tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post3021539261111935668..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: Ice, Ice, Everywhere and Ne'er A Drop Did MeltEliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-14367056356079963462012-04-14T18:18:18.724-04:002012-04-14T18:18:18.724-04:00> Two great videos
Nice! particularly the firs...> Two great videos<br />Nice! particularly the first part of the second one, with Spencer, and Michaels, admitting the mistake and that it's warming after all.Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-28325068317700390292012-04-14T16:42:36.876-04:002012-04-14T16:42:36.876-04:00Hey, Doc Jay,
Two great videos here, The Day Roy ...Hey, Doc Jay,<br /><br />Two great videos here, <i>The Day Roy Spencer Admitted He Got It wrong</i>. Watch the series.<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9_GM2yJvfk&feature=relmfu<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoEdw9uXpJ0&feature=relmfu<br /><br />TobyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-76050984358535631352012-04-14T10:23:17.759-04:002012-04-14T10:23:17.759-04:00The formula* given by Warren and Brandt to convert...The formula* given by Warren and Brandt to convert from extinction (imaginary index of refraction <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refractive_index" rel="nofollow">described here</a>) to linear absorption coefficient would seem to imply base e for absorption.<br /><br /><br />~@:><br /><br />*used above in the 0.28 => 2500 conversionAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-39577323995761602522012-04-14T01:38:33.756-04:002012-04-14T01:38:33.756-04:00Well color me stoopid.
Another brilliant work of ...Well color me stoopid.<br /><br />Another brilliant work of science and the properties of matter in the real world versus the 'JayCad' "heads in the sand FUD", the 'AJ' "Imaginary/Alchemy Contradiction Science" and the usual 'WUWT/RoyS' "I got bats-in-the-belfry version".<br /><br />Ah, the wonders of edumakation, it always dispels the myths of "Idiocracy" every time! ;)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-66974704957760097012012-04-13T13:20:09.034-04:002012-04-13T13:20:09.034-04:00Gee, Jaybird, last I say, you were doubling down o...Gee, Jaybird, last I say, you were doubling down on posts. I can tell you're nervous about the way things are going 'cause you get all "whistlin' in the graveyard" loquacious.<br /><br />Gonna lie for Jebus some more?<br /><br />Oh, and Jaybird, when are you gonna learn to tell the difference between opinions of NASA and those of scientists exercising their rights of free speech? Too subtle a point for you, you little turd fondler?a_ray_in_dilbert_spacenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-26501710674288218002012-04-13T13:05:49.344-04:002012-04-13T13:05:49.344-04:00Absorption is usually base 10 chemistry wise, but ...Absorption is usually base 10 chemistry wise, but one can check.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-25038912040743366992012-04-13T12:18:25.970-04:002012-04-13T12:18:25.970-04:00"An absorption coefficient of 1 cm-1 means th...<i>"An absorption coefficient of 1 cm-1 means that 90% of the light would be absorbed in 1 cm,"</i><br /><br />It makes no material difference to the argument (since an absorption coefficient of 2500 cm-1 is so large), but shouldn't that actually read "63%"? <br /><br />Under the usual definition (given <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attenuation_coefficient" rel="nofollow">here</a> an absorption coefficient of 1 cm-1, implies that the initial light intensity declines to 1/e in 1 cm, meaning an absorption of 1- 1/e ~= .63 in 1 cm<br /><br />~@:>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-15851640986424287772012-04-13T11:10:21.609-04:002012-04-13T11:10:21.609-04:00Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd.
"So, here's my que...Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd.<br /><br />"So, here's my question: How do idiots like Dr. Jaybird and Doug notknow they're stupid? Hell, not only do they not think they're stupid, they think they're doing science!"<br /><br />ho ho, I have been waiting since Intelligence Squared to see your savior Gavin Schmidt in action. Maybe he needs to take speech classes like James Hansen the next time he goes up against Richard Lindzen.<br /><br />Eli has nothing to lose hiding behind the computer screenAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-69168279039726727612012-04-13T11:07:50.466-04:002012-04-13T11:07:50.466-04:00Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd.
@a_ray_indoctrinated_true_b...Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd.<br /><br />@a_ray_indoctrinated_true_believer<br /><br />Good to know I'm living rent free in your head.<br /><br />Is this what you do when I'm not around, appeal to Eli's authority?<br /><br />That nose is looking awfully brown a_rayAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-24389178161876499922012-04-13T11:04:33.910-04:002012-04-13T11:04:33.910-04:00Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd.
In fact I pretty much agree...Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd.<br /><br />In fact I pretty much agree with Eli here. <br /><br />I think he's a fool to ridicule Roy for questioning temperature adjustments, however. <br /><br />William Connolley repeatedely deleted the medieval warm period from wikipedia.<br /><br />Michael Mann made a fake graph and deleted the medieval warm period.<br /><br />James Hansen has repeatedly adjusted his temperature data and made 1998 warmer than 1934.<br /><br />furthermore, we know that thousands of surface stations have gone off line since 1980.<br /><br />so I think only an idiot wouldn't question the temperature record. <br /><br />I would equate Doug's absurdity to Eli's absurdity, believing in the 400% positive feedback. <br /><br />Can you explain the 400% positive feedback, Eli? I'd really love to see you do that.<br /><br />What's the matter, the doctor got your tongue?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-20074301746941115882012-04-13T03:54:48.493-04:002012-04-13T03:54:48.493-04:00You could have warned us Girma was on that thread....You could have warned us Girma was on that thread. Seriously, I have to repost this particular gem:<br /><br />> This condition is that the input energy into the system is constant. This is not the case for our earth as there is no solar heating of the surface during the night.<br /><br />- Dave HAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-56169841598011696422012-04-12T23:47:33.543-04:002012-04-12T23:47:33.543-04:00Doug Cotton, is the extremist who shares a locked ...Doug Cotton, is the extremist who shares a locked psych ward with the guys who say heat travels thru a vacuum. Doug is however relatively quite well mannered, and is more of a fanatic than a terrorist.Andrew Juddhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17556323062946182741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-92170486609897309022012-04-12T21:52:10.049-04:002012-04-12T21:52:10.049-04:00Well, the level of knowledge and know-how seems pr...Well, the level of knowledge and know-how seems pretty bad over at Roy's Place.<br /><br />Perhaps this breaking news from MIT will make everyone feel better, or NOT!<br /><br /><a href="http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2012/hybrid-copper-gold-nanoparticles-convert-co2.html" rel="nofollow">Hybrid copper-gold nanoparticles convert CO2<br />May reduce greenhouse gas emissions</a><br /><br />Jennifer Chu, MIT News Office<br /><br />Here are a few of the money quotes:<br /><br />"Copper — the stuff of pennies and tea kettles — is also one of the few metals that can turn carbon dioxide into hydrocarbon fuels with relatively little energy. When fashioned into an electrode and stimulated with voltage, copper acts as a strong catalyst, setting off an electrochemical reaction with carbon dioxide that reduces the greenhouse gas to methane or methanol. <br /><br />Various researchers around the world have studied copper’s potential as an energy-efficient means of recycling carbon dioxide emissions in powerplants: Instead of being released into the atmosphere, carbon dioxide would be circulated through a copper catalyst and turned into methane — which could then power the rest of the plant. Such a self-energizing system could vastly reduce greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired and natural-gas-powered plants."<br /><br />“You normally have to put a lot of energy into converting carbon dioxide into something useful,” says Hamad-Schifferli, an associate professor of mechanical engineering and biological engineering. “We demonstrated hybrid copper-gold nanoparticles are much more stable, and have the potential to lower the energy you need for the reaction.” <br /><br />OK then, let me see; ALL we have to do is burn carbon (coal) or methane to make CO2 and water and recover energy. Then with this new process we combine CO2 and water to make methane, which we then burn to recover more energy.<br /><br />Too brilliant for words.<br /><br />Paul K2Paul Klemencichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08152841160175948575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-19104825216644878002012-04-12T21:47:06.061-04:002012-04-12T21:47:06.061-04:00Do these crazy guys even understand that the ice a...Do these crazy guys even understand that the ice and the water in contact with it are both at 0 Celcius. Which means their argument about cold things not absorbing microwaves is dead there and then.<br /><br />Climate FerretAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-31245945190749283602012-04-12T21:40:26.318-04:002012-04-12T21:40:26.318-04:00Hmmm. I am overcome by the desire to perform an ex...Hmmm. I am overcome by the desire to perform an experiment with ice dosed with something that absorbs microwaves. But I am not sure I am willing to sacrifice a microwave oven to prove that I am more physics deficient than Doug.<br /><br />I also read the Claes article after Andrew mentioned it. Seems Claes does not believe in Quantum Theory. So he used the Planck black body, derived from Quantum Theory, and made up some nonsense about thresholds in an attempt to do away with quantum theory. <br /><br />Pure crankery.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-37489262246875695512012-04-12T20:00:14.594-04:002012-04-12T20:00:14.594-04:00Wow, Eli, you should really warn a guy before he s...Wow, Eli, you should really warn a guy before he steps into a pile of flaming stupid.<br /><br />So, here's my question: How do idiots like Dr. Jaybird and Doug notknow they're stupid? Hell, not only do they not think they're stupid, they think they're doing science!<br /><br />Were they homeshooled by indulgent parents? Are they secretly the love children of Kim Il Sung who grew up with poor peasants begging to smell their sh*t at the point of a bayonet? Was it all some cruel practical joke by a sadistic father? As in: "(sotto voce) Watch this. (calling out) Doug, why don't you show father Calhoun how you've disproved Einstein's theory of relativity. (snicker, snicker)"<br /><br />Maybe that's what we get with an educational system that worries more about self esteem than competence.a_ray_in_dilbert_spacenoreply@blogger.com