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.
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?
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.
What Did I Tell You!?:
At December 2, 2012 at 10:00 pm you ask
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
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
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.
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?
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?
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
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.
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.]
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….
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
“””””…..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.
Michael Moon:
At December 3, 2012 at 1:56 pm you say
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
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.
I am still waiting for a response from Mr. Hoffer.
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?
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.
[SNIP – this reply is just too stupid to post – the sun is not “blue” in spectrum – take a 72 hour timeout – Anthony]
This series of critiques of tree ring analysis is really interesting and seems to get better each time–from one of the RealClimate guys no less:
http://ecologicallyoriented.wordpress.com/2012/12/04/severe-analytical-problems-in-dendroclimatology-part-four/
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]
Thank you for your response, mr. Hoffer. It was very enlightening.
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.
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:
http://climateofsophistry.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/energy-model-21.jpg
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:
http://climateofsophistry.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/zeb.jpg
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.
Michael Moon:
I am replying to your nonsense at December 4, 2012 at 8:26 am which says in total
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