There is no Climate Emergency !

[Sunsettommy]

Apparently, you don't know what "comparing apples to oranges" means ...

Since you need help, I'll dumb it down.

You tried to compare the sensible heat energy of air to the latent energy of the same amount of water vapor.

However, since water vapor averages about 0.5% of the atmosphere, that's an apples vs. oranges comparison. An apples vs. apples comparison would have been comparing the sensible heat stored in air to the latent heat stored in a that typical amount of water vapor. That is, you should have divided your latent heat result by 200. You didn't do that, and thus your comparison was senseless.

You're welcome.

Yes, I understand when I quote you I'm posting something stupid ... that's why I put quotes around your stupidity ...

So now you're claiming I actually said "energy transfer has nothing to do with energy transfer".

You're assigning faked quotes to me. Quote faking is very uncool, and by engaging in such deliberate dishonesty, you've admitted you can't debate me.

We have 1,000 watts landing on this particular square meter of ocean ... does a kilogram air gain 10ºC per second, or does 1 half gram of water evaporate?

You pooched the math, being off by a factor of 10. The air would gain 1C per second, if all that energy went into the air.

This isn't a debate. You've been making the claim that sensible heat transfer is totally insignificant compared to latent heat transfer. You're wrong. Latent heat is the bigger effect, but sensible heat is significant. The 2009 Trenberth diagram shows latent heat averaging at 17 W/m^2, latent at 90 W/m^2. That's exactly like I've been saying. I've been right the whole time, and for inexplicable reasons, that triggers you.

Math is hard,

A helpful hint: Before you call someone else stupid, double check your work first.

even harder for liberals ...

You blew it. You were supposed to pretend that it wasn't right wing political beliefs causing you you to say dumb things. Now that cat's out of the bag.

Your chart is YEARS out of date, gave you TWO newer updated one, yet you ignore those.....

 

[mamooth]

Your chart is YEARS out of date, gave you TWO newer updated one, yet you ignore those.....

And the minor changes don't change my point in any way. Sensible heat is still a significant mover of heat in the atmosphere.

And I'm always going to use the original 2009 Trenberth diagram over a WUWT revision, since nothing from WUWT is reliable.

So why did you feel the need to jump in and whimper about charts at me here? Did you want to relive your humiliation? The funny part was how your revision shows more backradiation, meaning a growing effect from greenhouse gases. At least by your way of thinking, that is. I'd say it's just data getting more precise over the years, and not physical changes, but that's just me being rational. You're the one claiming the changes between revisions are due to physical changes in the atmosphere, so by your standards and your chart, the greenhouse effect is increasing.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Your chart is YEARS out of date, gave you TWO newer updated one, yet you ignore those.....

And the minor changes don't change my point in any way. Sensible heat is still a significant mover of heat in the atmosphere.

And I'm always going to use the original 2009 Trenberth diagram over a WUWT revision, since nothing from WUWT is reliable.

So why did you feel the need to jump in and whimper about charts at me here? Did you want to relive your humiliation? The funny part was how your revision shows more backradiation, meaning a growing effect from greenhouse gases. At least by your way of thinking, that is. I'd say it's just data getting more precise over the years, and not physical changes, but that's just me being rational. You're the one claiming the changes between revisions are due to physical changes in the atmosphere, so by your standards and your chart, the greenhouse effect is increasing.

Bwahahahahahahaha!!!

You really can't remember shit, it was just four weeks ago I posted the Updated Trenberth chart and the NASA chart, you got mad from the I beating gave you in this THREAD:

POST 128

You haven't answered this question, despite asking you SEVERAL times:

There is one set of new updated numbers showing that GHG's footprint gets a lot smaller over time as they updated the chart Global Energy Flows. Can you spot it, Mamooth?

I gave you a BIG hint at POST 143, you still didn't answer.....

 

[ReinyDays]

Since you need help, I'll dumb it down.
You tried to compare the sensible heat energy of air to the latent energy of the same amount of water vapor.

Yes, this is required when we apply the three laws of thermodynamics ... energy must be conserved ...

I suspected, and now you've confirmed, that you're using the early 18th Century theory of the Caloric ... how alchemists explained things ... this ancient theory proved to be worthless by the beginning of the 19th Century and we moved into the theory of thermodynamics ...

No ... sensible heat isn't conserved ... and this is why your ideas about future climate fail ... and why you insist on the "apples to oranges" comparison, you've cleverly avoided complying with conservation laws ... you know better, thus you're being outright deceptive ...

I make mistakes, I'm honest enough of a poster to admit them ... I've never said I'm a expert at meteorology, I took a class is all ... I know enough to never dismiss the on-going change-in-state of water in our atmosphere ... sublimation, melting, evaporation, condensation, freezing and deposition all occur all the time in most of the air, with the only exception being a cloud-free condition ...

Quarterlies are due on Monday, just habit to shift the decimal point to the left ... when you grow up you'll understand ... or not, it's not a thing the Middle Class lowlifes ever come across ...

As an easy kitchen counter demonstration of how wrong you are ... take a pint of liquid water at 100ºC and add a pint of ice at 0ºC ... let the system come to equilibrium and check the temperature ... amazing eh? ... sensible heat isn't conserved at all ... not only is the system at 0ºC, there's still 3 oz of ice left ...

 

[mamooth]

Yes, this is required when we apply the three laws of thermodynamics ... energy must be conserved ...

That's just the first law.

I suspected, and now you've confirmed, that you're using the early 18th Century theory of the Caloric ... how alchemists explained things ... this ancient theory proved to be worthless by the beginning of the 19th Century and we moved into the theory of thermodynamics ...

Yes, yes, you can't debate what I actually say, so that forces to you invent insane stories about what I supposedly said. It seems like a lot of work on your part just to get humiliated.

No ... sensible heat isn't conserved ...

Why would you think sensible heat is conserved? After all, since I never said or implied any such thing, it has to be your idea.

and this is why your ideas about future climate fail ... and why you insist on the "apples to oranges" comparison, you've cleverly avoided complying with conservation laws ... you know better, thus you're being outright deceptive ...

Lying about what I supposedly said and then calling _me_ deceptive makes you look hypocritical as well as dishonest.

As an easy kitchen counter demonstration of how wrong you are ... take a pint of liquid water at 100ºC and add a pint of ice at 0ºC ... let the system come to equilibrium and check the temperature ... amazing eh? ... sensible heat isn't conserved at all ... not only is the system at 0ºC, there's still 3 oz of ice left ...

Why in glub's name do you tell this fable that supposedly said sensible heat was conserved? Are you that stupid, or are you that dishonest? I don't see any other options. In either case, it means you're not worth anyone's time.

 

[mamooth]

You really can't remember shit, it was just four weeks ago I posted the Updated Trenberth chart and the NASA chart, you got mad from the I beating gave you in this THREAD:

That was fun. You ranted. You declared victory. You just couldn't make any coherent point. Me, I have no trouble making direct and clear points. Take a lesson.

You haven't answered this question, despite asking you SEVERAL times:

That's because your question was like "Why is eight smaller than four?". Your question is invalid because it doesn't address reality.

There is one set of new updated numbers showing that GHG's footprint gets a lot smaller over time as they updated the chart Global Energy Flows. Can you spot it, Mamooth?

v1, backradiation is 333, v2, backradiation is 340. Backradiation is increasing, hence the effect of greenhouse gases is increasing.

That was easy. Why are you incapable seeing something so basic?

That's using your incorrect premise that the difference between v1 and v2 was due to changes over time in the atmosphere and not measurement refinements, which is not the case. So, your reasoning faceplants in two completely separate and spectacular ways.

I gave you a BIG hint at POST 143, you still didn't answer.....

If you know the answer, why don't you just tell us? Oh, that's right. You don't know the answer to your own question. It's a bluff you tried, and you got called on it, so now you're flailing. What, you thought it wasn't obvious?

If you want to continue the discussion, address why you mistook measurement refinements for a time step, and why you couldn't figure out that more backradiation meant more GHG effects.

 

[ReinyDays]

Yes, this is required when we apply the three laws of thermodynamics ... energy must be conserved ...

That's just the first law.

I suspected, and now you've confirmed, that you're using the early 18th Century theory of the Caloric ... how alchemists explained things ... this ancient theory proved to be worthless by the beginning of the 19th Century and we moved into the theory of thermodynamics ...

Yes, yes, you can't debate what I actually say, so that forces to you invent insane stories about what I supposedly said. It seems like a lot of work on your part just to get humiliated.

No ... sensible heat isn't conserved ...

Why would you think sensible heat is conserved? After all, since I never said or implied any such thing, it has to be your idea.

and this is why your ideas about future climate fail ... and why you insist on the "apples to oranges" comparison, you've cleverly avoided complying with conservation laws ... you know better, thus you're being outright deceptive ...

Lying about what I supposedly said and then calling _me_ deceptive makes you look hypocritical as well as dishonest.

As an easy kitchen counter demonstration of how wrong you are ... take a pint of liquid water at 100ºC and add a pint of ice at 0ºC ... let the system come to equilibrium and check the temperature ... amazing eh? ... sensible heat isn't conserved at all ... not only is the system at 0ºC, there's still 3 oz of ice left ...

Why in glub's name do you tell this fable that supposedly said sensible heat was conserved? Are you that stupid, or are you that dishonest? I don't see any other options. In either case, it means you're not worth anyone's time.

You sure are cute when you desperately backtrack ... you said air is the convector of energy in dry areas ... and that's because it feels hotter ... sensible heat ... pretty funny ... twist and turn little boy ... go cry to mama ...

It was the "apples to oranges" comment you made that exposed your ignorance ... inferring we can't mix sensible heat with latent heat ... I'll give you credit, you didn't violate the 3rd law ...

You sure are quick to accuse others of dishonesty ... why is that foremost on your mind right now? ... ha ha ha ha ...

 

[mamooth]

you said air is the convector of energy in dry areas ...

Any non-moron would say that, since moisture can't move latent heat upwards if there is no moisture. Why do you have such trouble with such a simple concept? How is moisture supposed to move energy if there is no moisture?

and that's because it feels hotter

Why do you think dry air moves more energy because it feels hotter? After all, I said or implied nothing like that, so it has to be you who came up with that weird idea.

It was the "apples to oranges" comment you made that exposed your ignorance ... inferring we can't mix sensible heat with latent heat

First, learn English. The speaker implies, the listener infers. You're doing a lot of stupid inferring here, a result of your general inability to read and understand.

Second, obviously I implied no such thing, ever. If you inferred it, it's because you're an imbecile. Don't infer. Read what I say.

As I explained specifically, the apples vs. oranges comment was about you comparing heat capacity of air to the latent heat of water vapor _at the same density as air_, even though water vapor is generally around at 0.5% of the density as air. "Oranges" is your claimed latent heat level, while "apples" is the latent heat level in the real world.

If you need that dumbed down further, I'll require payment/ We'll clearly have to go all the way back to the fundamentals with you, and that will take a long time. I educate those willing to learn for free, but the willfully ignorant have to pay.

 

[ReinyDays]

There's no moisture on the surface of the ocean ... that's funny ...

 

[mamooth]

There's no moisture on the surface of the ocean ... that's funny ...

Why are you saying there's no moisture on the surface of the ocean? Do you understand how insane you sound when you make claims like that?

Now, I'm very clear about what I say ... and you always ignore my very clear statements. Instead, you respond to some insane thing that you _inferred_. You're just having your own little imaginary conversation.

 

[ReinyDays]

Now, I'm very clear about what I say ...

Except you don't say anything ... too frightened to be wrong ...

 

[Sunsettommy]

Now, I'm very clear about what I say ...

Except you don't say anything ... too frightened to be wrong ...

He is NEVER wrong, that is why he is often wrong and why he moves the goalpost a lot.

 

[mamooth]

Except you don't say anything ... too frightened to be wrong ...

Welcome to my gang of pout-stalkers, the ones who spend their days crying about how meeeeaaaaan I am.

Me, I'll keep stalking about the science. I'd still like to know why you said there's no moisture on the surface of the ocean.

Billy, do you agree that there's no moisture on the surface of the ocean?

 

[ReinyDays]

... I'll keep stalking about the science ...

Like a Peeping Tom? ... trying to catch the girls with their lab coats open? ... there's a reason they cinch those down when you're around ...

 

[whitehall]

Climate "scientists" aren't much different from lawyers. It's all about the almighty dollar. A lawyer will take the side of the client in spite of overwhelming evidence. As a matter of fact many times lawyers will hire "experts" to testify on behalf of their client while prosecutors will hire "experts" in the same field with the opposite opinion. As long as there is a lot of money in the "global warming" field you can find a "scientist" who will fudge data to keep the money flowing.

 

[ReinyDays]

Climate "scientists" aren't much different from lawyers. It's all about the almighty dollar. A lawyer will take the side of the client in spite of overwhelming evidence. As a matter of fact many times lawyers will hire "experts" to testify on behalf of their client while prosecutors will hire "experts" in the same field with the opposite opinion. As long as there is a lot of money in the "global warming" field you can find a "scientist" who will fudge data to keep the money flowing.

I'm not so sure that's true for the scientists themselves ... only a few are paid to read the scripts written by Alarmists ...

There's not that much extra money going into the research ... just the same money is being redirected into climate research and away from weather research ... these scientists have a job no matter which they're working on ... we're starting to see some push-back on this ... some researchers are beginning to complain that better weather forecasts save more lives, especially tornado forecasts ... tornadoes and hurricanes will cause more damage and human misery in the next 12 months than all the sea level rise will over the next 100 years ... folks don't generally sit on the ocean edge long enough for the sea to drown them, once their blanket gets wet, they tend to move ... basic human nature ...

I do think all this new climate research is of great benefit ... even if we prove climate change is a hoax tomorrow, we will still continue researching climate ... we will still be paying scientists to conduct experiments ... the money will still flow ... no one researches science to get rich ... folks become investment bankers to do that ...

Let's rewind a bit ... remember the Asteroid Attacks hysteria? ... astronomers got busy and mapped out all the space objects that could impact Earth with catastrophic consequences ... turns out we seem to be completely clear for the next 300 years and it's highly probable we're clear for the next 3,000 years ... whew ... AND we have a much much clearer idea of what the composition of our solar system is, invaluable for deducing how our solar system came to be and how it changed over these billions of years ... which in turn tells us how we came to be ... important information if we want to find life elsewhere in the universe ...

I think in 30 years we'll be at the same point ... meteorologists will have been busy and have dismissed any climate catastrophe ... AND we'll have a far far better understanding of the climate system ... essential for better weather forecasting ... and we'll be able to get people an extra 2 minutes warning before their house gets swept away by a tornado ... or an extra 12 hours before flood waters wash them into the ocean ... saving lives ...

More research is always better ... at a time when we've gone $10 trillion in debt in six months, the few billions spent on climate is nothing ...

 

[Sunsettommy]

I agree with this part:

I'm not so sure that's true for the scientists themselves ... only a few are paid to read the scripts written by Alarmists ...

However, those few have been allowed to exert a lot of undeserved influence, they are very well paid for it. It doesn't take many corrupt scientists to promote a false narrative that fills the worlds newspapers. The propaganda they push over and over, the demonstrated misleading and lies they provide to a mostly science illiterate compliant crowd.

It doesn't take many high positions to exert that influence either, DR. Hansen was Director of NASA, DR. Schmidt is current Director of NASA, both are frauds on temperature data, which are obviously being tampered over and over, their own charts the publish over the years shows it well. They have incessantly pushed the overblown AGW conjecture hard to the media and their ignorant fans. NASA website is full bore misleading global warming propaganda, written carefully to fool warmists/alarmists easily, but not people with some science literacy skills.

Dr. Mann lead IPCC scientist for his blatantly dishonest "Hockey Stick" paper, that was later roundly exposed as statistical garbage, but the damage was done, since many warmist/alarmists have fallen for that lie, they defend that shit paper to this day, not realizing the academia world has since dropped it.

Meanwhile hardly any good science papers are being published by warmists, because of their insistence to the propaganda line, while there is a flood of good science papers published that doesn't support the AGW conjecture much if at all. But that reality gets ignored by warmist/alarmists who now rely mostly from Media propaganda bullcrap to maintain their CO2 is hurting us delusion.]

 

[whitehall]

I'm not so sure that's true for the scientists themselves ... only a few are paid to read the scripts written by Alarmists ...

There's not that much extra money going into the research ... just the same money is being redirected into climate research and away from weather research ... these scientists have a job no matter which they're working on ... we're starting to see some push-back on this ... some researchers are beginning to complain that better weather forecasts save more lives, especially tornado forecasts ... tornadoes and hurricanes will cause more damage and human misery in the next 12 months than all the sea level rise will over the next 100 years ... folks don't generally sit on the ocean edge long enough for the sea to drown them, once their blanket gets wet, they tend to move ... basic human nature ...

I do think all this new climate research is of great benefit ... even if we prove climate change is a hoax tomorrow, we will still continue researching climate ... we will still be paying scientists to conduct experiments ... the money will still flow ... no one researches science to get rich ... folks become investment bankers to do that ...

Let's rewind a bit ... remember the Asteroid Attacks hysteria? ... astronomers got busy and mapped out all the space objects that could impact Earth with catastrophic consequences ... turns out we seem to be completely clear for the next 300 years and it's highly probable we're clear for the next 3,000 years ... whew ... AND we have a much much clearer idea of what the composition of our solar system is, invaluable for deducing how our solar system came to be and how it changed over these billions of years ... which in turn tells us how we came to be ... important information if we want to find life elsewhere in the universe ...

I think in 30 years we'll be at the same point ... meteorologists will have been busy and have dismissed any climate catastrophe ... AND we'll have a far far better understanding of the climate system ... essential for better weather forecasting ... and we'll be able to get people an extra 2 minutes warning before their house gets swept away by a tornado ... or an extra 12 hours before flood waters wash them into the ocean ... saving lives ...

More research is always better ... at a time when we've gone $10 trillion in debt in six months, the few billions spent on climate is nothing ...

A lawyer has a law degree but a "climate scientist" can be anyone who works in the environmental field. There is no legal definition for the term "scientist". Lawyers will defend a case to their best ability as long as the client pays the fee but "climate "scientists" do not have to face legal scrutiny and they don't exist without federal and international extortion funding mostly based on political agenda.

 

[ReinyDays]

A lawyer has a law degree but a "climate scientist" can be anyone who works in the environmental field. There is no legal definition for the term "scientist". Lawyers will defend a case to their best ability as long as the client pays the fee but "climate "scientists" do not have to face legal scrutiny and they don't exist without federal and international extortion funding mostly based on political agenda.

Climatologist have a degree in climatology (or atmospheric science) ... claiming you have a college degree when you don't can be considered fraud in some cases ...

Climatology is traditionally a backwater field for students who struggled through two years of calculus ... the idea of a third year of calculus required for dynamic meteorology is out of the question ... so these kids can take another year of stats and finish their degree in climatology ... so not the smartest people in the world ...

Some jurisdictions don't always require a law degree to be a lawyer ... just passing the bar exams and you're a lawyer ...

 

[whitehall]

A lawyer has a law degree but a "climate scientist" can be anyone who works in the environmental field. There is no legal definition for the term "scientist". Lawyers will defend a case to their best ability as long as the client pays the fee but "climate "scientists" do not have to face legal scrutiny and they don't exist without federal and international extortion funding mostly based on political agenda.

Climatologist have a degree in climatology (or atmospheric science) ... claiming you have a college degree when you don't can be considered fraud in some cases ...

Climatology is traditionally a backwater field for students who struggled through two years of calculus ... the idea of a third year of calculus required for dynamic meteorology is out of the question ... so these kids can take another year of stats and finish their degree in climatology ... so not the smartest people in the world ...

Some jurisdictions don't always require a law degree to be a lawyer ... just passing the bar exams and you're a lawyer ...

The point is that it is generally acknowledged that lawyers and law firms are hired guns who will advocate for any issue and any client with enough funding. Likewise so-called "forensic experts" hired by law firms will argue on behalf of the law firm that hires him/her. It's no secret that psychologists and psychiatrists will testify to the mental incompetence or the mental acuity of persons depending on which side they work for. The "theory" of man made global warming is the biggest cash cow in the history of political science and colleges and universities depend on federal grants associated with the issue. Why wouldn't they fudge data?