp of plus and minus with the one that came with MY degree in electronic engineering.

    And when HE tells ME that HE – like YOU

    believes that a refractive shade, arrayed around an object being irradiated, creates a condition called ‘the greenhouse effect’ wherein the object being irradiated is HOTTER because OF the refractive shade,

    I’m going to tell HIM what I already told YOU:

    THAT is illucid Magic Gas Zombie Fever. AND HE’S NO ELECTRONIC DESIGN ENGINEER.

    NEITHER are YOU.
    Or you’d KNOW
    a REFRACTIVE SHADE
    arrayed around an object being irradiated
    CAN NOT CREATE a CONDITION of MORE ENERGY at the surface of the object it is SHADING than if it were not there.

  82. What Did I Tell You!?:

    At December 2, 2012 at 10:00 pm you ask

    Can you imagine someone opening an umbrella to block sunlight in the Mohave Desert to see that instead of a standard black umbrella, the fabric between the ribs had been replaced with 50% light blocking standard agriculture shade fabric,

    I don’t know about the Mohave Desert but I have used a black umbrella as a sunshade in the Sahara (and I have photographs to prove it). It was an effective sunshade, but so what?

    The properties of waterproof cloth are not relevant to the discussion. At issue is how the radiative absorbtion and emission properties of greenhouse gases (GHGs) inhibit radiative heat loss from the surface.

    Nights cool more when the sky is clear than when the sky is obscured by clouds. This is because the clouds inhibit radiative heat loss from the surface: and so does atmospheric CO2.

    This is a matter of elementary physics and no magic is involved. I suggest that you would benefit from learning about it.

    Richard

  83. What Did I Tell You!?:

    I was abrupt in my previous response to your post at December 2, 2012 at 10:00 pm. This abruptness is an indication of my frustration at Sky Dragons.

    However, I think there may be some onlookers who may be confused by Sky Dragon nonsense, so I provide this more full reply.

    The Earth and the Moon are heated by the Sun and are similar distance from the Sun. But the Earth has higher average surface temperature than the Moon, and there are several reasons for this. I will explain some of them.

    The Moon rotates slower than the Earth so has longer time to warm a region of its surface in its day – and longer to cool in its night – than the Earth. But within an hour after its daybreak, a region of the Moon’s surface rises to higher temperature than any part of the Earth’s surface. The Moon’s mean daytime surface temperature is 107°C and its night-time mean surface temperature is -153°C.

    The Earth does not have such large temperature differences mostly because its oceans and atmosphere spread heat around the Earth.

    And the Moon has an average surface temperature of ~0°C while the Earth’s average surface is about 15°C. This difference is also mostly a result of the atmosphere.

    The Earth’s surface obtains heat as radiation from the Sun and loses heat by evapouration, conduction (and resulting atmospheric convection) and radiation. The Earth’s surface and atmosphere radiate heat to space.

    The atmosphere distributes heat within the Earth’s system. And the greenhouse gases (GHGs) are especially effective at this distribution because they absorb and radiate heat radiation (IR). So, the GHGs redistribute some IR from the surface back towards the surface. Some of the radiation from the atmosphere is directed at the Earth’s surface so adds to surface heat thus reducing the net rate of heat loss from the surface. This is NOT a contravention of thermodynamics because the heating of the surface is from the Sun, and the Sun is much hotter than the Earth. The atmosphere merely distributes the heat within the Earth’s system.

    The resulting reduced rate of heat loss from the surface induces a higher surface temperature to enable the Earth and atmosphere to achieve balance between the heat the Earth obtains from the Sun and the heat the radiates to space. (This is analogous to a blanket on a person’s bed: it keeps the bed warmer but does not provide any heating).

    I hope that has removed your confusion.

    Richard

  84. Pat Frank: “But there’s zero evidence that they are right”

    In fact, the evidence is that they are wrong- the temperature record of the past fifteen years. In fact, this record refutes AGW theory utterly. Global warming is a thing of the past and the global-warmed brains of some of these would-be scientists are starting to cool. But most see the danger of cooling themselves out of a job. Watch for the ocean acidfication propaganda mill to crank up.

  85. richardscourtney;

    Michael Moon at least tried to have a rational conversation, this What Did I Tell You! character can muster up nothing but a moronic hill billy accent and some analogies that prove the accent may be warranted.

    mods ~ the latter is pure slay*r cr@p. I thought there was a new policy about this total sh*t?

  86. What Did I Tell You!? says:
    Help them feel that it’s okay to admit if Magic Gas is infrared opaque it has to block energy coming in, FIRST
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Except that in coming radiance from the Sun is short wave which CO2 cannot block and out going radiance from the earth is long wave which it can.

    Are you now done demonstrating your complete and total grasp of the matters at hand?

  87. davidmhoffer:

    re your post addressed to me at December 3, 2012 at 7:25 am. Yes, I agree all you say.

    Clearly, this What Did I Tell You! character is a few cards short of a full deck. I will not bother to address any more of his/her irrational ranting.

    Richard

  88. davidmhoffer says:
    December 3, 2012 at 9:25 am

    What Did I Tell You!? says:
    Help them feel that it’s okay to admit if Magic Gas is infrared opaque it has to block energy coming in, FIRST
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Except that in coming radiance from the Sun is short wave which CO2 cannot block and out going radiance from the earth is long wave which it can.

    Are you now done demonstrating your complete and total grasp of the matters at hand?
    ===========================
    David, are you really expecting this poster to be open to persuasion and argument? The mantra like repetitions and the disregarding of any of the counter points being made, suggest the poster is a bot, not a human.

  89. Vince Causey;
    David, are you really expecting this poster to be open to persuasion and argument? The mantra like repetitions and the disregarding of any of the counter points being made, suggest the poster is a bot, not a human
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Ya know, given all the work I did in the past on AI, you’d think I would clue in to the signs. Never even considered it, but in retrospect, yeah, could be a bot. A really poorly written one though. So… in addition to not attributing to malice what can be attributed to stupidity, we must now also never attribute to stupidity what can be attributed to a poorly written bot?

    Stop the world, I’d like to get off…

    .

    [Reply: Here are a couple of examples of the mindless spam posts that mods have to weed out: “I orate you experience remarked several particularly stimulating alludes, minds for the courier.”

    And:

    “I had been tired about what sort of content may sense, I had been fifty percent ready for that tough nylon material that feels truly low cost and could be located at your neighborhood costume retailer however this issue had been nowhere in close proximity to this! That sensed such as the very same materials they use about people top quality hairpieces pertaining to most cancers individuals ( I might realize because my mom experienced point Zero cancers of the breast and also had chemo), so she had two. We compared the information and also good quality and they also were made products gave the look of the same. There was clearly actually an elastic music group you could adjust pertaining to fitted. Total great quality now my Natsu dress-up costume is finished! After I created it to fit the particular spiked up Natsu search it absolutely was just natural amazing! The back does need a bit of cutting down on because it is too much time but that’s a simple meal. Really like this kind of wig!”

    Those are verbatim. It used to be that spambots comprised only a few posts. Now, spam comments like that outnumber legitimate comments!

    Sorry, I just had to get that off my chest. — mod.]

  90. Somehow the misconceptions on here are addicting. Hoffer, I am sure you are a great guy. Here is the thing: when HEAT is TRANSFERRED, the object to which it is transferred gets WARMER. Radiating objects, as in all matter in the Universe above absolute Zero, radiate. This does not mean that cool things heat warm things. They don’t, they can’t, it just never happens any time, anywhere, and if it did our electric bills would be a lot lower. Ask these friends who assure you of your intelligence, maybe coming from them it will make more sense.

    And by the way, who said anything about the stars getting closer? And by the way, some of those Pulsars spin pretty quick, not that this changes anything at all. Here is another proof: park your car right in front of your wife’s car, facing each other, and turn on the headlights, beaming right into each other. Do they get brighter? NO? Why not? How about this one: drop a radiating ice cube into a cup of hot coffee. The coffee gets, wait for it, COLDER! Ta da!

    Even Professor Wang could not make it any clearer than that….

  91. Michael Moon;
    Here is another proof: park your car right in front of your wife’s car, facing each other, and turn on the headlights, beaming right into each other. Do they get brighter? NO?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Actually they do, which you would know if you’d ever done any actual work with these sorts of things. Just because you can’t detect the change with your naked eye doesn’t mean that it isn’t happening.

    As for the stars Mr Snark, YOU are the one that proposed a twin star and I answered your question in terms of two stars too far apart to matter and then close enough together that they would. Then you bloviated about how the stars would be spinning, which made you look both disingenuous as well as foolish. Now you babble on something about the speed of pulsars which has nothing to do with the thought experiment YOU proposed. Every time I answer your question you try and throw in some new detail that doesn’t even change the answer. Can’t deal with facts and logic so you resort to misdirection, but you are so bad at it that you just wind up looking like a stuttering fool.

    Stefan-Boltzmann Law says that every body radiates energy. Is SB Law wrong? If you can prove that, I will personally nominate you for a Nobel Prize. You’ve got a “cold” object radiating according to SB Law. You place a warm object next to it. The cold object radiates according to SB Law the EXACT same amount it did before. If you dispute that, you ain’t no mechanical engineer and if you are, your degree should be revoked. Where do you suppose the photons go? Do they get swallowed by a black hole? Turn left before they get to the warm object? Stop in between and have a party until the warm object goes away?

    As for your insanely stupid example of an ice cube in coffee, is there some part of NET heat transfer that you don’t understand? Is there some part of “a cold body compared to nothing at all” that you fail to grasp? Or are you just being deliberately obtuse in order to p*ss me off?

    Well congrats, you’ve p*ssed me off. Given the options of malice, stupidity, or being a bot, I no longer give a sh*t as to which one you are. I’ve honestly tried to explain the issues and you have been a total xxxxing jerk.

    SET/MICHAELMOON=IGNORE

  92. “””””…..Michael Moon says:

    December 3, 2012 at 1:56 pm

    Somehow the misconceptions on here are addicting. Hoffer, I am sure you are a great guy. Here is the thing: when HEAT is TRANSFERRED, the object to which it is transferred gets WARMER. Radiating objects, as in all matter in the Universe above absolute Zero, radiate……”””””

    They sure are addicting Michael; you’ve caught the disease your self.

    Electro-magnetic radiation is a form of ENERGY. There are many forms of ENERGY. What is colloquially called “HEAT” is a different form of MECHANICAL ENERGY, manifested in the chaotic motions of large assemblages of interracting atoms or molecules, that are invlolved in mutual collisions, either very short ranged “jostling” as in solids and liquids, or longer range (comparatively) ballistic collisions between molecules or atoms in a gas.

    Common to EVERY form of HEAT, is the mandatory presence of real physical matter having a measurable mass. Sans a contiguous path of massive particles, there can be no transport of HEAT.

    There can be a transport of ENERGY by other means, but not of HEAT.

    Gravitation, and electro-magnetic radiation are two ways energy can be transported from one place to another, without ANY transport of HEAT. Both of those forces are infinite range, so there is no practical limit to the distance they can transport ENERGY. In contrast, the transport of HEAT is orders of magnitude slower than either EM radiation or gravitation.

    EM radiation involves no mass, and no mechanical ENERGY, so it has NO KNOWLEDGE of TEMPERATURE.

    So the concepts of HOTTER or WARMER, or COOLER, or COLDER have no meaning whatsoever for Electro-magnetic RADIATION; which therefore can go anywhere it darn well pleases; well maybe black holes can restrict it.

    So David Hoffer is not the one needing education here; YOU are.

    NO HEAT is transported between the sun and the earth; unless you consider the nanoscopic amount of kinetic energy conveyed by charged particle streams going from sun to earth, which are almost unmeasurable as quantities of HEAT.
    Even those particles, being basically isolated individual particles, can have NO TEMPERATURE while in free flight transit from sun to earth, and will only get “HOT”, when the earth finally lands on each of those particles, and smacks it good and hard.

    We get NO HEAT from the sun; we make it all here on earth, by wasting the EM energy coming from the sun, instead of capturing it on a solar cell, and converting it to electrical energy.

    We also get NO LIGHT from the sun, since LIGHT is a psycho-physical phenomenon, that exists, only inside the human eye/brain system; which is why it has its own somewhat ad hoc system of quantification, called PHOTOMETRY, to distinguish it from the Physical units of RADIOMETRY; used for all EM energy measures.

  93. Michael Moon:

    At December 3, 2012 at 1:56 pm you say

    Somehow the misconceptions on here are addicting. Hoffer, I am sure you are a great guy. Here is the thing: when HEAT is TRANSFERRED, the object to which it is transferred gets WARMER. Radiating objects, as in all matter in the Universe above absolute Zero, radiate. This does not mean that cool things heat warm things. They don’t, they can’t, it just never happens any time, anywhere, and if it did our electric bills would be a lot lower. Ask these friends who assure you of your intelligence, maybe coming from them it will make more sense.

    I think I can see the cause of your misunderstanding.
    You assert that cool things “can’t” “heat warm things” and you say “it just never happens any time, anywhere”.
    YOUR ASSERTION IS PLAIN WRONG, as everybody who has used a microwave oven knows.

    You will never be able to understand the greenhouse effect until you accept the fact that cool things can heat warmer things under some circumstances. And there are several systems – indeed, devices – which do it. For example, heat pumps can extract heat from cold ground to reduce the heating bills of warmer houses. A flow of water down a hill can be used to pump some of the water to an elevation higher than the source of the water. etc.

    All such systems have an external energy source, and the Sun is the external energy source of the greenhouse effect.

    Richard

  94. It has been stated before but I guess it needs restating. If your wish is to have 99.9% of your potential readership skip over your post make sure you compose the offering in Caps.

  95. David Ball says:
    December 3, 2012 at 5:31 pm
    I am still waiting for a response from Mr. Hoffer.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Regarding? Did I miss something?

  96. You mean this comment?

    David Ball says:
    December 2, 2012 at 6:51 pm
    davidmhoffer says:
    December 2, 2012 at 10:58 am
    “The stuff that Mosher gets wrong and the stuff that the slayers get wrong is completely different stuff.”
    Elaborate to enlighten, please
    >>>>>>>>>>>

    The sl*yers are of the opinion that back radiation doesn’t exist at all, which is pure nonsense. The Earth is much warmer than the moon though both get the same insolation, and Mercury gets far more insolation than Venus, but is no where near as hot as Venus. We don’t need to know exactly what the mechanisms are to conclude that in the case of both Earth and Venus, the presence of the atmosphere keeps the planetary surface warmer than it otherwise would have been.

    Mosher’s contention is that we know exactly how that mechanism works, and gives as examples things like radar which we’ve known precisely the behaviour of as it passes through the atmosphere from point A to point B. I have two problems with this. The first is that radar passes through the atmosphere pretty much without interacting with it, which is precisely what makes it useful and easy to measure accurately. LW is the exact opposite, it can’t pass through much of the atmosphere at all without interacting with it. The second problem I have relates to the first. With radar, we are most interested in the part of the signal that doesn’t get lost, and we can measure that directly. With LW we are interested in the part of the signal that DOES get lost, and we can only measure it INDIRECTLY.

    • “The sl*yers are of the opinion that back radiation doesn’t exist at all”

      That is incorrect. What the Slayers say is that backradiation, from a cold source, and particularly energy which is originally from “its own” source in the first place, can not further amplify its own temperature.

      The Slayers measured the solar insolation values in real-time and compared these to the temperatures that were actually generated on a surface with said insolation. There was no observed additional heating caused by backradiation, even though the backradiation heating signal should have pumped the temperature up very noticeably. So, this showed that simple Wattages of energy do not add in a serial fashion to the actual heating potential and subsequent temperature generation. It equates to the statement that cold can not heat hot.

      So now, the argument is that the GHE backradiaiton effect only slows down the cooling at night. This is a new, unique, and different theory than standard GHE orthodoxy. However, this was also tested by the Slayers. Given the amount of energy stored in a column of atmosphere, and the known output of the whole column overnight, you can calculate how much energy the column loses overnight and thus you can calculate the associated drop in temperature expected for the whole column. The expected drop, if uniform over the whole column, would be ~1K. If there is delay in cooling at the surface, then cooling should be less than ~1K overnight. However, the surface and near-surface air actually cools by at least ten times this amount, as measured, and so there is no delay of cooling actually occurring at the surface. Cooling is instead the most efficient at the surface because that’s where the highest emissivity is for both the surface and the air (emissivity is highest when air is densest).

      Here’s a video of some Slayer data:

      Equation 18 on pg. 31 of a recent paper (http://principia-scientific.org/publications/Absence_Measureable_Greenhouse_Effect.pdf) is what is required to explain the heat-flow & real-time temperature variations as seen in the video above. Work is being done on that now.

  97. [SNIP - this reply is just too stupid to post - the sun is not "blue" in spectrum - take a 72 hour timeout - Anthony]

  98. This is WHAT DAVID M HOFFER SAID:

    davidmhoffer says:
    December 3, 2012 at 9:25 am

    What Did I Tell You!? says:
    Help them feel that it’s okay to admit if Magic Gas is infrared opaque it has to block energy coming in, FIRST
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    ***Except that in coming radiance from the Sun is short wave which CO2 cannot block*** and out going radiance from the earth is long wave which it can.

    ——————————————————————–

    In CASE you STILL think that quote’s a MISTAKE – That HE THINKS the SUN over OUR HEAD is BLUE,
    check what the DEFINITION of BLUE light is relative to WAVELENGTH.

    It is SHORT WAVELENGTH LIGHT.

    Don’t act like ME knowing what HE said

    is ERROR on MY part.

    He SAID in NO SHORT WAVELENGTH no INFRARED.

    Stars that EMIT like that emit BLUE looking light.

    Again don’t presume to claim me recognizing he doesn’t know what he’s saying is error on my part.

    [hello What, I need to tell you that none of the folk here enjoy being shouted at. Shouting detracts from your argument and instead makes people skip your comment. May I, respectfully, ask that you consider alternative means to convey your emphasis or more easily just allow the weight of your argument to carry the day. Shouting is just rude really. Thanks . . mod]

  99. Courtney,

    Microwave ovens work by exciting molecules with a dipole moment. This is not heat transfer, actually electric in nature. Heat transfer has three modes, conductive, convective, and radiative. In every case the heat transfer is from hot to cold. This discussion has become tedious.

  100. Joseph E Postma says:
    December 4, 2012 at 8:24 am
    “The sl*yers are of the opinion that back radiation doesn’t exist at all”

    That is incorrect. What the Sl*yers say is that backradiation, from a cold source, and particularly energy which is originally from “its own” source in the first place, can not further amplify its own temperature.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Which is a clever way of attempting to assert that back radiation doesn’t exist. a sort of “well it exists but it doesn’t do anything” Under x circumstances with y conditions it doesn’t do z.

    I’ve reviewed your experiments in detail, they are total trash, and the data from them twisted up in any number of ways to become meaningless, not to mention falsified by every day experience of millions of design engineers world wide.

    No, I’ll not debate this further with you, been there, done that. Instead I will do something more useful with my time like teach a pig to sing.

    • “”Which is a clever way of attempting to assert that back radiation doesn’t exist. “”

      Incorrect. I clearly described what the effect is, and we also measured it. Wattages from different temperature sources do not add serially. Particularly, energy from a source can not increase its own sources’ temperature. In other words, a temperature can not increase its own temperature with its own energy. This has nothing to do with saying backradiaiton doesn’t exist…but it does put restrictions on what backradiation can do, and it is these restrictions that GHE advocates really, really dislike. Backradiation does not add serially with and cause additional heating on top of solar insolation. The data proves this. So would have thermodynamics logic if we still used it. Then, no actual delay was seen overnight. What better describes the system is real-time heat flow mechanics, with a diagram establishing the boundary conditions for such found here:

      Real-world data such as that from the Zero-Energy-Balance plot from Dr. Tim Ball’s textbook on geology verifies that the above diagram is basically correct:

      More energy actually enters the system around the equator than exits, so, energy is going missing somewhere. The best candidate for that is latent heat, plus the weather itself because convection, wind, etc, generated by the input is itself energy being stored and moved around. Then the energy comes back out of the system, from latent heat and the weather itself, around the poles. Only a differential equation such as that referenced above, pg. 31 Equation 18, can start to make sense of the actual mechanics of how this works for an arbitrary column or air + surface & subsurface – this is why the video above is so important.

      “” Under x circumstances with y conditions it doesn’t do z.””

      Yes indeed…nature is complicated. Such conditions are also why it is incorrect to say that a refrigerator or a microwave is like the GHE. Such comparisons are so grossly overestimated and overstretched that they really quite detract from the physics.

      “”I’ve reviewed your experiments in detail, they are total trash, and the data from them twisted up in any number of ways to become meaningless, not to mention falsified by every day experience of millions of design engineers world wide.”
      No, I’ll not debate this further with you, been there, done that. Instead I will do something more useful with my time like teach a pig to sing.””

      GHE advocates REALLY, REALLY don’t like it when you put restrictions, such as thermodynamics, on what the GHE can do. :) I’ll continue with applying *actual* heat flow mathematics to reality.

  101. Michael Moon:

    I am replying to your nonsense at December 4, 2012 at 8:26 am which says in total

    Microwave ovens work by exciting molecules with a dipole moment. This is not heat transfer, actually electric in nature. Heat transfer has three modes, conductive, convective, and radiative. In every case the heat transfer is from hot to cold. This discussion has become tedious.

    The greenhouse effect works by exciting molecules with a dipole moment; e.g. H2O, CO2,etc.
    Are you really saying that microwave ovens do not heat their contents? That is as silly as a claim that the greenhouse effect violates the thermodynamics.

    And you have ignored my other examples of systems where a cooler object provides energy (i.e. heats) a warmer object.

    The only reason this discussion has become tedious is the progressively more silly content of your posts. You said a cooler object “can’t” provide heat to a warmer object and I cited examples where that happens.

    Richard

  102. “””””…..Michael Moon says:

    December 4, 2012 at 8:26 am

    Courtney,

    Microwave ovens work by exciting molecules with a dipole moment.

    >>>>> This is not heat transfer,<<<>>> actually electric in nature.<<<>>>> Heat transfer has three modes, conductive, convective, and radiative. In every case the heat transfer is from hot to cold. <<<>>>>This discussion has become tedious.<<<< And there Michael, you have made another true statement.

  103. I have no idea how that all came out garbled like that.

    As usual, Richard Courtney has it correct. The cold microwave oven does “heat” (verb) the food, and make it warmer than the oven; but it does not “transport” any “heat” (noun) to the food. It transports ENERGY in the form of electro-magnetic radiation. There is no “electric” effect. The food is electrically isolated from the oven, usually by air and glass; both good electric insulators.

    A ferrite magnetic shield around the food, would stop the food from “heating” (verb)

    Electro-magnetic radiation is NOT “heat” (noun), and has no knowledge of Temperature.

  104. What Did I Tell You!? says:
    December 2, 2012 at 6:05 pm
    “Joseph E Postma says:
    December 2, 2012 at 8:00 am
    What Did I Tell You!? says: “DISCOVERED the atmospheric infrared is DECLINING not RISING”
    Is that right? Very interesting.
    ————————————
    Yes it is true. I never remember who did the test, it lasted 14 years, infrared detectors were lain out in fields in the American Midwest, ground zero for mannmade global warming.”

    Maybe he refers to this one
    Measurements of Long wave infrared backradiation show a decline
    LWIR backradiation measurement, it fell over 12 years in the Great Plains

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/04/another-blow-to-warmist-theory.html

  105. Actually, I said it cannot “transfer” heat. “Provide” is an entirely different word. Yes, the GHE is similar to microwave ovens. I began all this posting in an attempt to gain understanding of “re-radiation.” This warmist meme is dangerous, implies that CO2 can do things it cannot, and should be shouted down by knowledgeable persons whenever it is cited. I repeat my challenge to make billions and billions of dollars by taking heat from cold to warm without expending more energy than is gained. Electric, electro-magnetic, whtaever. Microwave ovens will not prevent the carbon tax, my actual goal!!! Chat about them as you will.

  106. Joseph E Postma;
    I’ll continue with applying *actual* heat flow mathematics to reality.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    In my reality, the laws of thermodynamics and the stefan-boltzmann law co-exist and are applicable in all cases. In your reality, some laws are temporarily suspended in some special cases.

    • “In my reality, the laws of thermodynamics and the stefan-boltzmann law co-exist and are applicable in all cases. In your reality, some laws are temporarily suspended in some special cases.”

      The mathematics of the actual heat flow equation aren’t selective. Thermodynamics plus the S-B Law do coexist, but they do NOT equate to cold things warming up hotter things. That is where your mistake is.

  107. Thermodynamics plus the S-B Law do coexist, but they do NOT equate to cold things warming up hotter things. That is where your mistake is.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Your mistake is putting words in my mouth. I have provided a very clear explanation upthread.

    The earth’s atmosphere is on average far colder than the earth’s surface. If you wish to contend that the earth’s surface would be warmer if the atmosphere was stripped away, feel free to look as foolish as you wish.

  108. Michael Moon:

    Your post at December 4, 2012 at 11:25 am says in total

    Actually, I said it cannot “transfer” heat. “Provide” is an entirely different word. Yes, the GHE is similar to microwave ovens. I began all this posting in an attempt to gain understanding of “re-radiation.” This warmist meme is dangerous, implies that CO2 can do things it cannot, and should be shouted down by knowledgeable persons whenever it is cited. I repeat my challenge to make billions and billions of dollars by taking heat from cold to warm without expending more energy than is gained. Electric, electro-magnetic, whtaever. Microwave ovens will not prevent the carbon tax, my actual goal!!! Chat about them as you will.

    In context the words “transfer” and “provide” mean the same: use either in my sentence
    “And you have ignored my other examples of systems where a cooler object provides energy to (i.e. heats) a warmer object.”
    and the sentence says the same.

    I don’t know what CO2 is claimed to do that it cannot. I do know that effects of increased atmospheric CO2 concentration are so small that they cannot be discerned.

    I don’t understand the relevance of your impossible challenge.

    And I object to your misrepresenting science in the advance of your political “goal”. Warmunists do that, too, and it is despicable. I don’t “chat” about such activities: I oppose them because they hurt people.

    Richard

  109. “Your mistake is putting words in my mouth. I have provided a very clear explanation upthread.”

    Ohhhh really?? lol…you don’t like turn about as fair play then? Alright.

    “The earth’s atmosphere is on average far colder than the earth’s surface.”

    And if you wish to continue stating that because the atmosphere is “far COLDER”, that that must mean it is causing heating on something warmer and this is the REASON the surface is warmer…hahahhaha….go right on ahead. Such insanity!

  110. I understand how magic gas works now…you take “far colder” magic gas and put it all around you, and the coldness of the magic gas will make you hot hot hot!!

    You just ignore that real-time sunshine boy! The sun don’t cause no stinkin’ heating to +80C like the thermometers and insolation measurements say! You’re twisting the measurements! That’s COLD GAS you feel making the beaches in Mexico so hot!

    • Mr. Postma and everybody else involved in this idiotic discussion over “magic gas”

      The greenhouse effect exists, get over it. The only relevant questions are magnitude, sensitivities, and feedbacks.

      This thread is closed, along with a warning to any other “Slayers” out there posing under other names (Doug Cotton this means you).

      Your GHG science is pointless, wrong, and unwelcome here. Take it somewhere else, and please, be as upset as you wish. – Anthony Watts

  111. Joseph Postma;
    And if you wish to continue stating that because the atmosphere is “far COLDER”, that that must mean it is causing heating on something warmer and this is the REASON the surface is warmer…hahahhaha….go right on ahead. Such insanity!
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    …and yet the moon, which gets almost exactly the same insolation as the earth, but has no atmosphere, has a surface temperature far colder than earth’s.

    Be as insane as you wish.

  112. davidmhoffer says:
    December 4, 2012 at 8:53 am

    “No, I’ll not debate this further with you, been there, done that. Instead I will do something more useful with my time like teach a pig to sing.”

    ——————————————————–

    What you are going to do,
    is pose on the internet:
    a smug, clueless idiot who doesn’t realize the unrecoverable position of having told the readers
    of an international forum on global atmospheric gas/energy dyanamics,

    you think the sun emits blue (shortwave) light without any significant infrared component,
    and
    for that reason, it’s impossible for atmospheric gases in infrared-resonant spectrum to block any. That should humiliate me to have you point that out, you opined.

    To win an argument, you said that.

    Then having splayed yourself exposed as an utter idiot who doesn’t even know what color the sun emits,

    you tried to take an arrogant wannabe’s mocking victory dance: “Are you now done demonstrating your complete and total grasp of the matters at hand?”

    You see now that I wasn’t
    but that you were,

    *because you don’t have a “grasp of the matters at hand.”

    This discussion is about the sun: the matter at hand is the star called Sol. The sun.

    The star you’re talking about is blue.*

    You flatly stated: the sun is Blue.
    End of story. And that I ought to be embarrassed, I didn’t know it like you do.

    The sun doesn’t put out infrared light,
    and the light it does put out is short wavelength.
    Blue spectrum light.

    The sun is Blue.

    Meanwhile back in reality-based physics having to do with the matters at hand,

    the truth is, the sun is yellow.

    And the truth is, the sun’s radiation is nearly half infrared.

    And the truth is, the sun’s massive 40% infrared radiation energy, is mostly blocked by something in the atmosphere.

    And the truth is, it’s the infrared-resonant gases.

    And the truth is, when energy is blocked by sulfate aerosols, or infrared-resonant gas aerosols (clouds) or infrared resonant, hence infrared-opaque gas molecules themselves,
    and never gets to the surface
    that’s called COOLING.

    And the truth is, putting more infrared-resonant gas into the atmosphere, of any of the several separate species, would contribute to blocking more infrared light trying to get in.

    And the truth is that’s called MORE cooling when you do that.

    And the truth is, you don’t have credibility to shine shoes at least with me, because

    the truth is,
    I’m an electronic engineer whose field is the transmission, capture and analysis of electromagnetic energy through the atmosphere, space, and industrial compounds,

    and you think the sun over your head is blue.

  113. “and yet the moon, which gets almost exactly the same insolation as the earth, but has no atmosphere, has a surface temperature far colder than earth’s.”

    Why would you obfuscate and lie like that? One would think you are doing it on purpose. In fact, the actual truth is that the moon gets far hotter and far colder than the Earth. That’s because there’s less thermal mass on top of the surface, and the moon has no place to store latent heat and transport it to the poles which keeps them much warmer than they would otherwise be, as on the Earth. The atmosphere and latent heat store heat…they don’t generate heat. And a cold gas doesn’t make warmer gases or warmer surfaces hotter. The Earth and moon can’t be compared *at all*…they have entirely different compositions and the moon doesn’t even have an atmosphere. Any comparison to the moon is usually a red-herring. The presence of a low-emissivity atmosphere will already store more energy than the moon can, and keep things warmer than otherwise, and this has nothing to do with the GHE. The fact that the Earth has an atmosphere and that the moon does not have an atmosphere is *not* proof of the GHE…but it is GREAT sophistry.

    I prefer mathematics with the differential equations of conservation of energy and heat flow.

    You really want to deny that using the actual heat-flow differential equations mean anything? Do you really want to deny that the mathematics of real-time heat flow are relevant? That’s fine…although ridiculous. :)

  114. “A microwave oven converts only part of its electrical input into microwave energy. A typical consumer microwave oven consumes 1100 W of electricity in producing 700 W of microwave power, an efficiency of 64%. The other 400 W are dissipated as heat, mostly in the magnetron tube.” From Wiki

    george e. smith says:
    December 4, 2012 at 10:48 am
    “The cold microwave oven does…”

    From the above the “maggie” is not necessarily “cold”. You and I both know that if the object does not absorb the energy then no heat is produced. ie the glass plate of the turn table or the air inside. Besides if the analogy is to be valid the microwave would have had to be created by the object being heated.

Comments are closed.