tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post3625767605082222263..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Joseph D’Aleo Fails Meteorology 101 on WUWTSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger29125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-24911340246049693272016-09-15T03:12:26.980+10:002016-09-15T03:12:26.980+10:00After warnings, Terry persists. His latest comment...After warnings, Terry persists. His latest comment isn't lost forever. It has been <a href="https://www.hotwhopper.com/HotWhoppery16.php#terrydwalender140916" rel="nofollow">relegated to the HotWhoppery</a>, where he can mull over the role of the FBI and the FCC.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-10127275307091841922016-09-15T02:12:19.491+10:002016-09-15T02:12:19.491+10:00Terry D Welander, before you start telling Sou to ...Terry D Welander, before you start telling Sou to follow any courses only tangentially relevant to climate science, maybe you could start with actually following a course on climate science. David Archer organizes a good online course, and it goes slow enough for someone with just an engineering background (like you) to understand the basic concepts. That is, if you even *want* to learn the basics. So far your insistence on someone following a course on plasma physics to understand climate is...well...just weird. Volcanism can be nice to understand some past climate changes, but for the present it is just a very minor issue.Marconoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-39606463215192331192016-09-15T01:40:35.607+10:002016-09-15T01:40:35.607+10:00It's a given that the DK crowd will eventually...It's a given that the DK crowd will eventually invoke Richard Feynman, although it's pretty obvious that few have bothered to crack open, much less comprehend, The Feynman Lectures On Physics. In the 1950s, before the DK effect was identified, Martin Gardner referred to it as "peevish ignorance" which "betrays no understanding of the views opposed, although the authors have had every opportunity to avail themselves of such knowledge".spilgardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-29137956602416960532016-09-15T01:24:05.826+10:002016-09-15T01:24:05.826+10:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17043484909310719289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-89095114859424902702016-09-14T15:39:28.743+10:002016-09-14T15:39:28.743+10:00TDW is still living in an age where paragraphs wer...TDW is still living in an age where paragraphs were thought of with deep suspicion<br /><br />Join us in early 21st century - the water is lovelyTadaaahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07736188830660481871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-47294438323114864182016-09-14T15:19:15.752+10:002016-09-14T15:19:15.752+10:00Its not really getting hotter: its just that every...Its not really getting hotter: its just that every organism on this planet, and every scientific instrument, is getting more sensitive to heat.Millicentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-46081283315641658402016-09-14T13:32:02.197+10:002016-09-14T13:32:02.197+10:00It really is true you know: in a bizarre twist on ...It really is true you know: in a bizarre twist on (Groucho)Marxism, Terry is an all-but-card-carrying member of The Dunning Kruger Club, and, as a consequence, he is incapable of understanding that he's a member of The Dunning Kruger Clubbillnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-6234454836988498272016-09-14T09:49:43.556+10:002016-09-14T09:49:43.556+10:00Sou, that is what it comes down to. When logic and...Sou, that is what it comes down to. When logic and reason and data all fail, the only final recourse is to deny the data. If there is no data, then there can be nothing at all.<br />D.C.Pettersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05078422582348328238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-55507782733582186632016-09-14T08:00:51.516+10:002016-09-14T08:00:51.516+10:00What Terry D Welander is saying is that NASA, the ...What Terry D Welander is saying is that NASA, the US National Weather Service and the American Meteorological Society are "crap". <br /><br />(What's left? Or what sources are there that don't have similar findings? Any secondary/tertiary/quaternary and so on sources that deniers fabricate or use are derived from primary sources like the NWS.<br /><br />I only left his comment because it demonstrates even better what weirdness abounds on the internet. Plus it's got replies.<br /><br />What is also obvious is that Terry wouldn't know what to do with satellite readings if he ever managed to locate them. He shows no evidence of ever using raw data of any kind, not raw temperature data from the surface let alone "brightness" readings from satellites.)Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-23892695259079999972016-09-14T04:47:27.132+10:002016-09-14T04:47:27.132+10:00This comment has been removed by the author.jgnfldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18345702872292499039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-54635306943941620722016-09-14T04:39:40.534+10:002016-09-14T04:39:40.534+10:00If only raw data was real, we'd be using the m...If only raw data was real, we'd be using the <i><b>microwave emissions</b></i> numbers directly from the AMSU satellites instead of the reinterpretated, adjusted, averaged, and anomalized obviously-invented "temperature" nonsense from Roy Spenser and John Christy at UAH. Right? <br /><br />I mean, their over-manipulated made-up and infilled numbers are clearly useless, and about as far from "raw data" as it is possible to get. <br />D.C.Pettersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05078422582348328238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-29822297157199303022016-09-14T04:22:30.836+10:002016-09-14T04:22:30.836+10:00Only raw data is real?!!! That is about the stupid...Only raw data is real?!!! That is about the stupidest statement I have ever seen. Something tells me you have never in your life collected raw data. Feynman would rip you to shreds were he still around.<br /><br />Getting good, stable, reliable, and valid raw data is very hard. That why professionals spend so much of their time working on ways and means to collect and collate it.jgnfldnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-19480806837686179882016-09-14T03:50:57.902+10:002016-09-14T03:50:57.902+10:00Yes Terry, it's all crap. Warming post-1950 is...Yes Terry, it's all crap. Warming post-1950 is in fact caused by caramelised onions in the stratosphere. <br /><br />If you only knew how deranged you sound denying the GHE in 2016...<br /><br />Bye. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-85522589233053773052016-09-14T01:10:58.540+10:002016-09-14T01:10:58.540+10:00Sou and Kevin,
I do not use the word crap lightly...Sou and Kevin,<br /><br />I do not use the word crap lightly. Mr Chenoski, a follower of Mr. D'Aleo reminded me of the Feynman/Einstein definition of the actual or the real Scientific Method: only raw data is real. People routinely write models which purport to explain the raw data but never completely do so. I would also quote the Standford experimentalist, Dr. Michael McKubrie, on cold or catalytic fusion; it is not that we do not have enough models to follow; there are too many models explaining the same condition or situation; and only one can be right or has not yet been thought of. All of your sources appear to be from highly questionable, probably erroneous models; when only raw data explained covering all relevant factors, I repeat all relevant factors have been considered<br />is what is real or actual. Why your sources may have some validity; but most certainly appear to be crap. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17043484909310719289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-55004728409956042042016-09-14T00:06:19.371+10:002016-09-14T00:06:19.371+10:00TDW
I went to every location at this blog; nothin...TDW<br /><br /><i>I went to every location at this blog; nothing credible.<br /><br />TOA appears to be an invention of the latest non scientists sometime in the last 20 years. </i><br /><br />That's the sound of science denial and conspiracist ideation. And of you retreating from rational discussion beneath a voluminous tinfoil hat. <br /><br /><i>I urge you take at least one thermodynamics course</i><br /><br />You are not in a position to do any urging, TDW. Your silliness about TOA and ignorance of how the GHE actually works is evidence that you are the clueless party here. <br /><br />BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-164795478983722072016-09-13T23:54:32.539+10:002016-09-13T23:54:32.539+10:00Sou and Kevin,
I went to every location at this bl...Sou and Kevin,<br />I went to every location at this blog; nothing credible.<br /><br />TOA appears to be an invention of the latest non scientists<br />sometime in the last 20 years. Does match up to what the actual<br />conditions that are in the upper atmosphere; that of continual and<br />variable movement across vertical miles. Your supposed TOA is<br />constantly changing; why there is not one; no such thing as an atmospheric TOA. <br /><br />The answer is a thermodynamic balance and/or accounting of all<br />heat correlating to temperature changes which includes all volcanic<br />eruptions and related and all plasma inputs to Earth's magnetic and electric fields; put together with in coming and out going solar energy in watts and or btu; so everyone with an advanced math education can see where the heat is going and coming from.<br /><br />I urge you take at least one thermodynamics course; preferably two and at least two geologic courses on volcano outputs, and related; and a physics course on the sun's plasma contacting Earth's magnetic and electric fields.<br /><br />Then we may have some kind of answer instead of the crap you have been spreading. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17043484909310719289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-89285955971761193282016-09-13T08:40:26.637+10:002016-09-13T08:40:26.637+10:00American Meteorological Society
Standard technical...American Meteorological Society<br /><a href="https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/publications/authors/journal-and-bams-authors/author-resources/list-of-acronyms-and-abbreviations/#standard" rel="nofollow">Standard technical abbreviations and acronyms</a><br /><br />"TOA top of the atmosphere"<br /><br />And if one searches Google for:<br />"Top of the atmosphere" "american meteorological society" energy budget<br /><br />One will get upwards of 20,000 results - most of which are articles in the AMS Bulletin or Journal of the AMS.<br /><br />It seems our Terry is D-K afflicted.<br /><br />Kevin O'Neillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15751040367339659805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-22766835253120736082016-09-13T05:12:03.256+10:002016-09-13T05:12:03.256+10:00Terry, I've already told you that pseudo-scien...Terry, I've already told you that pseudo-science crankery is not welcome here. Last warning, and some reading to keep you occupied while you look for a climate conspiracy home.<br /><br /><a href="http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page6.php" rel="nofollow">Energy balance - top of atmosphere: NASA</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream/atmos/energy.html" rel="nofollow"><br />Energy balance - top of atmosphere NWS</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream/atmos/layers.html" rel="nofollow">Layers of the atmosphere - NWS</a>Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-36260363089911445382016-09-13T04:58:14.710+10:002016-09-13T04:58:14.710+10:00BBD, please cite your source or sources for such ...BBD, please cite your source or sources for such foolishness:<br />"The GHE operates by elevating the altitude of effective emission at the so called "top of the atmosphere" (TOA). TOA is the non sequitur. <br />There is no top of the atmosphere. The atmosphere continually changes with reduced density going upward; much less so above 100,000 feet MSL. The atmosphere is still present in minute parts per million quantities or less up to and beyond several hundred miles above earth. Try reading and using some weather or meteorology terms; the most knowledgeable people on this subject. Creating your own terms will only get you scorn. In parts per million or less, supposed greenhouse gases can not provide or create a greenhouse effect; it takes lots of supposed greenhouse gas molecules, lots of them, to create a greenhouse effect; and still air is also a necessity; does not exist anywhere in the atmosphere. Your denial of these plain sense weather and atmospheric facts is very foolish. I look forward to your sources. If you have any, they are likely as non scientific as your erroneous explanations. The best advice here appears to be: grow up, get a good scientific education and a job. No trained person I know will fall for your gobble de goop.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17043484909310719289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-34913595239562596272016-09-08T20:05:26.247+10:002016-09-08T20:05:26.247+10:00good post by Stephen Mosher (linked in the body te...good post by Stephen Mosher (linked in the body text)Tadaaahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07736188830660481871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-22701567468151663262016-09-08T18:57:09.456+10:002016-09-08T18:57:09.456+10:00Terry DW
Or there is not enough atmosphere above...Terry DW<br /><br /><i> Or there is not enough atmosphere above 100,000 feet MSL to create a greenhouse effect. You pick on Mr. D'Aleo without having the facts yourselves. Good luck. You will need it.</i><br /><br />The GHE operates by <b>elevating the altitude of effective emission</b>at the so-called 'top of atmosphere' (TOA).<br /><br />Right where you claim it could not operate at all. I suggest further reading. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-46005143446696361262016-09-08T13:07:48.522+10:002016-09-08T13:07:48.522+10:00Well, this is pretty representative; there's t...Well, this is pretty representative; there's that first couple of sentences, where we get a traditional long-winded non-sequitur. And then there's ' [a]bove 100,000 feet MSL, the amount of atmosphere is measured in parts per million or less', which rather begs the question 'of what?' Followed by 'so what?'<br /><br />What was that meme? Rule one of Dunning Kruger Club - you do not know you are in Dunning Kruger Club.billnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-84592913693162489922016-09-08T09:14:41.759+10:002016-09-08T09:14:41.759+10:00Hi Terry. Welcome to HotWhopper. I'm normally ...Hi Terry. Welcome to HotWhopper. I'm normally fairly tolerant of people's odd beliefs however, because in this case they conflict with the subject of this blog (science), I figure you've lost your way. We are not tolerant of anti-science evangelists here. Try a climate conspiracy blog where you are more likely to find like minds.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-68116961352376956272016-09-08T07:11:17.604+10:002016-09-08T07:11:17.604+10:00The atmosphere is nearly all convective to 60,000 ...The atmosphere is nearly all convective to 60,000 feet MSL (near continual winds and wind shear except at night; and with lightning and related phenomena which continually blends the atmosphere); and occasionally up to 100,000 feet MSL. Meaning supposed greenhouse gases can not act as greenhouse gases. Or they are only gases, can not create greenhouse effect in<br />earths atmosphere. Above 100,000 feet MSL, the amount of atmosphere is measured in parts per million or less. Or there is not enough atmosphere above 100,000 feet MSL to create a greenhouse effect. You pick on Mr. D'Aleo without having the facts yourselves. Good luck. You will need it.<br />email: tdwelander@gmail.comAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17043484909310719289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-31773678213228109512013-06-06T22:29:56.784+10:002013-06-06T22:29:56.784+10:00In the interests of eyesight and sanity, same grap...In the interests of eyesight and sanity, same graph but 5yr running means and without OLS linear fits:<br /><br /><a href="https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/www.moyhu.org/Hx/plotterv2.htm#HxB1?HxG=%5B%5B1900,2012,'SH%20GAT%20and%20UAH%20SH%20TLT',%5B108,78%5D,0,%5B%5D%5D,%5B%5B%5B-1.0526,0.5098%5D,0,0,%5B1979,2000%5D%5D%5D,%5B%5B%5B0,3%5D,16,%5B1,5%5D,0,0%5D,%5B%5B2,2%5D,10,%5B1,5%5D,0,0%5D,%5B%5B1,6%5D,6,%5B1,5%5D,0,0%5D,%5B%5B3,7%5D,8,%5B1,5%5D,0,0%5D%5D%5D" rel="nofollow">SH GAT and SH UAH TLT</a>BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.com