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.
“””””…..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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Michael Moon:
Your post at December 4, 2012 at 11:25 am says in total
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
“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!
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
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.
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.
“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. 🙂
“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.