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:
======================
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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
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.
Hoffer,
Well, one of us doesn’t…
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?
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?
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.
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/
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. It is gone now. Is WUWT adopting Bill McKibben’s moderation rules?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Wrong thread. Try http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/30/another-inconvenient-truth-2012-us-tornado-count-well-below-normal/
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………
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.
Michael Moon,
You need to study up on the 2nd Law. It is based on statistics.
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”.
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.
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.
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/
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.
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.
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?
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…..
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.
“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.
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…….
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.”
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.
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.’