Scroll To Top
~

 

 

 

Whoppers from 2016 and 2017...

This page is for comments that have been HotWhoppered in 2016 and 2017. To see older HotWhoppered comments, click here for 2015 and for older ones click here. If you are feeling masochistic and you're 18 or older, you can peruse the uncensored version of the HotWhoppery. For the HotWhopper blog, click here.


Here are some comments from an Anonymous, who doesn't "believe" climate science or physics, nor does he or she understand it. I've not included all the deleted comments. Some of them were just shrill outbursts, not worth repeating. The comments were all posted under the article published on 21 June 2017: No hiatus (or vacation) from denial - Anthony Watts and Ryan Maue misrepresent a new scientific paper.

This was a mixed up response to a comment from Anon PhD. Anonymous appears to be arguing that bodies both do and don't radiate energy, all at the same time. (This is the sort of comment that got people musing about sentient photons.)

Anon PhD. If you think a body stops radiating because there is another body in the vicinity then I suggest you ask for your money back. Where did I say that? All bodies above 0K radiate. This is about heat transfer between 2 objects. Does NET heat transfer imply that both objects absorb heat energy but the cooler one absorbs more heat energy? I assert just like Clausius, that only the cooler body absorbs heat energy and only the warmer object transfers heat energy. NO NET. Or show me experimental evidence. I will save you time. There is none.

My definition of HEAT is the transference of internal energy from a warmer object to a cooler object. Heat is a process or a mechanism not an actual form of energy. It's a bit like a bank transfer; not money itself but a process of getting money from one account to another.

What is your PhD in? Social Science? Political Science?

Anonymous?

No. Clawsome 

Posted by Anonymous to HotWhopper at June 24, 2017 at 8:03 AM

At one point, Anonymous likened the properties of CO2, CH4, N2O etc to the mythical creatures, after quoting Sou. It looks as if Anonymous has no concept of the time over which greeenhouse gases have been warming the planet (and hasn't observed ice forming overnight and melting when the sun comes out). Perhaps he or she is a young earth creationist.

Sou: Anonymous, it's okay that you don't understand the greenhouse effect. 
Thanks, Sou, You're right I don't. I don't understand unicorns or the Loch Ness Monster or the Gruffalo either.
That's because they don't actually exist.
When are you going to provide some evidence that ghgs in the cooler atmosphere can raise the temperature of the earth's warmer surface by as much as 33C?
Do you see the problem with accepting something like that claim? That the sun cannot melt ice but the much weaker back radiation from the atmosphere can do it with no bother? Do you actually believe you can add power radiation from the sun and back radiation from the atmosphere to create a power input that is higher than the original input by the sun? ROFL!
Which one of us is more out of step with reality here?
Are you going to do a rockyrex at the Guardian and assert evidence for AGW/CAGW is gathered through consilience, coherence and consensus?
The new scientific method? The new empirical evidence?

Yours Clawsome 
Posted by Anonymous to HotWhopper at June 24, 2017 at 8:26 AM

In this one, Anonymous was amazed that scientists and most people accept that without greenhouse gases, the average global surface temperature would be around 33 C less than it is.

I always find it amazing what people will believe if their ideology tells them to believe it. The sun cannot melt ice but much weaker back radiation can do so with no problem.
Are you making the mistake of adding power radiation outputs together to get a bigger power radiations? Are three 1-kilowatt heaters hotter (operate at a higher temperature)than one 3-kilowatt heater? Sit in front of both setups. Would sitting in front of an open blast furnace be cooler than any number of 1-kilowatt heaters? 
Posted by Anonymous to HotWhopper at June 24, 2017 at 9:02 AM


Just had a visit from Doug Cotton, who is a greenhouse effect denier who wanders around blogs trying to find one that hasn't banned him. He's even been banned from denier blogs like those owned by Roy Spencer and Anthony Watts. He was doing a vanity search on Google and found a very old post at HotWhopper (which happened to mention him by name), so he decided to try his luck. For anyone who wondered what he wrote, it was this - on February 25, 2017 at 10:48 PM:

The NASA energy diagrams (and similar) imply that the mean surface temperature can be determined using the sum of solar radiation and about twice as much radiation from the colder atmosphere. But Stefan-Boltzmann calculations are based on the integral of a single Planck function from a single source, and are thus inapplicable. If climatologists were correct in assuming they get right answers using the sum of two or more sources of radiation, then, if one electric bar radiator warmer your cheek to a comfortable 42°C they would expect 16 such radiators to cook you at double the absolute (K) temperature which is 357°C. They don't - not by a long shot. Hence the radiative forcing greenhouse conjecture is false. There is AU $50,000 for the first to prove me wrong subject to the requirements on my websites (such as [retracted]) and linked blog. You may read my peer-reviewed papers published at [retracted] as about 20 per week do.


Not so many HotWhoppered comments this year. It's already September. This first one is from Terry D Welander, who not only thinks the FBI and FCC have jurisdiction in Australia and that they prosecute for libel, he weirdly thinks that those organisations regard mainstream science as a crime. He's a strange one. This is the latest of a few comments from Terry, written on September 15, 2016 at 1:24 AM under the article Joseph D’Aleo Fails Meteorology 101 on WUWT.

Sou and Associates,

For long term trends, which is what is needed, your satellite data is uselss. Volcanic eruptions over the last 100 million years which of course will need to come from the geologic record; and sun's plasma
connecting to Earth's magnetic and electric fields are also needed.

Mr. Chenoski's term which I take as a synonym to mine or crap is DOA dead on arrival for anything that does not cover all relevant facts per the Feynman/Einstein scientific method; your huge blank spots in your thinking and logic are not helping you or anyone.

As suggested before, take the graduate courses in: thermodynamics, 2 each, Geology on Volcanism, 2 each, and plasma physics because you have nothing here useful at this website. 5 to 10 years from now
the internet savy will dig up what you said here, figuratively throw it at you in numerous ways, reminding you how foolish you and your associates have been. And probably why the scientific community will never give you the time of day. Stop your opinions now, start learning some science. You will thank yourself later; as blind as you appear to be now. I would also point out you are treading very close to libel and fraud here. You never know when the FCC or the FBI will come looking for you for putting out such outrageous, libelous and fraudulent writings. It is what ever battle you want to fight. Please try to make it something useful for your own sake and humanities.

flowers-2.jpg

 

 

.
© HotWhopper | Creative Commons License Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Feel free to share with attribution to HotWhopper.
Menu