tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post5238533879460211776..comments2024-02-12T15:25:44.028+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Sack Australia's biggest laughing stock, Maurice Newman! His denier wackiness is resurrected at WUWTSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger95125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-37867008527008083222014-08-18T22:05:21.393+10:002014-08-18T22:05:21.393+10:00Mack cannot be as stupid as (s)he pretends to be. ...<i>Mack cannot be as stupid as (s)he pretends to be. This is all a game (s)he's playing, surely?</i><br /><br />Oh yeah, it's a game all right. It's called:<br /><br /><a href="http://climateball.wordpress.com/about/" rel="nofollow">Climateball™ - The Only Losing Move is Not to Play</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-11515523608283214932014-08-18T08:32:03.034+10:002014-08-18T08:32:03.034+10:00Mack cannot be as stupid as (s)he pretends to be. ...Mack cannot be as stupid as (s)he pretends to be. This is all a game (s)he's playing, surely?<br /><br />We are used to GH deniers, even to CO2 deniers, but geometry deniers???TrueScepticnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-11574410894175437512014-08-18T03:56:53.783+10:002014-08-18T03:56:53.783+10:00"Is it just me, or do deniers seem to have an..."Is it just me, or do deniers seem to have an uncanny ability to make complete and utter fools of themselves? Are all deniers as stupid..."<br /><br />What makes this such a gem is that is way beyond merely stupid. OK, so Mack can't get his head around some basic physics/geometry that is around the 12 year old level: that is most certainly stupid. But what makes this so far out there is that he actually thinks that this trivial crap is misunderstood by every prestigious scientific body on the planet: he thinks he is cleverer than the combined wisdom of the Royal Society, the National Academy of Sciences, etc etc. Thats why I'd say he's really into Nurse Ratched territory.Millicentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-11350377015241475612014-08-18T00:56:10.213+10:002014-08-18T00:56:10.213+10:00Sou, this has to be one of the funniest threads. ...Sou, this has to be one of the funniest threads. I have a question - can you put something in the Hot Whoppery without deleting? Specifically, Mack's post that starts with "Cloud point, 2 points" is absolutely hilarious. The idea that the Earth has no night because it's flat or light bends or who knows what...really, this is classic material. You can't make that up! Mack didn't get so out of whack as to have his comments deleted, but that specific comment merits being doubly preserved.Joenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-86156593170816157782014-08-17T22:28:37.339+10:002014-08-17T22:28:37.339+10:00Mack (OK, I admit, maybe more meant for those who ...Mack (OK, I admit, maybe more meant for those who actually have a clue or actually want to learn), whether you use TOA or the earth's surface makes little difference (the radius increase by much less than a %).<br /><br />For those who don't understand what Mack doesns't understand, it is two things:<br />1) at any point in time about half of the earth does not receive any sunlight, and<br />2) the earth's curvature means that the solar irradation is distributed over a larger area as we go further away from the point that is directly facing the sun. A few pictures to visualize are here:<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insolation#mediaviewer/File:Seasons.too.png<br />and<br />http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/slides/climate/insolation_adg.gif<br /><br />For those who enjoy equations, see:<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insolation and look at the section on distribution<br /><br />In other words, if the total solar irradiance is x Joules per square meter, the irradiance falling on the earth's surface is not this same x Joules per square meter. At any point in time half the earth gets none, the rest gets an amount depending on the latitude and the time-of-day, and only for a very tiny part of the earth it is x Joules per square meter (I ignore albedo for a moment).<br /><br />Or, most simply expressed here:<br />http://www.azimuthproject.org/azimuth/show/Solar+radiation<br />"Because the radiation hits the Earth at an angle, and not at all at night, the average global power density is 342 W/m2 at the top of the atmosphere. This is one quarter of 1366 W/m2, since the area of a sphere is four times the area of its circular shadow."<br /><br />You can visualize this yourself as follows: take a tennisball and measure its diameter. Cut a piece of thin paper into a square with the sides the same size as this measured diameter. Now wrap the paper onto the tennisball and see how much area it covers. It should be about one quarter. The paper is the incoming energy of the sun per unit area. Et voilà, an explanation why the so-called TSI of around 1366 W/m2 translates to about 342 W/m2 irradiance on the earth.<br /><br />Note that this TSI depends on the distance from the sun. So, while in principle all planets have an average distribution that is 1/4 of the incoming TSI, the amount is not the same, because TSI is a function of the distance from the sun (which also means that TSI is not constant over a year, since the distance from the sun is not constant over a year) - we're talking average values here).Marconoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-20598100025073405972014-08-17T22:25:40.459+10:002014-08-17T22:25:40.459+10:00Mach wrote.
"Reality is , the 1360w/sq.m IS t...Mach wrote.<br />"Reality is , the 1360w/sq.m IS the incident solar radiation. It should be regarded as non-directional, covering the whole globe at the TOA."<br /><br />Your reality is only true if the entire earth was flat. But of course, we all know it isn't. <br /><br />To calculate the average solar insolation over the globe at TOA you MUST divide it by 4. This is where the 340W/m2 comes in. To calculate the energy received at the surface, you must then also multiply it by 0.7 as on average about 30% of the energy is reflected. This is the albedo. The end result is 240W/m2<br /><br />To remain at equilibrium, the earth must then dump this 240W/m2 into space. Otherwise it would either continue to cool until it was a lump of ice, or continue to heat until it fried.<br /><br />The calculation to determine the temperature at 240W/m2 is the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. It gives a temperature of -18C. Of course, if the earth's average temperature was -18C, it would be a giant block of ice. Since the earth is NOT a giant block of ice, something met be raising the temperature. The answer. The greenhouse effect.<br />For information check this out.<br />http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2002Q4/211/notes_greenhouse.html<br /><br />Of course, this is just the theory. What about the observations.<br /><br />Well, we have these neat things called satellites. They are able to measure the earth's radiance. And what do they observe. Yep, you guessed it. The greenhouse effect.<br /><br />You can see it for yourself here.<br />http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/<br /><br />But go on. Deny basic math, physics and observations. It sure is fun to watch. You might as well be denying that you have a nose on your face.<br /><br />(Is it just me, or do deniers seem to have an uncanny ability to make complete and utter fools of themselves? Are all deniers as stupid, witless and inept as Mack, or is he just a special case?)Davenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-73026960112041580942014-08-17T21:00:41.530+10:002014-08-17T21:00:41.530+10:00"I guess they could be those climate elves th..."I guess they could be those climate elves that fix everything in the denialosphere."<br /><br />I was beginning to think that that Climate Elves are necessary to Mack's "Theory of Impossibly Uniform Solar Insolation". They might be scooping up buckets of warmyness that are missing the planet and throwing it at the parts of the earth's surface that are not getting enough sunlight.Millicentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-17159978166869942302014-08-17T20:56:35.971+10:002014-08-17T20:56:35.971+10:00Nurse Ratchett is calling for you Mack?Nurse Ratchett is calling for you Mack?Millicentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-23537459452243867272014-08-17T20:14:27.544+10:002014-08-17T20:14:27.544+10:00Don't worry now Sou, you can relax, You've...Don't worry now Sou, you can relax, You've got rid of me for the moment. Thanking you for allowing my comments. With a bit of luck I could stay out of the Hot Whoppery with further comments although I'll confess the Hot Woppings were beginning to grow on me. Macknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-54913323561621251982014-08-17T19:57:13.102+10:002014-08-17T19:57:13.102+10:00"What part of "...non- directional, cove...<i>"What part of "...non- directional, covering the whole GLOBE at the TOA" do you not understand?"</i><br /><br />Well Mack I did not understand "TOA". But I soon remedied that with a search and I now know:<br /><br />TOA , a fictional race of beings made by the Lego toy company.<br /><br />I guess they could be those climate elves that fix everything in the denialosphere.<br /><br />By the way I recommend the idea of searching to you as a good way of asking and answering questions when you want to study a subject.<br /><br />Jammy Dodgernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-40972959855814306472014-08-17T19:35:07.211+10:002014-08-17T19:35:07.211+10:00No point in talking to Mack directly, but I wonder...No point in talking to Mack directly, but I wonder if he's trying to argue that earth is round and the light from the sun bends around the round earth, so no part of earth is ever in darkness. It makes as much (non) sense as any other stab at a Mack-interpretation.<br /><br />I wonder how he explains the phases of the moon. Though given he's got rid of the inconvenient night on earth, then getting rid of the entire moon would pose no problem for him.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-6990369532022643392014-08-17T19:28:21.753+10:002014-08-17T19:28:21.753+10:00No flat earth Marco. What part of "...non- d...No flat earth Marco. What part of "...non- directional, covering the whole GLOBE at the TOA" do you not understand? Macknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-31951360971641515162014-08-17T18:21:53.391+10:002014-08-17T18:21:53.391+10:00Keep digging, Mack. Shenton also believes in evolu...Keep digging, Mack. Shenton also believes in evolution (gasp!), so there are *two* things he and I have in common about modern science.<br /><br />Of course, Shenton went as far as stating that climate change "is at least partially influenced by human industrialisation", which puts him in the same category as Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer.<br /><br />The fact remains that you invoked a flat earth in your attempt to criticize greenhouse theory. That makes Shenton less(!!) fringe than you, which should make any sane person consider whether he really is out of his depth. Not you, apparently...<br />Marconoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-6394778508144279272014-08-17T18:19:26.194+10:002014-08-17T18:19:26.194+10:00OK Mack, I have to give it to you. You did not cut...OK Mack, I have to give it to you. You did not cut-and-paste this from some science denying website. You actually made it up yourself? <br /><br />This wouldn't be bad if it was someone's first attempt at testing the theory when they did not quite understand it and they were 10 years old. But you should now go to the next level and actually make an attempt to compare what you are thinking with the theory. And with reality while you are at it.<br /><br />BTW the earth IS a blackbody radiator. It is just not a perfect black body radiator. But I expect that was what you meant to say.<br /><br />(Wow, those capitalised ISes sure make my point more ISish!)<br /><br /> <br /><br />Jammy Dodgernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-12714809080465870712014-08-17T17:14:29.382+10:002014-08-17T17:14:29.382+10:00This is so funny. Thanks Mack: a demonstration th...This is so funny. Thanks Mack: a demonstration that climate change deniers have the mentality of a small child is always fun to see. And every single prestigious scientific body on the planet cannot understand your argument because?<br /><br />btw: using capitals on IS doesnt make things any more ...erm... ISish. Its still gobshite. So its a flat earth or else the earth is a globe at the centre of the sun (which is a hollow shell). I will phone up the astronomers at once dear.Millicentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-62304835649277501522014-08-17T17:07:34.646+10:002014-08-17T17:07:34.646+10:00he he. Yep. Mack's a unidirectional perpetuall...he he. Yep. Mack's a unidirectional perpetually solar facing flat earther, plus he must sleep through the night since he doesn't know that the sun doesn't shine 24-7. And he must live a long way from the polar regions.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-72839475981366575762014-08-17T17:03:40.762+10:002014-08-17T17:03:40.762+10:00 Well Marco, The president of the flat earth socie... Well Marco, The president of the flat earth society, when interviewed, says he believes in AGW. So that puts you in good company.Macknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-4509465328710770552014-08-17T16:41:01.608+10:002014-08-17T16:41:01.608+10:00And the reason every single prestigious scientific...And the reason every single prestigious scientific body on this planet cannot understand Mack's argument - which is on the level of a twelve year old - is?Millicentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-34860537565369165502014-08-17T16:14:55.836+10:002014-08-17T16:14:55.836+10:00LOL! Not only is Mack a greenhouse denier, he'...LOL! Not only is Mack a greenhouse denier, he's also a member of the flat earth society.Marconoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-73415768285859303472014-08-17T16:03:26.453+10:002014-08-17T16:03:26.453+10:00Cloud point,
2 points...firstly, that base temper... Cloud point,<br /> 2 points...firstly, that base temperature is some temperature (not real) calculated up by you from an imaginary Earth being regarded as a blackbody radiator. Reality is...the Earth is not a blackbody radiator. It has an absorptivity/emissivity of 0.82 which is a real and careful measurement of the hydrosphere,biosphere,lithosphere and cryosphere. It is not just 1 T.<br />Secondly...Andrew Lacis, ( like all the rest) ,says "This puts the global-mean incident solar energy at 340.2 w/sq,m." No it doesn't cloudpoint.<br />The 1360w/sq.m is a yearly global average, and is a bulk load which cannot be buggerised round with and divided down. You can't just pick one instant in time and say the Earth casts a shadow , therefore this and that are calculated. The sun shines over your head also at nightime when you deal with this average. Reality is , the 1360w/sq.m IS the incident solar radiation. It should be regarded as non-directional, covering the whole globe at the TOA. Macknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-15049962302985070072014-08-17T14:55:15.981+10:002014-08-17T14:55:15.981+10:00Mack,
255K or -18°C is the base temperature of th...Mack,<br /><br />255K or -18°C is the base temperature of the earth at its present distance from the sun (its black body temperature). The GHE adds 33K to this base, giving us 288K or +15°C. This is completely accepted physics. If the GHE did not increase the temperature of the earth to livable conditions, please explain what did. I’ll let Dr. Andrew Lacis of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies educate you about insolation.<br /><br />Andrew Lacis: What is it that determines the terrestrial climate and how it changes?<br /><br />The input solar energy to the climate system has been accurately measured over several decades. Its annual-mean value is 1360.8 W/m2 with an 11-year sunspot cycle variability by about 1 W/m2 (Kopp and Lean, 2011). This puts the global-mean incident solar energy at 340.2 W/m2. However, what actually defines the SW forcing (for a 0.3 global albedo) is the amount of solar energy that is absorbed by the climate system. This, for the sake of this discussion, we will take as being equal to 240 W/m2.<br /><br />http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2014/05/28/lacis-what-is-it-that-determines-the-terrestrial-climate-and-how-it-changes/<br />cloudpointhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17910177324392936840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-65393124153073663552014-08-17T14:23:32.366+10:002014-08-17T14:23:32.366+10:00OK, fair enough, you guys want to know why this &q... OK, fair enough, you guys want to know why this "greenhouse" theory is crap? well here's the first thing....Your quack "greenhouse" theory, which is feed to all the kids starting from about 11 or 12 yrs of age at schools, states that the atmosphere surrounds the Earth like a blanket and stops it freezing to death. In other words, the ATMOSPHERE stops the oceans from becoming one frozen ball. The sheer lunacy of this concept is not registered in young receptive,innocent ears when delivered by the authoritative teacher. What you need is just one kid to stand up in class and say..."excuse me sir, wouldn't the SUN stop the oceans from freezing?' Isn't it the sun stupid?"<br />And yes Millicent..."every single prestigious scientific body on this planet has been been taken in" by the "greenhouse" effect. A huge deceptive mistake of monumental proportions in the incoming solar radiation. ..the responsibility of Trenberth, a kiwi, I'm ashamed to say.<br />All his looney Earth Energy Budget cartoons depicting your quack <br />"greenhouse" theory show an incoming solar radiation of about 340w/sq.m. when in fact, the reality is , it is about 1360 w/sq.m.<br /> So you clowns need to harden the f. up and get real.Macknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-10902125527086264752014-08-17T09:25:14.860+10:002014-08-17T09:25:14.860+10:00Anyone who thinks engaging with Mack isn't a w...Anyone who thinks engaging with Mack <i>isn't</i> a waste of time should browse for comments made eponymously, or by 'sunspot', or by his truly creepy incarnation as 'Karen', at Deltoid.<br /><br />We're talking pure troll here. With <i>issues</i>. <br /><br />And one of the ones where describing them as 'dumb as a bag of hammers' is an insult to hardware.billnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-65967492054823807532014-08-17T07:32:41.701+10:002014-08-17T07:32:41.701+10:00Hey Mack, maybe you should read that SoD article t...Hey Mack, maybe you should read that SoD article that I linked to at the top of this sub-thread. In fact, the solution to the thought experiment that SoD posed to Bryan explains exactly why the greenhouse effect *has to be there*. It's not just some artefact of a so-called "piece of crap science".<br /><br />Oh, but of course... we've seen you waving around your ignorance on the subject like a badge of honour in a previous post. So why should we expect you to actually read anything for comprehension? You just dismiss the science out of hand anyway because it conflicts with your ideology. Pfft.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-67986925622153899942014-08-17T06:47:27.901+10:002014-08-17T06:47:27.901+10:00But its not just Pekka, its every single prestigio...But its not just Pekka, its every single prestigious scientific body on this planet who have been 'taken in by the greenhouse effect'. So Mack actually thinks he is a better scientist than every leading scientist out there. We are in the presence of a towering intellect. Or a prick.Millicentnoreply@blogger.com