# Yes, 97%



## Crick (Aug 30, 2014)

*Surveys of scientists and scientific literature [Wikipedia]*
Just over 97% of published climate researchers say humans are causing most global warming.[108][109][110]
Main article: Surveys of scientists' views on climate change
Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on global warming. They have concluded that the majority of scientists support the idea of anthropogenic climate change.

In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[111] She analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Seventy-five per cent of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories (either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view); 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. None of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."

In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. 97% of the scientists surveyed agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years; 84% said they personally believed human-induced warming was occurring, and 74% agreed that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiated its occurrence. Catastrophic effects in 50–100 years would likely be observed according to 41%, while 44% thought the effects would be moderate and about 13 percent saw relatively little danger. 5% said they thought human activity did not contribute to greenhouse warming.[112][113][114][115]

Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 different countries.[116] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 373 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18.2%. No paper on climate change consensus based on this survey has been published yet (February 2010), but one on another subject has been published based on the survey.[117]

The survey was composed of 76 questions split into a number of sections. There were sections on the demographics of the respondents, their assessment of the state of climate science, how good the science is, climate change impacts, adaptation and mitigation, their opinion of the IPCC, and how well climate science was being communicated to the public. Most of the answers were on a scale from 1 to 7 from 'not at all' to 'very much'.

To the question "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?", 67.1% said they very much agreed, 26.7% agreed to some large extent, 6.2% said to they agreed to some small extent (2–4), none said they did not agree at all. To the question "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" the responses were 34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent, 15.1% to a small extent, and 1.35% not agreeing at all.

A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. Seventy-five of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. The authors summarised the findings:

It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.[118]

A 2010 paper in the _Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States_ (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:

(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.[119]




A survey of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 2013 finds that only 2 of 10885 reject anthropogenic global warming
A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers, finding 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming and reporting:

Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.[120]

Additionally, the authors of the studies were invited to categorise their own research papers, of which 1,381 discussed the cause of recent global warming, and:

Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus.

James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[121] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[122]​


----------



## Crick (Aug 30, 2014)

*"Fingerprint" Studies*

Finally, there is extensive statistical evidence from so-called "fingerprint" studies. Each factor that affects climate produces a unique pattern of climate response, much as each person has a unique fingerprint. Fingerprint studies exploit these unique signatures, and allow detailed comparisons of modelled and observed climate change patterns. Scientists rely on such studies to attribute observed changes in climate to a particular cause or set of causes. In the real world, the climate changes that have occurred since the start of the Industrial Revolution are due to a complex mixture of human and natural causes. The importance of each individual influence in this mixture changes over time. Of course, there are not multiple Earths, which would allow an experimenter to change one factor at a time on each Earth, thus helping to isolate different fingerprints. Therefore, climate models are used to study how individual factors affect climate. For example, a single factor (like greenhouse gases) or a set of factors can be varied, and the response of the modelled climate system to these individual or combined changes can thus be studied.[9]

For example, when climate model simulations of the last century include all of the major influences on climate, both human-induced and natural, they can reproduce many important features of observed climate change patterns. When human influences are removed from the model experiments, results suggest that the surface of the Earth would actually have cooled slightly over the last 50 years (see graph, opposite). The clear message from fingerprint studies is that the observed warming over the last half-century cannot be explained by natural factors, and is instead caused primarily by human factors.[9]

Another fingerprint of human effects on climate has been identified by looking at a slice through the layers of the atmosphere, and studying the pattern of temperature changes from the surface up through the stratosphere (see the section on solar activity). The earliest fingerprint work focused on changes in surface and atmospheric temperature. Scientists then applied fingerprint methods to a whole range of climate variables, identifying human-caused climate signals in the heat content of the oceans, the height of the tropopause (the boundary between the troposphere and stratosphere, which has shifted upward by hundreds of feet in recent decades), the geographical patterns of precipitation, drought, surface pressure, and the runoff from major river basins.[9]

Studies published after the appearance of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 have also found human fingerprints in the increased levels of atmospheric moisture (both close to the surface and over the full extent of the atmosphere), in the decline of Arctic sea ice extent, and in the patterns of changes in Arctic and Antarctic surface temperatures.[9]

The message from this entire body of work is that the climate system is telling a consistent story of increasingly dominant human influence - the changes in temperature, ice extent, moisture, and circulation patterns fit together in a physically consistent way, like pieces in a complex puzzle.[9]

Increasingly, this type of fingerprint work is shifting its emphasis. As noted, clear and compelling scientific evidence supports the case for a pronounced human influence on global climate. Much of the recent attention is now on climate changes at continental and regional scales, and on variables that can have large impacts on societies. For example, scientists have established causal links between human activities and the changes in snowpack, maximum and minimum (diurnal) temperature, and the seasonal timing of runoff over mountainous regions of the western United States. Human activity is likely to have made a substantial contribution to ocean surface temperature changes in hurricane formation regions. Researchers are also looking beyond the physical climate system, and are beginning to tie changes in the distribution and seasonal behaviour of plant and animal species to human-caused changes in temperature and precipitation.[9]

For over a decade, one aspect of the climate change story seemed to show a significant difference between models and observations. In the tropics, all models predicted that with a rise in greenhouse gases, the troposphere would be expected to warm more rapidly than the surface. Observations from weather balloons, satellites, and surface thermometers seemed to show the opposite behaviour (more rapid warming of the surface than the troposphere). This issue was a stumbling block in understanding the causes of climate change. It is now largely resolved. Research showed that there were large uncertainties in the satellite and weather balloon data. When uncertainties in models and observations are properly accounted for, newer observational data sets (with better treatment of known problems) are in agreement with climate model results.[9]

This does not mean, however, that all remaining differences between models and observations have been resolved. The observed changes in some climate variables, such as Arctic sea ice, some aspects of precipitation, and patterns of surface pressure, appear to be proceeding much more rapidly than models have projected. The reasons for these differences are not well understood. Nevertheless, the bottom-line conclusion from climate fingerprinting is that most of the observed changes studied to date are consistent with each other, and are also consistent with our scientific understanding of how the climate system would be expected to respond to the increase in heat-trapping gases resulting from human activities.[9]


----------



## Samson (Aug 30, 2014)

Whenever I see anyone start a comment by quoting a "percent" rather than a number, I'm always suspicious.

1000 words of qualifying bullshit doesn't make me less suspicious.


----------



## Anathema (Aug 30, 2014)

When I start putting any faith in Scientists that'll mean something to me. Until then it's all a lot of hot air. Besides,  even if it is true I'll be dead long before it becomes an issue so why would I care?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 30, 2014)

Crick said:


> *Surveys of scientists and scientific literature [Wikipedia]*
> Just over 97% of published climate researchers say humans are causing most global warming.[108][109][110]
> Main article: Surveys of scientists' views on climate change
> Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on global warming. They have concluded that the majority of scientists support the idea of anthropogenic climate change.
> ...


 
*Seventy-five of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.*

Fucking hilarious!


----------



## skookerasbil (Aug 30, 2014)

nobody cares


----------



## Crick (Aug 30, 2014)

Samson said:


> Whenever I see anyone start a comment by quoting a "percent" rather than a number, I'm always suspicious.
> 
> 1000 words of qualifying bullshit doesn't make me less suspicious.



Then READ the information.  Check its validity if you like.  Allay your fears.


----------



## Youch (Aug 30, 2014)

Cut and pasted right out of Wikipedia.  Quotes and surveys only groups of Believers.  A self-serving tool, hoping to manipulate.

Reminds me of the Academy Awards.....bunch of left wing Hollywood-types praising themselves, ignoring the fact that fewer and fewer people watch their movies!


----------



## boedicca (Aug 30, 2014)

Quick!  Somebody tell rdean that it's not 94%.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 30, 2014)

97% of the AGWCult who published climate "researcher" papers believe in AGW.

Wow, shocking


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 30, 2014)

What total crap.

And there's still not a single lab experiment


----------



## Crick (Aug 30, 2014)

Anathema said:


> When I start putting any faith in Scientists that'll mean something to me. Until then it's all a lot of hot air. Besides,  even if it is true I'll be dead long before it becomes an issue so why would I care?



You put faith in scientists when you get out of bed in the morning; when you take the medicine they developed, when you turn on your TV or boot up your computer, when you voice dial your friends on a phone in your pocked with more power than a supercomputer of a decade past.  You put your faith in climate science whenever you react to a weather report, whether it's to leave your umbrella and raincoat at home or start boarding up your windows in the face of an approaching hurricane.  So don't tell us you have no faith in scientists.  When you've moved out to the woods, naked, and are living on raw rat, then come tell us about your lack of faith in science.


----------



## Crick (Aug 30, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Seventy-five of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.*
> 
> Fucking hilarious!



You're smarter than that Todd.  Don't let your politics lead you away from what you know to be true.


----------



## Crick (Aug 30, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> 97% of the AGWCult who published climate "researcher" papers believe in AGW.
> 
> Wow, shocking



Not particularly.  But its a fact that folks on your side of the argument have had trouble getting their heads around.


----------



## Crick (Aug 30, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> What total crap.
> 
> And there's still not a single lab experiment



Then I'm sure you have surveys and polls and studies that show different results.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 30, 2014)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > 97% of the AGWCult who published climate "researcher" papers believe in AGW.
> ...



Your "Side" controls who gets their bullshit articles published in the Phony Science Journals.

It's pretty fucking pathetic that you're reduced to using a "Number of Articles in AGWCult monthly" as your metric. Then again, you have no science, no evidence, and the lab is so cruel to your "Theory"


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 30, 2014)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > What total crap.
> ...



Science is not done by Consensus.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 30, 2014)

Crick said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > What total crap.
> ...



How come you've never once posted a lab experiment showing how a 120PPM increase in CO2 raises temperature and lowers ocean pH?

Not one single time


----------



## boedicca (Aug 30, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> 97% of the AGWCult who published climate "researcher" papers believe in AGW.
> 
> Wow, shocking



I'm rendered almost speechless.

It is So Shocking!


----------



## Crick (Aug 30, 2014)

Do you disagree with the OP observations?  What portion of climate scientists or peer reviewed climate science publications do you believe accept AGW as valid?


----------



## Vigilante (Aug 30, 2014)

That information is about as surprising as the FACT that over 90% of American blacks voted for a HALF black man! The only thing that makes scientists agree on more than the black vote, is that government grants, and financial support from ORGANIZATIONS that have a perceived investment in the bullshit that man is causing GW agree! ....SURPRISE AGAIN!!!!!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 30, 2014)

Crick said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Seventy-five of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.*
> ...


 
_A poll performed by __Peter Doran__ and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at __University of Illinois at Chicago__ received replies from *3,146* of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 __climatologists__ who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. *Seventy-five* of 77_

I am smarter than that, that's why I laugh at the idea that 75/3146 means that 97% of scientists agree.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 30, 2014)

100% of Old Rocks, Crick and Rolling Thunder BELIEVE in AGW!

We have Consensus

Science = Settled!!


----------



## Crick (Aug 30, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I'm pretty sure you can read.  So when the text YOU QUOTED states "76 0f 79 climatologists who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who have also published more than 50% of their recent, peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" I would have thought you would understand why it was not 76 out of 3,146.  Why didn't you take your logic to its obvious conclusion and tell us that only 76 out of 4 billion humans (0.0000019%) accept AGW?  It's precisely as accurate as your first statement and you'd get to use all those zeroes!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 30, 2014)

Crick said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


 
*I would have thought you would understand why it was not 76 out of 3,146.*

I do understand, because showing the real numbers would refute the claim that there is an almost complete consensus.

*Why didn't you take your logic to its obvious conclusion and tell us that only 76 out of 4 billion humans (0.0000019%) accept AGW?*

4 billion humans did not respond to the poll. 3146 did, and 75 of them believed that "human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures", according to your source.


----------



## Crick (Aug 30, 2014)

1) I was ignoring the point that numerous other studies, involving many hundreds to thousands of opinion samples, have found 97% concourrence.
2) Do you actually believe that none of the remaining 3,070 respondents accepted AGW as valid?  They are not included in that number because they are not actively publishing climate researchers, which was the IDEA from the get go.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 30, 2014)

Crick said:


> Do you disagree with the OP observations?  What portion of climate scientists or peer reviewed climate science publications do you believe accept AGW as valid?



How many Scientologists believe Scientology works?


----------



## Crick (Aug 30, 2014)

I imagine a large portion of climate scientists believes that climate science is capable of making accurate and meaningful statements concerning the functions of the Earth's climate.  But that's not what you wanted to hear, is it.  Do you believe climate science and AGW are one and the same thing?  Apparently you do.  Unfortunately such a belief is simply wrong.


----------



## Rotagilla (Aug 30, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Seventy-five of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.*
> 
> Fucking hilarious!



"scientists" used to think the earth was flat...and people believed them.
"scientists" used to think the sun revolved around the earth...and people believed them.
"scientists" used to think man would never fly. ..and people believed them.

isn't that "hilarious", too?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 30, 2014)




----------



## IanC (Aug 30, 2014)

These 97% stories are worse than cockroaches. It doesn't matter how many times you squash them, useful idiots like crick simply starts another thread about them.


----------



## Crick (Aug 30, 2014)

And you haven't answered the question.  The opinions of the experts in any field is a significant point in dealing with issues of that field.  The opinions of the world's climate scientists are a very significant source of information by which the public can fulfill the obligations and responsibilities of an INFORMED electorate


----------



## Crick (Aug 30, 2014)

SSDD said:


>




Do you really want to bring up Legates?  Really?


----------



## Crick (Aug 30, 2014)

IanC said:


> These 97% stories are worse than cockroaches. It doesn't matter how many times you squash them, useful idiots like crick simply starts another thread about them.



I would say the useless idiocy is the persistence of deniers in claiming such majorities don't exist.  I could put a survey up here performed by god himself of a hundred million climate scientists from all the planets of the galaxy and the first response would read "75 out of 79, yeah, that's something."


----------



## SSDD (Aug 30, 2014)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



Truth is truth whether you like it or not...the 97% claims are bullshit and anyone who makes them at this point, after all the debunking and exposing of flawed methods etc, is flatly a liar...of course we all knew that about you already...didn't we?


----------



## Crick (Aug 30, 2014)

From a comment on Skeptical Science shortly after Legates letter was published in an education journal.

I ran some calculations on the detailed results as released on this site.  They show that to obtain a 0.3% "consensus rating", Legates et al had to only count papers rated 1, and then also exclude any papers categorized as "impacts" and "mitigation".

The first step not only excludes every paper that endorses the consensus without explicitly quantifying the contribution of humans, or only implicitly endorses the consensus - it actually counts them and neutral (rating 4) papers as disendorsing the consensus.  That follows because they are not rejecting the 32.6% of all abstracts rated as endorsing the consensus in Cook et al, but the 97.1% "among abstracts with AGW position".  So, either it is a deliberate strawman by quantifying something they know to belong to a different category (% among all abstracts) or they are tacitly asserting that all abstracts have a position on AGW, and that overwhelmingly that position is a refusal to endorse AGW.  Curiously they are willing to assert this without any sign that they themselves have rated the abstracts.  They are insisting that their _a priori_ rating is better than Cook et al's empirical rating.

Excluding "impacts" and "mitigation" papers is even more dubious.  First, it confuses "endorses" with "is evidence of".  A paper about marigolds could "endorse" AGW by simply noting that they think AGW is true.  That is not evidence of AGW, and nobody pretends otherwise.  It merely indicates the opinion of the authors about AGW (ie, they think it is true).  And, of course, Cook et al is not trying to measure the level of evidence, but the distribution of opinions.  In fact, it is one of the main arguments of the pseudo-skeptics that a consensus is not evidence, but here they ignore that distinction and pretend that Cook et al by trying to measure consensus is actually trying to measure evidence, the only basis on which excluding "mitigation" papers would be relevant.

It is worse than that, however, for a large portion of "impacts" papers are about the climatological impacts of increasing CO2 levels.  They make findings about such things as the likely temperature increase from a doubling of CO2, or from historical and projected CO2 emissions.  These are exactly the sort of papers that do provide evidence about whether or not anthropogenic emissions have caused >50% of recent temperature increases.  Yet Legates et al want to exclude them as irrelevant (while counting them among "abstracts with [an] AGW position".

The contortion of reasoning involved in their claim is, as you can see, beyond belief.

--Tom Curtis


----------



## Crick (Aug 30, 2014)

And then there's this

http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Bedford_2013_agnotology.pdf


----------



## bripat9643 (Aug 30, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Seventy-five of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.*
> 
> Fucking hilarious!




That's a meaningless claim.  10% of the warming could be considered "significant," but that would mean curing CO2 emissions would be pointless.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 30, 2014)

Crick said:


> 1) I was ignoring the point that numerous other studies, involving many hundreds to thousands of opinion samples, have found 97% concourrence.
> 2) Do you actually believe that none of the remaining 3,070 respondents accepted AGW as valid?  They are not included in that number because they are not actively publishing climate researchers, which was the IDEA from the get go.


 
*I was ignoring the point that numerous other studies, involving many hundreds to thousands of opinion samples, have found 97% concourrence.*

You have other, better polls that show 97% consensus?
Then why post the one that only shows 75/77?

* Do you actually believe that none of the remaining 3,070 respondents accepted AGW as valid?*

It's obvious, if they could, the biased pollsters would have included them. 

*They are not included in that number because they are not actively publishing climate researchers,*

They could be researchers that disagree, but couldn't get published with the warmers stifling dissent.
Don't you hate those Climategate emails letting the corrupt cat out of the bag? LOL!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 30, 2014)

Crick said:


> I imagine a large portion of climate scientists believes that climate science is capable of making accurate and meaningful statements concerning the functions of the Earth's climate.  But that's not what you wanted to hear, is it.  Do you believe climate science and AGW are one and the same thing?  Apparently you do.  Unfortunately such a belief is simply wrong.



Climate Science just isn't science


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 30, 2014)

Crick said:


> And you haven't answered the question.  The opinions of the experts in any field is a significant point in dealing with issues of that field.  The opinions of the world's climate scientists are a very significant source of information by which the public can fulfill the obligations and responsibilities of an INFORMED electorate


 
* The opinions of the experts in any field is a significant point in dealing with issues of that field.* 

Excellent point!  The honest thing to do then is to stop saying 97% of scientists agree if you then narrow down your poll to only include 77 published climate researchers. You agree?
Just say 75/77 published climate researchers say humans are causing most global warming.


----------



## Crick (Aug 30, 2014)

To those few of you from the outlands that might not know what Legates did with Cook's data:

Cook et al performend a study in which they identfied over 11,000 papers that had the word "global warming" or "global climate change" in their abstracts.  He and his team then examined these papers and placed them into one of six categories regarding the expressed positions of their authors:


“Explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of global warming”

“Explicit endorsement without quantification”

“Implicit endorsement”

“No opinion or uncertain”

“Implicit rejection”

“Explicit rejection without quantification”

“Explicit rejection with quantification”

The result was that 97% of the papers that expressed some position: categories 1-3 and 5-7 "endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming".  Cook et al then contacted 8,547 of the authors of the examined papers and asked THEM to rate their papers.  They got responses from 1,200 authors who were involved in the production of 2,142 papers.  Of these author's self-ratings, 97% again endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

Now then, what did Legates do?  Legates decided that the only papers that could be counted as having endorsed the consensus position were those that EXPRESSLY STATED as much.  That number was quite low.  He also decided that they should be put up against the number of ALL PAPERS EXAMINED.  So that papers expressing no opinion whatsoever, either explicitly or implicitly, as to human or other causation to global warming, were counted by Legate's team as having explicitly rejected the idea.  

Legates calculations are fundamentally meaningless.  His contention of Cook's errors are utter nonsense.   Even if you accept EVERY WORD Legates puts out, he does not address the author's self-rating results which almost exactly matched the results of Cook's team.  That alone should tell ANYONE looking at this issue that Mr Legates is a liar and a fool.


----------



## Crick (Aug 30, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > And you haven't answered the question.  The opinions of the experts in any field is a significant point in dealing with issues of that field.  The opinions of the world's climate scientists are a very significant source of information by which the public can fulfill the obligations and responsibilities of an INFORMED electorate
> ...



Are you being intentionally dense?  Go back to the OP - the lead post - and READ IT.


----------



## Stephanie (Aug 30, 2014)

Just amazing what they will do to sell this. It's pretty pathetic actually.
Scientist have been WRONG more than once. so if some of you want to bow and live your life on what they say, have at it and good luck


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 30, 2014)

Crick said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


 
Are you being intentionally dense?   Go back to the OP - the title of the thread- and READ IT


----------



## Crick (Aug 30, 2014)

Does the *BOLD* help?



Crick said:


> *Surveys of scientists and scientific literature [Wikipedia]*
> Just over 97% of published climate researchers say humans are causing most global warming.[108][109][110]
> Main article: Surveys of scientists' views on climate change
> Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on global warming. They have concluded that the majority of scientists support the idea of anthropogenic climate change.
> ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 30, 2014)

Crick said:


> Does the *BOLD* help?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
*Yes, 97%*

The title was unhelpful.

* Seventy-five of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures*

And you forgot to bold the proof for the title.

* 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change*)

AGW is now ACC? LOL!


----------



## Samson (Aug 30, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > *Surveys of scientists and scientific literature [Wikipedia]*
> ...



Thank for boiling the BS for us.


----------



## Crick (Aug 30, 2014)

Was that just too much for you to wade through?  Try reading it in little pieces; a few sentences every evening.  Get some rest before you start.  Drink plenty of fluids.  Stay committed.  You'll make it.


----------



## Crick (Aug 30, 2014)

Crick said:


> *Surveys of scientists and scientific literature [Wikipedia]*
> *o  928 abstracts
> o  489 randomly selected members
> o  373* *responses
> ...



Should I assume the problem really is reading skills?


----------



## Stephanie (Aug 30, 2014)

You can assume what you want

and I think we can assume you're a brainwashed member of the GloBULL warming cult

as you see, it's not working to well on the majority of the people in the country

 that's why we are getting all the doomsday fearmongering how it could affect the trout coming at us fast and furious now

you see how they put it folks, IT COULD affect them and then it might not

Scientist don't ever have to worry about BEING WRONG, They can have it both ways and still get grant money from taxpayers. what a gig eh?


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 30, 2014)

What a stupid ass you are, Staph. So, all the scientists in the nations around the world that are reporting the affects of global warming and confirming the physics involved are on US Government grants? Or are you stating that all the nations in the world, including the US, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and the EU, are in on a global conspiracy to lie to all of us? Are you truly that stupid?


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 30, 2014)

Interesting, I have been attending a university part time for two years now, and have yet to meet a scientist there that states that AGW is not real. Some, in fact, are rather alarmist in their views. Particularly those that deal with the cryosphere.


----------



## skookerasbil (Aug 30, 2014)

This whole 97% stuff is beyond bogus........citing 97% of a handful of scientists is so intellectually dishonest, its not even real.

I'll tell you whats impressive.......the tens of thousands of scientists,  masters and PHD level who say without reservation that AGW is total crap. And why do they say that? Because the climate scientists completely ignore statistical error and spit on traditional scientific method. Which makes it fake science.


----------



## Youch (Aug 30, 2014)

Crick said:


> And you haven't answered the question.  The opinions of the experts in any field is a significant point in dealing with issues of that field.  The opinions of the world's climate scientists are a very significant source of information by which the public can fulfill the obligations and responsibilities of an INFORMED electorate



You may want to investigate the fact that "the public" doesn't find the pushed agenda of the global warming INDUSTRY to be important at all.


----------



## Youch (Aug 30, 2014)

Crick said:


> Does the *BOLD* help?



Re-posting and *BOLDING* Wikipedia doesn't make it more true.


----------



## Youch (Aug 30, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Interesting, I have been attending a university part time for two years now, and have yet to meet a scientist there that states that AGW is not real. Some, in fact, are rather alarmist in their views. Particularly those that deal with the cryosphere.



.....and university faculty is largely comprised of who?  HINT:  they are paid for, and tenured, by the government.  They rely almost entirely on grants.  Said faculty draws upon almost entirely on left-leaning advocates.  Hand in glove, self-serving.....and, very profitable!!!  As many people say, follow the money!!  Old rocks have the wisdom of the earth, but you with the same moniker seem awful compliant with the self-serving "alarmists."  Strange, that dichotomy....


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 30, 2014)

Since my major is geology, and the professors I see are mostly people involved in science, they really aren't pushing left or right agendas. 

That you are bone ignorant of the sciences, as are most 'Conservatives', simply reinforces the perception that you people know nothing but your wishes and emotions.


----------



## Youch (Aug 30, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Since my major is geology, and the professors I see are mostly people involved in science, they really aren't pushing left or right agendas.
> 
> That you are bone ignorant of the sciences, as are most 'Conservatives', simply reinforces the perception that you people know nothing but your wishes and emotions.



"You people?"  "Know nothing?"   You just proved my point, and you don't have a clue as to how or why.   I'll not send my kids to your university.

Based on this single post of yours, logic tells me you will never be an objective geologist.   You already have a bias (proven above), which science IS NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE.  And you must be very young, to not understand agendas or the money behind it.   Like I said, you don't express the wisdom of your moniker.  Prove me wrong, and I will be happy.  Heck, I'm happy either way.....   But I got you pegged, pal!!!


----------



## Crick (Aug 30, 2014)

So you understand what drives the fossil fuel industry to attempt to create a false controversy; to convince the voting public that the science is uncertain, the matter undecided and that strong arguments may be made by either side.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 31, 2014)

Crick said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > These 97% stories are worse than cockroaches. It doesn't matter how many times you squash them, useful idiots like crick simply starts another thread about them.
> ...



I'd be convinced of you could reproduce your theory in a lab.

We can create mini black holes in a lab and conditions a few nanoseconds after the Big Bang. How come you never show any experiments that control for a 120PPM increase in CO2?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 31, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Since my major is geology, and the professors I see are mostly people involved in science, they really aren't pushing left or right agendas.
> 
> That you are bone ignorant of the sciences, as are most 'Conservatives', simply reinforces the perception that you people know nothing but your wishes and emotions.



Post you lab work that controls for a 120PPM increase in CO2


----------



## Crick (Aug 31, 2014)

Gosh Frank, that's off topic, but have you looked in the thread entitled "CO2 Experiments Posted Here"?


----------



## IanC (Aug 31, 2014)

The Doran poll was based on two simple questions. Has the earth been warming; and if yes to the first question, has mankind contributed to that warming. 

Its been a while since I investigated this poll But I belie. 77 of 79 said yes to the first question. Two said no, probably because the time frame was not specified. Eg this interglacial on the whole is teensing down. These two were not counted in the second question because they did not answer it. 

I don't know of any promenent skeptics that deny some 20th century warming, or that man's land use and fuel burning has not had some impact on that increase. So, depending on how you define it, there is close to 100% consensus. It is only when you start asking more specific questions that the consensus falls apart.  Someone may agree with mannade warming but disagree with high feedbacks or any of the other unsubstantiated doomsday conclusions of the CO2 theory. The warmers act as if anyone who believes in any part of the theory also believes in every other part. This is obviously not true.


----------



## skookerasbil (Aug 31, 2014)

nobody cares about the 97%...........


[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/EIA-annual-outlook-2011-2040-2.png.html]
	
[/URL]


----------



## Crick (Aug 31, 2014)

IanC said:


> The Doran poll was based on two simple questions. Has the earth been warming; and if yes to the first question, has mankind contributed to that warming.
> 
> Its been a while since I investigated this poll But I belie. 77 of 79 said yes to the first question. Two said no, probably because the time frame was not specified. Eg this interglacial on the whole is teensing down. These two were not counted in the second question because they did not answer it.
> 
> I don't know of any promenent skeptics that deny some 20th century warming, or that man's land use and fuel burning has not had some impact on that increase. So, depending on how you define it, there is close to 100% consensus. It is only when you start asking more specific questions that the consensus falls apart.  Someone may agree with mannade warming but disagree with high feedbacks or any of the other unsubstantiated doomsday conclusions of the CO2 theory. The warmers act as if anyone who believes in any part of the theory also believes in every other part. This is obviously not true.



The consensus found in several of the studies aligns a very high majority of climate scientists with the IPCC's position that human activity is the primary cause of warming experienced this century.  At least three different studies found that the greater a scientists knowledge of the workings of the climate, the greater the likelihood that they would concur with the IPCC position.  The less they knew, the more likely they would deny it.

And just out of curiosity Ian, why do YOU bring up the Doran (77 out of 79) study?  If you're looking for statistical validity, why not examine one of the many other studies involving far larger samples?  Eh?  Is it that you know Doran to be as valid as any other or that you hope to play on the lay view that it is undersampled?


----------



## Stephanie (Aug 31, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> *This whole 97% stuff is beyond bogus........citing 97% of a handful of scientists is so intellectually dishonest, its not even real.*
> 
> I'll tell you whats impressive.......the tens of thousands of scientists,  masters and PHD level who say without reservation that AGW is total crap. And why do they say that? Because the climate scientists completely ignore statistical error and spit on traditional scientific method. Which makes it fake science.



it's shameful is what it is. and it's sickening they don't care


----------



## Crick (Aug 31, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > *This whole 97% stuff is beyond bogus........citing 97% of a handful of scientists is so intellectually dishonest, its not even real.*
> ...



Shameful?  I refer you to numerous, peer reviewed studies of this topic that all find, very consistently, that a very high majority of active climate scientists concur with the IPCC position that human activity is fhe primary cause of warming observed in the last 150 years and particularly in the last 50; and you think that's shameful? 

And to what do you refer?  I presume it is to the Global Warming Petition Project.  Do you understand how flawed a survey that is?  Out of their over 30,000 signatures, 34 claim to be climate scientists.  Their definition of a scientist is absurd.  And the portion of scientists, by THEIR definition, that their petition contains, is pathetic compared to the work and expertise that went into the production and review of the IPCC assessment reports. 
_"The IPCC AR4 WG1 report was written and reviewed by approximately 2000 scientists. If we assume that the 20,000 AGU members who claim to be atmospheric scientists, ocean scientists, or hydrologists represent the pool of potential experts in climate science in the U.S., then approximately 10% of all climate scientists were directly involved in creating the over 1000 page report.

That compares to less than 1% of all OISM “scientists” who mailed a pre-printed postcard"
_
Before you start throwing terms around like "shameful", you ought to check your facts a little more closely.


----------



## Stephanie (Aug 31, 2014)

shamefully dishonest. I have never seen them go this far to fool the people

SNIP:
*About that overwhelming 97-98% number of scientists that say there is a climate consensus…*
Anthony Watts / July 18, 2012
Larry Bell writes in his weekly Forbes column about that oft repeated but less than truthy “98% of all scientists” statistic. Supposedly, this was such an easy and quick to do survey, it was a no-brainer according to the two University of Illinois researchers who conducted it:
To maximize the response rate, the survey was designed to take less than 2 minutes to complete, and it was administered by a professional online survey site ( www.questionpro.com  ) that allowed one-time participation by those who received the invitation.
I think it is hilarious that so few people who cite this survey as “proof” of consensus actually look into the survey and the puny response numbers involved. So, I decided to graph the data to give some much needed perspective. Apparently, the majority of AGU members polled didn’t think this poll on climate change consensus was worth returning. – Anthony



*That Scientific Global Warming Consensus…Not! – Forbes*
By Larry Bell
So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.
Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.
That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”  Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.)
The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” So what constitutes “significant”? Does “changing” include both cooling and warming… and for both “better” and “worse”? And which contributions…does this include land use changes, such as agriculture and deforestation?
Read the whole article: That Scientific Global Warming Consensus…Not! – Forbes
Here’s the survey as it appeared in EOS:
EOS, TRANSACTIONS AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION, VOL. 90, NO. 3, PAGE 22, 2009 doi:10.1029/2009EO030002
BRIEF REPORT
*Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

ALL of it here:
About that overwhelming 97-98 number of scientists that say there is a climate consensus 8230 Watts Up With That *​


----------



## Crick (Aug 31, 2014)

Stephanie, I believe I have posted for you on prior occasions the numerous other studies available, most with larger samples involved.

And do you really think Anthony Watts is the fellow whose opinion you should listen to on science matters?  Were you aware that he never graduated from college.  It's not even certain that he ever attended ANY college.  He is NOT an expert on any branch of science.  He was a TV weatherman who got into weather graphics at the right time and made himself a nice pot of money.

But let's get back to where ELSE that 97% of active climate scientists (not, as Watts says we claim "98% of all scientists") has come from.

*Surveys of scientists and scientific literature*

Summary of opinions from climate and earth scientists regarding climate change.

Just over 97% of published climate researchers say humans are causing most global warming.[108][109][110]
Main article: Surveys of scientists' views on climate change
Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on global warming. They have concluded that the majority of scientists support the idea of anthropogenic climate change.

In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[111] She *analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals* between 1993 and 2003 and *concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change*.

Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Seventy-five per cent of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories (either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view); 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. *None of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position*, which the author found to be "remarkable". According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."

In 2007, Harris Interactive *surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. 97% of the scientists surveyed agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years; 84% said they personally believed human-induced warming was occurring*, and 74% agreed that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiated its occurrence. Catastrophic effects in 50–100 years would likely be observed according to 41%, while 44% thought the effects would be moderate and about 13 percent saw relatively little danger. 5% said they thought human activity did not contribute to greenhouse warming.[112][113][114][115]

Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch* conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 different countries*.[116] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of *373 responses were received* giving an overall response rate of 18.2%. No paper on climate change consensus based on this survey has been published yet (February 2010), but one on another subject has been published based on the survey.[117]

The survey was composed of 76 questions split into a number of sections. There were sections on the demographics of the respondents, their assessment of the state of climate science, how good the science is, climate change impacts, adaptation and mitigation, their opinion of the IPCC, and how well climate science was being communicated to the public. Most of the answers were on a scale from 1 to 7 from 'not at all' to 'very much'.

To the question "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?", 67.1% said they very much agreed, 26.7% agreed to some large extent, 6.2% said to they agreed to some small extent (2–4), none said they did not agree at all. To the question *"How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?"* the responses were 34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent, 15.1% to a small extent, and *1.35% not agreeing at all*.

A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from* 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists*. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of *79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change"* believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. *Seventy-five of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.* *Among all respondents,* 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and* 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature*. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. The authors summarised the findings:

It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.[118]

A 2010 paper in the _Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States_ (PNAS)* reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers* and drew the following two conclusions:

(i) *97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change*, and (ii) *the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers*.[119]
A *survey of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 2013 finds that only 2 of 10,885 reject anthropogenic global warming*
A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers, finding *4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming* and reporting:

*Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming*.[13]

Additionally, the *authors of the studies were invited to categorise their own research papers, of which 1,381 discussed the cause of recent global warming*, and:

Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, *97.2% endorsed the consensus*.

James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the *13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming*.[14] A follow-up analysis looking at *2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming*.[15]

*References

*


*

Anderegg, William R L; James W. Prall, Jacob Harold, and Stephen H. Schneider (2010)."Expert credibility in climate change". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 107 (27): 12107–9.Bibcode:2010PNAS..10712107A. doi:10.1073/pnas.1003187107. PMC 2901439.PMID 20566872. Retrieved 22 August 2011.

Jump up^ Doran consensus article 2009

Jump up^ John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli, Sarah A Green, Mark Richardson, Bärbel Winkler, Rob Painting, Robert Way, Peter Jacobs. Andrew Skuce (15 May 2013). "Expert credibility in climate change". Environ. Res. Lett. 8 (2): 024024. Bibcode:2013ERL.....8b4024C.doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024.

Jump up^ Naomi Oreskes (December 3, 2004 (Erratum January 21, 2005)). "Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" (PDF). Science 306 (5702): 1686.doi:10.1126/science.1103618. PMID 15576594. (see also for an exchange of letters to Science)

Jump up^ Lavelle, Marianne (2008-04-23). "Survey Tracks Scientists' Growing Climate Concern". U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved 2010-01-20.

Jump up^ Lichter, S. Robert (2008-04-24). "Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don't Trust the Media's Coverage of Climate Change". Statistical Assessment Service, George Mason University. Retrieved 2010-01-20.

Jump up^ ""Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change" at Journalist's Resource.org".

Jump up^ Stephen J. Farnsworth, S. Robert Lichter (October 27, 2011). "The Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change". International Journal of Public Opinion Research. Retrieved December 2, 2011.

Jump up^ Bray, Dennis; von Storch, Hans (2009). "A Survey of the Perspectives of Climate Scientists Concerning Climate Science and Climate Change".

Jump up^ Bray, D.; von Storch H. (2009). "Prediction' or 'Projection; The nomenclature of climate science". Science Communication 30 (4): 534–543. doi:10.1177/1075547009333698.

Jump up^ Doran, Peter T.; Maggie Kendall Zimmerman (January 20, 2009). "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change". EOS 90 (3): 22–23.Bibcode:2009EOSTr..90...22D. doi:10.1029/2009EO030002.

Jump up^ Anderegg, William R L; James W. Prall, Jacob Harold, and Stephen H. Schneider (2010)."Expert credibility in climate change". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 107 (27): 12107–9.Bibcode:2010PNAS..10712107A. doi:10.1073/pnas.1003187107. PMC 2901439.PMID 20566872.

Jump up^ Cook, J.; Nuccitelli, D.; Green, S.A.; Richardson, M.; Winkler, B.; Painting, R.; Way, R.; Jacobs, P.; Skuc, A. (2013). "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature". Environ. Res. Lett. 8 (2): 024024. Bibcode:2013ERL.....8b4024C.doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024.

Jump up^ Plait, P. (11 December 2012). "Why Climate Change Denial Is Just Hot Air". Slate. Retrieved 14 February 2014.

Jump up^ Plait, P. (14 January 2014). "The Very, Very Thin Wedge of Denial". Slate. Retrieved 14 February 2014.
*


----------



## whitehall (Aug 31, 2014)

Climate researchers? What the hell is a "climate researcher? Is it a graduate student copying manuscripts in order to get a good grade? Some techno bureaucrat trying to get his thesis published? Rush Limbaugh can be considered to be a "climate researcher". Why wasn't his opinion added to the pot?  It's all opinion and you gotta have faith in the religion of global warming even though your senses tell you it's getting cooler.


----------



## Crick (Aug 31, 2014)

A researcher in this context would be someone conducting original research.  Rush Limbaugh would not qualify. Neither would your "grad student copying manuscripts" or "some techno bureaucrat trying to get his thesis published".  These are qualified, professional researchers (masters and doctorates) conducting original research in the field of climate science.  I think that's simple and obvious enough.  Is there some reason you want to disparage this group?  Can't think of a better comeback?

The results of research are not "opinions".  They are data and the conclusions drawn from those data, with the justification via logic, reasoning and expert knowledge lain out.

Faith is not required where evidence is present and there are enormous amounts of evidence supporting AGW.


----------



## whitehall (Aug 31, 2014)

Crick said:


> A researcher in this context would be someone conducting original research.  Rush Limbaugh would not qualify. Neither would your "grad student copying manuscripts" or "some techno bureaucrat trying to get his thesis published".  These are qualified, professional researchers (masters and doctorates) conducting original research in the field of climate science.  I think that's simple and obvious enough.  Is there some reason you want to disparage this group?  Can't think of a better comeback?
> 
> The results of research are not "opinions".  They are data and the conclusions drawn from those data, with the justification via logic, reasoning and expert knowledge lain out.
> 
> Faith is not required where evidence is present and there are enormous amounts of evidence supporting AGW.


  Does the scientific community assume that every article published about global warming is based on "original research" just because the author has a masters or a doctorate degree? The ultimate global warming guru who started the whole magilla had no background in environmental science. Al Gore was just another leftie politician but the Nobel Prize people awarded him the "Peace Prize" for what amounts to self grandizing blame America rhetoric based on a crazy theory with no scientific data. When you take the pompous self promoting bull shit by bull shit pseudo "scientists" and wannabe "scientists out of the equation the whole warming theory falls apart.


----------



## Kosh (Aug 31, 2014)

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the media, and Al Gore repeatedly say that the science of global warming is settled and that only a radical fringe group of corporate-sponsored scientists disagree with the scientific consensus that man is causing global warming. Over $50 billion has been spent to support that believe. However, even as far back as 2003 a  survey was conducted among all climate scientists (those actually having climate PhDs and working specifically on climate issues) showed that there was barely a majority, let alone a consensus that man was causing global warming. When the question was asked, "was the scientific debate about climate change over," less than half of the respondents agreed with the question. An equal number disagreed. This is far from a consensus among scientists who can actually speak to the issue.

In 2001 a voluntary petition  was sent to all scientists in the United States stating that, among other things, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." At that time, 17,000 scientists signed it. When the same petition was sent out in 2008, 31,000 scientists signed it, almost double the number in 2001. Nine thousand of these had PhD's in the physical sciences. This compares to only about 60 (not 2500) that support the IPCC's man-caused theory. More are signing every day. The IPCC's, media's, and Gore's instance that there is a consensus among scientists that the science is settled is completely false, designed to hide the fact that the entire effort is politically, not scientifically, motivated. Every effort is made to silence the dissenters, yet more and more scientists are speaking out because the actual science supporting man-caused warming is non-existent.

Once again the AGW cult points to their high priests that funnel the trillions of research (tax payer) dollars into the AGW church.


----------



## Crick (Sep 1, 2014)

whitehall said:


> Does the scientific community assume that every article published about global warming is based on "original research" just because the author has a masters or a doctorate degree?



No.  That would be based on the content of the paper.  It is relatively common for submitted research papers to be rejected for publication because they do not represent original research.  



whitehall said:


> The ultimate global warming guru who started the whole magilla had no background in environmental science.



Despite the fact that I am grateful for the work Gore has done toward educating the public regarding man made global warming, neither the validity nor the significance of anthropogenic warming is dependent on him in any way.  Any discussion of the man in that context is a meaningless waste of time.



whitehall said:


> When you take the pompous self promoting bull shit by bull shit pseudo "scientists" and wannabe "scientists out of the equation the whole warming theory falls apart.



That statement is complete nonsense.  As several studies have demonstrated, the VAST majority of all journal-published climate science studies have provided further supporting evidence supporting the theory of AGW.

For instance:
In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes ... analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003... *None* of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position,

*and*

A 2010 paper in the _Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States_ (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:

(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

*and*


A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers, finding 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming and reporting:

Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.[120]

Additionally, the authors of the studies were invited to categorise their own research papers, of which 1,381 discussed the cause of recent global warming, and:

Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus.

​The above information is from Wikipedia's article "Scientific Opinion on Climate Change" and has been posted here on numerous occasions.  I would be VERY surprised if you had not seen it before which makes it difficult to understand why you would make such a ridiculous and unsupportable statement.
​


----------



## SSDD (Sep 1, 2014)

Stephanie don't expect much in the way of honestly from Crick.  He's a natural born liar of the highest order


----------



## Crick (Sep 1, 2014)

You are an ass.  And your qualifications to speak in any discussion of science topics is absolutely nil.


----------



## Rotagilla (Sep 1, 2014)

wikipedia isn't a reliable source...anyone can insert anything into wikipedia, and as long as the "others" agree, it stays.

wikipedia distorts or covers up more truth than it "reveals".


----------



## Crick (Sep 1, 2014)

I'm afraid you are repeating a common misconception.

How Accurate Is Wikipedia


----------



## Stephanie (Sep 1, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Stephanie don't expect much in the way of honestly from Crick.  He's a natural born liar of the highest order



because he can post a lot studies that can be rebutted with another one (of course he ignores those)  we are suppose to believe he is an expert
all I see him as is being brainwashed and rude on top of that or he must be making money off the scam.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 1, 2014)

Crick said:


> Gosh Frank, that's off topic, but have you looked in the thread entitled "CO2 Experiments Posted Here"?



You mean the thread where you don't post any experiments? Yeah


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 1, 2014)

Crick said:


> A researcher in this context would be someone conducting original research.  Rush Limbaugh would not qualify. Neither would your "grad student copying manuscripts" or "some techno bureaucrat trying to get his thesis published".  These are qualified, professional researchers (masters and doctorates) conducting original research in the field of climate science.  I think that's simple and obvious enough.  Is there some reason you want to disparage this group?  Can't think of a better comeback?
> 
> The results of research are not "opinions".  They are data and the conclusions drawn from those data, with the justification via logic, reasoning and expert knowledge lain out.
> 
> Faith is not required where evidence is present and there are enormous amounts of evidence supporting AGW.



Pointing at the Weather channel and shrieking "ManMade Global Warming on Display, DENIER!!!" is neither research nor evidence nor a lab experiment


----------



## jon_berzerk (Sep 1, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > *Surveys of scientists and scientific literature [Wikipedia]*
> ...




the lefties will fall for anything 

--LOL


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 1, 2014)

How does 97% of any group "Believe" in AGW without any lab work?

How?


----------



## jon_berzerk (Sep 1, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> How does 97% of any group "Believe" in AGW without any lab work?
> 
> How?



just because


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 1, 2014)

Far, far more scientists DONT conform with the AGW model.........its not even close!!!


Oh and ummm.........ahhh hemmm.......*peer reviewed survey* here!!!! >>>>

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis - Forbes






The AGW mental cases are pwned again!!!!


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 1, 2014)

*Ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooops*


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 1, 2014)




----------



## Crick (Sep 1, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> Far, far more scientists DONT conform with the AGW model.........its not even close!!!
> 
> Oh and ummm.........ahhh hemmm.......*peer reviewed survey* here!!!! >>>>
> 
> ...



OOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooooooooops!!!!!

The people surveyed here *ALL WORK IN THE FUCKING OIL INDUSTRY.*


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 1, 2014)

Crick said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Far, far more scientists DONT conform with the AGW model.........its not even close!!!
> ...






Of course they do s0n........or course they do!!!



Except Duke University says socialists are liars and cheaters  >>>


Socialists Are Cheaters Says New Study - Hit Run Reason.com


----------



## Kosh (Sep 1, 2014)

Crick said:


> You are an ass.  And your qualifications to speak in any discussion of science topics is absolutely nil.



Another looking in the mirror moment from the AGW cult member.


----------



## Crick (Sep 1, 2014)

Kosh said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > You are an ass.  And your qualifications to speak in any discussion of science topics is absolutely nil.
> ...



Let me guess - you think SSDD's ideas about radiative heat transfer, about relativity and quantum mechanics, about photons, about the Second Law of Thermodynamics - you think they're all spot on.  Right?


----------



## SSDD (Sep 1, 2014)

Crick said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



F'ing idiot...I don't have any ideas about those things at all.  All I have is the statement of the second law which says that energy won't spontaneously move from cool to warm and every observation ever made backs up that statement....I keep asking for the measured observations which would result in the law being reworded...none have been forthcoming.

You must really be feeling insecure to attempt a stupid assed dodge like that.


----------



## IanC (Sep 1, 2014)

Credentials are an odd commodity. Having an advanced degree guarantees a certain amount of competency but not having one does not rule out a mastery of any particular subject.

Does McIntyre's top of his class mathematics degree and a career working with statistics trump Michael Mann's dodgy unreleased methods and a newly minted PhD? Apparently that is more a political question than anything else.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 1, 2014)

whitehall said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > A researcher in this context would be someone conducting original research.  Rush Limbaugh would not qualify. Neither would your "grad student copying manuscripts" or "some techno bureaucrat trying to get his thesis published".  These are qualified, professional researchers (masters and doctorates) conducting original research in the field of climate science.  I think that's simple and obvious enough.  Is there some reason you want to disparage this group?  Can't think of a better comeback?
> ...



Egad, what a stupid ass you truly are. There were thousands of scientists doing research connected to weather and climate prior to Al Gore using layman's language to interpret their results. And he presented much of the scientific data in his movie that the theory was based on.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 1, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie don't expect much in the way of honestly from Crick.  He's a natural born liar of the highest order
> ...



LOL. No, Crick is overly polite, considering the replys he gets. I am not. I am quite willing to call braindead ignoramouses like you for what they are. 

You have been given repeatedly what the scientists are finding, and all you do is repeat nonsense from an obese junkie, a fake english lord, and an undegreed ex-TV weatherman.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 1, 2014)

IanC said:


> Credentials are an odd commodity. Having an advanced degree guarantees a certain amount of competency but not having one does not rule out a mastery of any particular subject.
> 
> Does McIntyre's top of his class mathematics degree and a career working with statistics trump Michael Mann's dodgy unreleased methods and a newly minted PhD? Apparently that is more a political question than anything else.


 And what is each of those peoples standing within the scientific community? And how do you think that Hansen stacks up against McIntyre?


----------



## Crick (Sep 1, 2014)

IanC said:


> Credentials are an odd commodity. Having an advanced degree guarantees a certain amount of competency but not having one does not rule out a mastery of any particular subject.
> 
> Does McIntyre's top of his class mathematics degree and a career working with statistics trump Michael Mann's dodgy unreleased methods and a newly minted PhD? Apparently that is more a political question than anything else.



How about a comparison between the number of papers these two fellows have gotten published in peer reviewed journals and the number of citations made from them?  How about a comparison between how much paid research each has done?  How about a comparison between how each has advanced and succeeded in their chosen careers?


----------



## IanC (Sep 1, 2014)

Crick said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Credentials are an odd commodity. Having an advanced degree guarantees a certain amount of competency but not having one does not rule out a mastery of any particular subject.
> ...



Mcintyre did very well in his chosen field. He has made a pretty big splash in several of his hobbies as well.


----------



## Crick (Sep 1, 2014)

What field was that?  Mining?  That's not statistics and that's not climate science.  He's very close to unpublished.  Mann is a department head, an IPCC heavyweight, widely published and widely cited.  Comparing the two is ridiculous.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 2, 2014)

IanC said:


> Credentials are an odd commodity. Having an advanced degree guarantees a certain amount of competency but not having one does not rule out a mastery of any particular subject.
> 
> Does McIntyre's top of his class mathematics degree and a career working with statistics trump Michael Mann's dodgy unreleased methods and a newly minted PhD? Apparently that is more a political question than anything else.



Did you read about his (mann's) hockey stick filter being duplicated?  An exact match to his hockey stick has finally been produced....it took some seriously strange, and truly unprecedented programming tricks to make it happen....no wonder he wants to keep his methodology out of the public eye.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 2, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Sorry rocks...but you are as big a wacko as crick....you, like him are a poser pretending some scientific expertise and rely on insult, misdirection, and fabrication to support your position.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 2, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Credentials are an odd commodity. Having an advanced degree guarantees a certain amount of competency but not having one does not rule out a mastery of any particular subject.
> ...



Hansen's long history of hysterics, alarmism, and failed predictions put him in bad stead against everyone...he is a political hack who will say anything for money.









> “Hansen predicted that global temperatures should be nearly 2 degrees higher in 20 years, ‘which is about the warmest the earth has been in the last 100,000 years.’” AP Overheating of Earth Poses Survival Threat, “ The Press-Courier,(Milwaukee) June 11, 1986
> source



[quote“Hansen said the average U.S. temperature has risen from 1 to 2 degrees since 1958 and is predicted to increase an additional 3 or 4 degrees sometime between 2010 and 2020.” AP Overheating of Earth Poses Survival Threat, “ The Press-Courier (Milwaukee), June 11, 1986
source[/quote]

[quote"The 1 [deg]C level of warming is exceeded during the next few decades in both scenarios A and B; in scenario A that level of warming is reached in less than 20 years and in scenario B it is reached within the next 25 years." J. HANSEN, I. FUNG, A. LACIS, D. RIND, S. LEBEDEFF, R. RUEDY, AND G. RUSSELL, “Global Climate Changes as Forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies Three-Dimensional Model, Journal of Geophysical Research, Atmospheres, 93, NO. D8, PAGES 9341-9364, AUGUST 20, 1988, p. 9346[/quote]

[quote"The computed temperature changes are sufficient to have a large impact on other parts of the biosphere. A warnting of 0.5[deg] C per decade implies typically a poleward shift of isotherms by 50 to 75 km per decade. This is an order of magnitude faster than the major climate shifts in the paleoclimate record, and faster than most plants and trees are thought to be capable of naturally nilgrating [Davis, 1988]” J. HANSEN, I. FUNG, A. LACIS, D. RIND, S. LEBEDEFF, R. RUEDY, AND G. RUSSELL, “Global Climate Changes as Forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies Three-Dimensional Model, Journal of Geophysical Research, Atmospheres, 93, NO. D8, PAGES 9341-9364, AUGUST 20, 1988, p. 9357[/quote]



> “Within 15 years,” said Goddard Space Flight Honcho James Hansen, “global temperatures will rise to a level which hasn’t existed on earth for 100,000 years”. Sandy Grady, “The Heat is On,” -- The News and Courier, June 17th 1986“





> “The last time the world was three degrees warmer than today – which is what we expect later this century – sea levels were 25m higher. So that is what we can look forward to if we don’t act soon. None of the current climate and ice models predict this. But I prefer the evidence from the Earth’s history and my own eyes. I think sea-level rise is going to be the big issue soon, more even than warming itself.” --Jim Hansen, “Climate change: On the edge” The Independent, 17th February, 2006 source





> "How long have we got? We have to stabilise emissions of carbon dioxide within a decade, or temperatures will warm by more than one degree. That will be warmer than it has been for half a million years, and many things could become unstoppable.” Jim Hansen, “Climate change: On the edge” The Independent, Friday, Feb 17, 2006 source



I could go on but is it really necessary....the fact that you guys continue to support and defend him and attempt to compare him to any actual scientist speaks volumes to the state of the alarmist camp.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 2, 2014)

Crick said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Credentials are an odd commodity. Having an advanced degree guarantees a certain amount of competency but not having one does not rule out a mastery of any particular subject.
> ...



It is true that hansen has had more spectacularly failed papers published....and had more citations to his spectacularly failed paper than Mcintyre....are you saying that is a good thing?....that sort of thing is the basis for the error cascade that climate science is the unfortunate victim of.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 2, 2014)

Crick said:


> What field was that?  Mining?  That's not statistics and that's not climate science.  He's very close to unpublished.  Mann is a department head, an IPCC heavyweight, widely published and widely cited.  Comparing the two is ridiculous.




And mann is hiding his fraud with all his might.


----------



## Crick (Sep 2, 2014)

That must be why he took Steyn and the Review to court. Gosh, no better place to go if you want to keep secrets...


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 2, 2014)

Again.....the 97% is a fabricated and rigged #......only the hopelessly duped who dont pay attention to anything buy the 97% thing in 2014.

Oh......and who cares really......no warming has been happening for 19 years now!!! Another completed study confirms it........except to the religious k00ks.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/no_warming_for_19_years


----------



## Crick (Sep 2, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> Again.....the 97% is a fabricated and rigged #......only the hopelessly duped who dont pay attention to anything buy the 97% thing in 2014.
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/no_warming_for_19_years



You have repeatedly been shown more than sufficient justification for claiming 97% concurrence with the IPCC among active climate scientists.  The claim that is false or is not supported by the evidence would be what one would hear from the duped.

And, speaking of duped, quoting Andrew Bolt in an argument on a science topic is fully akin to simply issuing your unconditional surrender.

Despite that, no one is denying that surface warming has slowed since the turn of the century.  Unfortunately for you, though, the bathymetric data as well as the radiative balance at the ToA shows quite clearly that the Earth IS still getting accumulating heat and getting warmer.  The denier refrain we've been listening to for the last several years, that the last 150 years mean nothing in the face of the last decade is the absolute epitome of cherry picking and completely ignores the range of internal variability clearly demonstrated by the longer temperature record (eg, 1941-1979).


----------



## IanC (Sep 2, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Credentials are an odd commodity. Having an advanced degree guarantees a certain amount of competency but not having one does not rule out a mastery of any particular subject.
> ...




My comparison was against Mann. I don't like to slag Hansen because he was an excellent scientist before he dropped science for advocacy. He turned out to be wrong but he was honest. 

Mann, on the other hand, has been spectacularly dishonest from the beginning. His lies, misdirections and furtiveness have always been there. When you add in his character traits pomposity, pettiness and refusal to acknowledge his many glaring errors, you are left with an odious troll of a man that has almost single-handedly tarnished the reputation of climate science.


----------



## IanC (Sep 2, 2014)

Crick said:


> What field was that?  Mining?  That's not statistics and that's not climate science.  He's very close to unpublished.  Mann is a department head, an IPCC heavyweight, widely published and widely cited.  Comparing the two is ridiculous.





I would assume that Mann has no publications in mining related fields. McIntyre has been published in climate science, but less than he should have been because of the cabal of climate science mafioso that tried to control what got printed, as evidenced by the climategate emails. 

This is part and parcel of your 97% consensus. Anti consensus views are next to impossible to get published while pro consensus papers sail right through even if they are dreck.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 2, 2014)

Crick said:


> That must be why he took Steyn and the Review to court. Gosh, no better place to go if you want to keep secrets...



And then immediately started the delay tactics when the discovery phase started....face it, he is a fraud and the reason he is hiding his methodology is that climate science itself will have no alternative but to throw him under the bus if his wacko methods ever get public scrutiny....


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 2, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > 1) I was ignoring the point that numerous other studies, involving many hundreds to thousands of opinion samples, have found 97% concourrence.
> ...



You really have to narrow the parameters to get the imaginary 97% number.

You have to understand, what they're actually saying is that 97% of the AGWCult members who are published in AGWCult magazines agree that AGW is for real


----------



## Crick (Sep 2, 2014)

IanC said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > What field was that?  Mining?  That's not statistics and that's not climate science.  He's very close to unpublished.  Mann is a department head, an IPCC heavyweight, widely published and widely cited.  Comparing the two is ridiculous.
> ...



It's also difficult to get articles published on flat Earth, demonism, hollow moons and magic photons.  But those don't testify to journal biases, do they.


This does not change the FACT that McIntyre is virtually unpublished in statistics (his field of expertise).  He has nothing but OJT in mining and since that has no relation whatsoever to climate science I don't care what he may or may not have published there.  Mann is a professionally and academically successful scientist who is both heavily published and widely cited.  McIntyre is an almost unpublished statistician who spent his professional career working outside of his field.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 2, 2014)

Crick said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


 still nothing, you still have nothing to prove your dribble.  mumbo jumbo continues.  Dude you need a job.


----------



## Crick (Sep 2, 2014)

*


Crick said:



			I was ignoring the point that numerous other studies, involving many hundreds to thousands of opinion samples, have found 97% concourrence.
		
Click to expand...




Toddsterpatriot said:



			You have other, better polls that show 97% consensus?
Then why post the one that only shows 75/77?
		
Click to expand...


What the FUCK is wrong with you?  I've REPEATEDLY posted numerous  studies showing results in the high 90s.  Can you not READ?




Crick said:



			It's obvious, if they could, the biased pollsters would have included them.
		
Click to expand...


It's obvious that you can NOT read because the pollsters DID include them.  Results from ALL scientists show concurrence in the high 80s.



Crick said:



			They could be researchers that disagree, but couldn't get published with the warmers stifling dissent. Don't you hate those Climategate emails letting the corrupt cat out of the bag? LOL!
		
Click to expand...


The only thing that came out of the bag with CRU's stolen emails is that you people are ignorant and abysmally lacking in morals.  If you want to claim suppression by the journals, you're right back with your mass conspiracy theory.  Pick up your tin foil hat and join the other conspiracy whackos in the big room down the hall.



CrusaderFrank said:



			You really have to narrow the parameters to get the imaginary 97% number.
You have to understand, what they're actually saying is that 97% of the AGWCult members who are published in AGWCult magazines agree that AGW is for real
		
Click to expand...


I don't have to narrow them at all.  From the very beginning the crucial result has been support for the IPCC contention among active climate scientists.  That you think they should be polling every sheep herder and carwash attendant just shows you TRULY DO NOT HAVE A FUCKING CLUE.*


----------



## Crick (Sep 2, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



What do you think I need to counter you?  So far it has required nothing more than a disappointed shake of my head.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 2, 2014)

Crick said:


> *
> 
> 
> Crick said:
> ...



*97% of the AGWCult members who are published in AGWCult magazines agree that AGW is for real

Yes, that's how fucked up you are

And you STILL haven't posted a single experiment that shows a temperature increase from a 120PPM increase in CO2

The difference between the AGWCult and an Islamist Jihadist is that the Jihadist will only blow up himself and a few innocent bystanders. You AGW AKBAR!!! Fanatics want to take down all of western civilization with your fake science*


----------



## jc456 (Sep 2, 2014)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


I don't think you need to counter me at all.  You can just shut up and go away and I'm a happy camper. See your posts are juvenile and pointless.  They prove nothing.  And proof of nothing is just that nothing.  So you offer nothing to the discussion. You act all high and mighty and have absolutely nothing.  It's hilarious.  You don't even know what 120 PPM of CO2 added to the atmosphere will do to weather or climate or temperature or storms or anything.  You don't have any proof, nadda, zero, You're a waste on the board.

Oh BTW, you shouldn't be sharing your sexual habits on a message board.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 2, 2014)

It is amazing that these climate crusaders have been relying on the same old crap for almost two decades and have been spinning the wheels for two decades = science having zero impact on energy policy.

This whole 97% crap has been going on forever......a total ruse......complete intellectual dishonesty. You'd think these meatheads would look to go with Plan B.


----------



## PredFan (Sep 2, 2014)

Meh, scientists are for sale. Have been for decades.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 2, 2014)

Typical of people on the far left.......they immediately go to vicious personal attacks on anybody who does not embrace the established narrative.

How gay?

So fucking gay..........particularly when done by males on this forum. Limpwristed assholes........no balls. The guys who were always picked last for the team.......because they were social oddball weirdo's and they know it too. Wage personal attacks on anybody who does not agree with them.........anybody......no information wanted. 

fake weenie pantywaists.......as much character as a small soap dish.


gay


----------



## Youch (Sep 3, 2014)

Crick said:


> Stephanie, I believe I have posted for you on prior occasions the numerous other studies available, most with larger samples involved.
> 
> And do you really think Anthony Watts is the fellow whose opinion you should listen to on science matters?  Were you aware that he never graduated from college.  It's not even certain that he ever attended ANY college.  He is NOT an expert on any branch of science.  He was a TV weatherman who got into weather graphics at the right time and made himself a nice pot of money.
> 
> ...



Ye of the Mob Rules Faith.  You keep cutting and pasting, without properly citing sources mind you, "research" from academia, pro-growth government functionaries all.   You keep doing it, over and over again, as a drone.

Never mind what I have posted, many others have posted data that contradicts the data of your revered academia, and you refuse to acknowledge or discuss it at all.  The rest of us are bombarded with sky-is-falling man-made-global-warming "data" endlessly....we get it, we can't help but read it.  But folks of your brainwashed ilk, intolerant libs all, refuse to accept that an entire other body of science shows something else entirely.  And you refuse to discuss it, acknowledge it, etc...  I don't really give a syphilitic pile, as I know you naught.  But it is always important to call out intolerant and narrow libs when they present themselves.  Wanna rise above?  Discuss the data that many of us have provided without dismissal by cutting and pasting tired and repeated and largely debunked,  well-crafted, grant-beggar postulates.

By the way, it is not an effective debate tool to dismiss a counter-argument by repeating yourself and dismissing the opposing source of data simply because you don't know from what college, if any, he mail have hailed.  Doing so avoids the actual debate.  And oh by the way, if attending college was the prerequisite for knowledge on global warming, we'd be much farther along in dooming our nation, economy and society than we are.  Look instead to empirical data.  What evidence do YOU have?


----------



## SSDD (Sep 3, 2014)

jc456 said:


> See your posts are juvenile and pointless.  They prove nothing.  And proof of nothing is just that nothing..



Don't be quite so harsh...his posts do prove something...they prove that he has the whole circular reasoning thing down pat...


----------



## SSDD (Sep 3, 2014)

Youch said:


> .  Wanna rise above?  Discuss the data that many of us have provided without dismissal by cutting and pasting tired and repeated and largely debunked,  well-crafted, grant-beggar postulates.
> 
> By the way, it is not an effective debate tool to dismiss a counter-argument by repeating yourself and dismissing the opposing source of data simply because you don't know from what college, if any, he mail have hailed.  Doing so avoids the actual debate.  And oh by the way, if attending college was the prerequisite for knowledge on global warming, we'd be much farther along in dooming our nation, economy and society than we are.  Look instead to empirical data.  What evidence do YOU have?



Give him time...he is looking for just the right logical fallacy that will make it all OK for him.


----------



## IanC (Sep 3, 2014)

Crick said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...




Here we go again. McIntyre worked in the mining industry, he is not an academic. Part of his job was  ferreting out dodgy data and statistics put out by less-than-scrupulous mining stock promoters. When he saw the HockeyStick Graph, which was sent out to every Canadian household by the govt, his bullshit detector gave off a shrill alarm and he investigated. The rest is history. 

McIntyre had a strong background in mathematics, when his interest was piqued by climate science he had the tools and the ability to track down the many mistakes he found, and the doggedness to find the sequestered data that was being withheld.  He has consistently taken the high road and stuck to the data and science rather than stoop to the slanderous barrage of ad homs that he has had to weather.

As an interesting aside, McIntyre's other hobbies include playing squash at a very high international level. It seems that he is more than competent at anything he sets his sights on. Perhaps he should have taken the MIT scholarship he was offered after studying at Oxford. Instead, he came home and went to work.

Actually crick, I am surprised that you didnt say McIntyre was unemployed, like you did with Nic Lewis. Retired/out-of-work, hey what's the difference, right? hahahahaha


----------



## Crick (Sep 3, 2014)

Youch said:


> Ye of the Mob Rules Faith.  You keep cutting and pasting, without properly citing sources mind you, "research" from academia, pro-growth government functionaries all.



This material has been posted here well over a dozen times.  The article is from Wikipedia.  The references there are all valid.  This isn't the right-wing blogosphere ramblings you seem to be used to.



Youch said:


> You keep doing it, over and over again, as a drone.



Mind the context young Paduwan.  Stephanie accused me of constantly repeating the Doran, 75 out of 77 study and nothing else.  I post this in a likely vain attempt to hook the young lady back up with reality.



Youch said:


> Never mind what I have posted



Probably a good idea.



Youch said:


> many others have posted data that contradicts the data of your revered academia, and you refuse to acknowledge or discuss it at all.



The only data posted contradicting these scientific opinion data would be the Legates "paper" which I have discussed repeatedly.  That people have attempted to argue against AGW is the ongoing central theme of this forum and I have most certainly discussed it and them orders of magnitude more than have you.  Very likely more than anyone else here.



Youch said:


> The rest of us are bombarded with sky-is-falling man-made-global-warming "data" endlessly....we get it, we can't help but read it.



Good.



Youch said:


> But folks of your brainwashed ilk, intolerant libs all, refuse to accept that an entire other body of science shows something else entirely.



I refuse to accept it because so far there hasn't been the slightest shred of evidence suggesting such a contention is correct.



Youch said:


> And you refuse to discuss it, acknowledge it, etc...



That statement is demonstrably incorrect and again gives a clear impression that you know very little of what has been going on in this forum.  



Youch said:


> I don't really give a syphilitic pile, as I know you naught.  But it is always important to call out intolerant and narrow libs when they present themselves.  Wanna rise above?  Discuss the data that many of us have provided without dismissal by cutting and pasting tired and repeated and largely debunked,  well-crafted, grant-beggar postulates.



Then present some data.  Blog articles are not data.  Look for the papers they reference and post them.



Youch said:


> By the way, it is not an effective debate tool to dismiss a counter-argument by repeating yourself and dismissing the opposing source of data simply because you don't know from what college, if any, he mail have hailed.



You aren't actually familiar with Anthony Watts, are you?



Youch said:


> Doing so avoids the actual debate.  And oh by the way, if attending college was the prerequisite for knowledge on global warming, we'd be much farther along in dooming our nation, economy and society than we are.  Look instead to empirical data.  What evidence do YOU have?



Read AR5.  And get thee to a nunnery (or your local junior college) where you and Kosh and JC can take some basic science classes.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 3, 2014)

Crick said:


> Youch said:
> 
> 
> > Ye of the Mob Rules Faith.  You keep cutting and pasting, without properly citing sources mind you, "research" from academia, pro-growth government functionaries all.
> ...





narcissism........another bold trait of those on the far left. Think they are smarter than anyone AND they all think they now how you should conduct you life better than you do!!!


----------



## Youch (Sep 3, 2014)

[QUOTE="skookerasbil, post: 9734112, member: 20360]
narcissism........another bold trait of those on the far left. Think they are smarter than anyone AND they all think they now how you should conduct you life better than you do!!![/QUOTE]

They are not.  I'll have to respond another time.  Remind me.....


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 3, 2014)

Crick said:


> Youch said:
> 
> 
> > Ye of the Mob Rules Faith.  You keep cutting and pasting, without properly citing sources mind you, "research" from academia, pro-growth government functionaries all.
> ...





Wikipedia.



vAliD


----------



## Crick (Sep 3, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> narcissism........another bold trait of those on the far left. Think they are smarter than anyone AND they all think they now how you should conduct you life better than you do!!!



Since the man has admitted not having a science education and has professed an antipathy towards science education, my position in this regard is not a supposition.


----------



## Crick (Sep 3, 2014)

Youch said:


> [QUOTE="skookerasbil, post: 9734112, member: 20360]
> narcissism........another bold trait of those on the far left. Think they are smarter than anyone AND they all think they now how you should conduct you life better than you do!!!



They are not.  I'll have to respond another time.  Remind me.....  [/QUOTE]

Please consider yourself reminded.


----------



## Youch (Sep 3, 2014)

Crick said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > narcissism........another bold trait of those on the far left. Think they are smarter than anyone AND they all think they now how you should conduct you life better than you do!!!
> ...



All that proves is you believe institutionalized agenda over actual data.  As a skeptic, I'd think you'd listen to the naysayers with data on their side.  As a drone, I'd think you'd drink the institutionalized kool aide without a second look. Such is the rider with blinders.

Based on your own experiences, what trend do you experience?

Why do you hate warming?  You don't like increased crop yields?  Better climate? 

Why do you deny cooling?  Is it merely because  if offends your ideology?

Someday, perhaps soon, you will realize reality.  When that day comes, there is no shame is simply avoiding the fact.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Sep 3, 2014)

through out history the peoples 

have always done better in the warmer years 

then the coldie ones


----------



## jc456 (Sep 3, 2014)

Crick said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...


So where is the experiment that shows 120 PPM on top of 280 increases temperature or causes Hurricanes and tornados? Again you have nothing.  nonsense is all you have. *NoNsENse*


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 3, 2014)

Crick said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > narcissism........another bold trait of those on the far left. Think they are smarter than anyone AND they all think they now how you should conduct you life better than you do!!!
> ...



Put another way, 97% of the AGWCult members who are published in AGWCult magazines agree that AGW is for real


----------



## jc456 (Sep 3, 2014)

Crick said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > Does the scientific community assume that every article published about global warming is based on "original research" just because the author has a masters or a doctorate degree?
> ...


 However, or but, why not add that, because if the paper doesn't fit the peer review politics, then those individuals are not allowed in.  Correct?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 3, 2014)

Crick said:


> I'm afraid you are repeating a common misconception.
> 
> How Accurate Is Wikipedia


No, we know you have nothing.  So genious where's that experiment?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 3, 2014)

Crick said:


> Youch said:
> 
> 
> > Ye of the Mob Rules Faith.  You keep cutting and pasting, without properly citing sources mind you, "research" from academia, pro-growth government functionaries all.
> ...


 And yet you post nothing of what has been asked. so you have no idea on how to debate or banter.  See that requires two points of view.  You have no thought at all at considering anything except your nothingness.  hey that's ok, but realize we ain't biting your trash.  Tell you what, instead of providing articles, can you supply a lab experiment that shows what 120 PPM of CO2 does to the climate? You got that genious dude?  Nope, I know you don't, you got NoNsENse.


----------



## chikenwing (Sep 3, 2014)

Wondering if it the same 97% that where just so sure we were headed into an ice age just a few years ago?
Back when were polluting at a much greater rate.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 3, 2014)

There's far more evidence in favor of the Moon being a hollow, manufactured sphere than there is for a 120PPM increase in CO2 raising temperature and lowering pH


----------



## SSDD (Sep 3, 2014)

Crick said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > narcissism........another bold trait of those on the far left. Think they are smarter than anyone AND they all think they now how you should conduct you life better than you do!!!
> ...



Works out fine since mann's hockey stick was not science...it was a deliberate manipulation of numbers to show a predetermined result....no science required...all that is needed is sufficient mathematics to find the deception and he had more than enough math to do that.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 3, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...









Look under my pinky and you will see all of the AGW evidence you'll ever need.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 3, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...


 
Thermal radiation is the emission of electromagnetic waves from all matter that has a temperature greater than absolute zero.[3] It represents a conversion of thermal energy into electromagnetic energy. Thermal energy results in kinetic energy in the random movements of atoms and molecules in matter. All matter with a temperature by definition is composed of particles which have kinetic energy, and which interact with each other. These atoms and molecules are composed of charged particles, i.e., protons and electrons, and kinetic interactions among matter particles result in charge-acceleration and dipole-oscillation. This results in the electrodynamic generation of coupled electric and magnetic fields, resulting in the emission of photons, radiating energy away from the body through its surface boundary. Electromagnetic radiation, including light, does not require the presence of matter to propagate and travels in the vacuum of space infinitely far if unobstructed.

The total amount of radiation of all frequencies increases steeply as the temperature rises; it grows as _T_4, where _T_ is the absolute temperature of the body. An object at the temperature of a kitchen oven, about twice the room temperature on the absolute temperature scale (600 K vs. 300 K) radiates 16 times as much power per unit area. An object at the temperature of the filament in an incandescent light bulb—roughly 3000 K, or 10 times room temperature—radiates 10,000 times as much energy per unit area. The total radiative intensity of a black body rises as the fourth power of the absolute temperature, as expressed by the Stefan–Boltzmann law. In the plot, the area under each curve grows rapidly as the temperature increases.


----------



## Crick (Sep 3, 2014)

Thank you Todd.

I wanted to make the point to SSDD that the simplest Stefan-Boltzman expression does indeed describe the radiation of a single body.  The point he's missing is that it describes the radiation of EVERY single body.


----------



## Crick (Sep 3, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Since the man has admitted not having a science education and has professed an antipathy towards science education, my position in this regard is not a supposition.
> ...



You wouldn't know science if it slapped you in the face.  That's been demonstrated here repeatedly.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 3, 2014)

Crick said:


> Thank you Todd.
> 
> I wanted to make the point to SSDD that the simplest Stefan-Boltzman expression does indeed describe the radiation of a single body.  The point he's missing is that it describes the radiation of EVERY single body.



....and that has what to do exactly with Mann and his fake tree rings????????


----------



## Crick (Sep 3, 2014)

What do Mann and his entirely valid tree rings have to do with the topic of this, MY thread: the 97% consensus of active climate scientists with the central IPCC contention re AGW?


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 3, 2014)

97% of about 80 people........impressive.....but only to the nutters.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 3, 2014)

*LAUGH.......MY.......BALLS.......OFF


Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring 97-Percent Consensus Claims - Forbes



Oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooops*


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 3, 2014)

Hey Frank.....victory lap time bro............I turn the honors over to you!!!!


----------



## Crick (Sep 3, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> 97% of about 80 people........impressive.....but only to the nutters.



Just how widespread is this practice we seem to be finding among deniers of baldfaced lying?  You have REPEATEDLY been shown listings of surveys, polls and studies involving tens of thousands.  Yet over and over and over again we get this accusation that the only survey ever done; ever shown to you, was Doran.

How do you justify lying like that Skooks?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 3, 2014)

Crick said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > 97% of about 80 people........impressive.....but only to the nutters.
> ...


 

* You have REPEATEDLY been shown listings of surveys, polls and studies involving tens of thousands.*

And what were the results?
I'll bet a lot less than 97%.


----------



## Crick (Sep 4, 2014)

Wikipedia said:
			
		

> James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[121]



24/13,950 = 0.00172 or 0.172% rejecting AGW.  That leaves *99.828% acceptance*



			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[122]



1/2,258 = 0.0004429 or 0.0429% rejecting AGW.  That leaves *99.9557% acceptanc*e (re papers)
or
1/9,136 = 0.00010946 or 0.01095% rejecting AGW.  That leaves *99.989% acceptance*. (re authors)

Is that better?


----------



## Rikurzhen (Sep 4, 2014)

Crick said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > 97% of about 80 people........impressive.....but only to the nutters.
> ...



Deniers? What's with the name calling? You're invoking a comparison to Holocaust deniers. People trying to deny Nazi crimes. So if you're calling skeptics deniers doesn't that imply that you're the counterpart, the Nazi criminal?  Yes, yes, I think that this analysis is sound. You can't invoke one half of a comparison without also invoking the other half. For them to be deniers you have to be the Nazi committing a crime.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 4, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



You are starting behave very strangely....stalking around, making comments not pertinent to the conversation...got any "THE END IS NEAR" sandwich signs in your closet?....Energy does not move spontaneously from warm to cool...if you believe it does, then present your measured, observed evidence and have the second law of thermodynamics rewritten and collect your Nobel and your million dollars.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 4, 2014)

Crick said:


> Thank you Todd.
> 
> I wanted to make the point to SSDD that the simplest Stefan-Boltzman expression does indeed describe the radiation of a single body.  The point he's missing is that it describes the radiation of EVERY single body.



The simplest SB expression only looks at a radiator...not at any other objects or any surroundings...it describes a fictional object, alone in a vacuum.  The SB expression that puts the radiator in the company of other objects describes a one way energy flow whose magnitude is determined by the temperature difference between the radiator and the other object or its surroundings.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 4, 2014)

Crick said:


> What do Mann and his entirely valid tree rings have to do with the topic of this, MY thread: the 97% consensus of active climate scientists with the central IPCC contention re AGW?



Why are some tree rings valid, and those that don't support his predetermined results are not valid?


----------



## Crick (Sep 4, 2014)

The quality of Mann's results do not seem to have caused any (not "any significant number", but "ANY") climate scientists to reject anthropogenic global warming.  Those numbers have increased and the number of climate scientists who believe the world has been warming have always been even higher than those who accept AGW.  And Mann's data only show warming, not sources.  So when you attack Mann, can I assume that it is because you reject the idea that the world has gotten warmer over the last 150 years and that this warming has happened at a rate far greater than at any time in, say, the last 2,000 years?  Do you reject that?  Cause you've got be getting pretty damn lonely there.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 4, 2014)

Crick said:


> The quality of Mann's results do not seem to have caused any (not "any significant number", but "ANY") climate scientists to reject anthropogenic global warming.  Those numbers have increased and the number of climate scientists who believe the world has been warming have always been even higher than those who accept AGW.  And Mann's data only show warming, not sources.  So when you attack Mann, can I assume that it is because you reject the idea that the world has gotten warmer over the last 150 years and that this warming has happened at a rate far greater than at any time in, say, the last 2,000 years?  Do you reject that?  Cause you've got be getting pretty damn lonely there.




True, they resulted in increased funding and got the hoax well and truly on its way...more money any area has... the more prostitutes it attracts...well known fact.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 4, 2014)

Crick said:


> Wikipedia said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
*24/13,950 = 0.00172 or 0.172% rejecting AGW. That leaves 99.828% acceptance*

LOL! No, that is a bigger lie than the 97%.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 4, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


 
I'm used to liberals getting the science wrong.
For some reason, it bothers me a lot more when conservatives get it wrong.
Especially such a huge error.
Smart waves. Objects suddenly start or stop emitting.
It's sad.
SB shows all objects emit all the time, as long as they are above 0K.
Except in your world. Weird.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 4, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you Todd.
> ...


 
Great. I'll stop pointing out your error if you can explain why a hot object radiates faster to a 50K object than to a 100 K object.
Sounds like more of your smart wave theory.


----------



## PratchettFan (Sep 4, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> nobody cares


 
Yes.  That really is what it comes down to.


----------



## IanC (Sep 4, 2014)

crick- somewhere in this thread you asked me why I chose the Doran poll to comment on. because it is the poster child of what is wrong about these surveys, and especially how these surveys are portrayed in the media. two questions; has it warmed?, and if yes to the first question, has mankind influenced that warming. even amongst publishing climate scientists some did not answer in the affirmative to the first question. and some more didnt answer yes to the second part. two of the easiest questions possible to ask and get an affirmative answer yet less than 97% gave them. presumably as the selection procedure gets more general the affirmative response gets smaller still.

it depends on the question.

has the earth warmed since the LIA? there should be close to a 100% yes vote

has the earth warmed more than 1C since the LIA? much less than 100% would agree

has CO2 risen since 1900? there should be close to a 100% yes vote

is mankind responsible for all of the increase? much less than 100% would agree

has CO2 contributed to the warming trend since 1950? there should be close to a 100% yes vote

has CO2 caused all of the warming since 1950? much less than 100% would agree

are climate models helpful in trying to understand the mechanics of climate? of course

are climate models accurate and capable of making meaningful predictions? of course NOT


the majority of skeptics are in the 'consensus' on many of the simple questions. what we question are the unsubstantiated assumptions and the exaggerated conclusions of much of what is printed as climate science.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 4, 2014)

The whole play from the AGW alarmists in this forum.........all based upon unsubstantiated assumptions and exaggerated conclusions.

Its called bogus science.........and that is why they are losing in spectacular fashion in 2014. All their shit is having zero impact in the real world........and these goofballs know it too!!!


----------



## Youch (Sep 4, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Look under my pinky and you will see all of the AGW evidence you'll ever need.



While on a crusade, Frank, which speaks to a certain faith-based mission, would it not be rational to look at more evidence than just a handful of regional tree rings? 

And oh by the way, are you trying to prove that increases in CO2, plant food, promotes greater crop yields??


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 4, 2014)

Youch said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Look under my pinky and you will see all of the AGW evidence you'll ever need.
> ...



I think Mann actually used only one (1) tree ring to demonstrate ManMade Gullible Warming.

He is the perfect poster boy for the biggest "Scientific" Fraud in human history


----------



## jc456 (Sep 4, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Youch said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


 How  is that a global answer?  I didn't know the globe had but one tree.


----------



## Youch (Sep 4, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Youch said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



I misunderstood your point, I think.  I think we are in agreement??


----------



## Crick (Sep 4, 2014)

The Three Missketeers.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 4, 2014)

Crick said:


> The Three Missketeers.


They were a fine group!  You're part of the three blind mice!


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 4, 2014)

Crick said:


> The Three Missketeers.


 


But winning.

By the way s0n.......not sure about that avatar of yours. Standing in front of a glass pyramid looking completely lost, or, *"IM THE PROTECTOR OF THE GLASS PYRAMIDS!!!!"* Might want to re-think that.......just sayin'.

IDK.......never quite got the whole concept of one putting their own mug in an avatar. Creepy as shit on alot of levels.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 4, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I'm used to liberals getting the science wrong.
> For some reason, it bothers me a lot more when conservatives get it wrong.
> Especially such a huge error.
> Smart waves. Objects suddenly start or stop emitting.
> ...



I am afraid that it is you who has it wrong Toddster.  I don't know how many different ways this can be demonstrated to you.  If you don't understand the SB equation, I can't make you.

Sure, this version of the SB equation (
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ) shows us that all objects emit all the time as long as they are above 0K and are alone in a vacuum.  You keep leaving out that part.  Leave out the (e) if the object is a perfect radiator.

If the object is radiating into cooler surroundings or is not alone, then you use this equation 






"P" is determined by the temperature difference between T and Tc.  Now, I am going to try and explain this in the simplest fashion that I know how.  Grab yourself a pencil and a  piece of paper....or a calculator and put in the number for (e) whatever you wish the emissivity to be although in this case it doesn't matter...put in the SB constant...put in the area of your radiator...again, it doesn't matter...and now put in the temperature for your radiator (T)...now make (Tc) equal to (T).  What is the value of P?  

OK now make (T) any temperature over 100K, then make (Tc) 100K...what is the value of P?  Now make (T) any temperature over 100K and make the value of (Tc) 50K...what is the value of (P).  Note that when the radiator is radiating to an object at 50K (P) is a higher value than when the object is at 100K.  What is the exact mechanism that cause the radiator to radiate more energy towards a 50K object than towards a 100K object??  I can't tell you and neither can anyone else...  What exact mechanism makes the object radiate zero when the radiator is the same temperature as the object?...again, can't tell you but if you accept the SB law, then you must accept that P = 0 if the radiator and the object are the same temperature.

Don't know any other way to explain this to you...if you don't get it now, sorry.  I have proven my point...accept it or not but the equation describes a one way energy flow and if the radiator and the object are the same temperature, P= 0.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 4, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > I'm used to liberals getting the science wrong.
> ...


 
Run the equation with a single 100K object.....write down your answer.
Run the equation with a single 50K object.....write down your answer.

Now run it with a 100K object and a 50K object.
Isn't it weird that your answer is exactly the radiation of the warmer minus the radiation of the cooler?
It's almost like they're both radiating continuously.

Of course your smart wave theory might work too.
So how does your smart wave theory explain why a hot object radiates slower to 100K than to 50K?
Oh, right, you can't explain the change in speed.

* What is the exact mechanism that cause the radiator to radiate more energy towards a 50K object than towards a 100K object?? I can't tell you and neither can anyone else...* 

I can tell you......I just did.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 4, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Can't help but notice that you completely ignored what P is when T is equal to Tc....and the fact that the SB equation describes a one way energy flow.  You may as well pack it in and go home...energy only moves spontaneously in one direction just like the 2nd law and the SB law predict.

And you didn't even begin to describe any mechanism...if you think you did, then you know even less than I thought....Hell, you didn't even understand what the equation was telling you...you looked right past it and again spouted what you believe rather than what the equation said.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 4, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


 
*Can't help but notice that you completely ignored what P is when T is equal to Tc....*

Net energy flow is zero.
You feel that it's because the matter magically knows it should stop radiating.
That's why I continue to mock you.

So how does the hotter object know that the cooler object is cooler?
ESP? 
Spell it out why don't you?


----------



## IanC (Sep 5, 2014)

I was trying to think of a simple way of showing that the radiation continues in both objects even if their temperatures are the same. when a photon is emitted it imparts a small amount of momentum to the emiiter and the same amount of momentum in the opposite direction in the absorber. (this is one of the forms of entropy increase that precludes perpetual motion machines). therefore the two objects should slightly move away from each other. if SSDD is right, and the objects simply stop radiating, then the objects will not only lose the slight repulsive force but the unopposed momentum shift from the opposite side of the objects will actually drive the objects closer. this would decrease entropy. isnt there some pretty strict rules about S ?

I looked around and didnt find anything about this written up but I did remember about that weather vane thingy that spins when you shine a light on it. false path. Crooke's Tubes work on a totally different principle.


----------



## Politico (Sep 5, 2014)

Samson said:


> Whenever I see anyone start a comment by quoting a "percent" rather than a number, I'm always suspicious.
> 
> 1000 words of qualifying bullshit doesn't make me less suspicious.


Give them a break. Words and feelings are all they have.


----------



## Crick (Sep 5, 2014)

In regards to the topic of this thread, all I have are facts.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 5, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Net energy flow is zero.




Keep believing if it makes you feel better...the equation does not describe net energy flow...the equation describes one way energy flow.  If the equation described two way energy flow it would be written differently.  You don't seem to understand that those equations describe a specific process...not whatever the hell you wan't them to mean.  The SB equation describes a one way energy flow. 



Toddsterpatriot said:


> You feel that it's because the matter magically knows it should stop radiating.



I am afraid it is you who is guilty of magical thinking here...claiming that an equation that describes a one way energy flow is actually describing a two way energy flow....and thinking you actually described a mechanism by which your magic happened.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> That's why I continue to mock you.



You think you hurt me when you attempt to mock me?  Like your interpretation of the SB equation, you couldn't be more wrong.  Do you know why one person mocks another?  Ever think about it?  All behavior has psychological roots and mocking has them also.  You feel the need to mock people who cause you to feel insecure.  Mocking is an attempt by the mocker to appear large while feeling small....in this case, it is most likely because you are afraid to step outside your comfort zone....typical of zealots.  You have a belief and cling to it for some reason you will probably never know.  You cling to it so desperately that you lose sight of the fact that it is only a belief.  Your belief becomes real to you and anything that challenges your belief challenges your reality....even though your reality never was real....

Our behavior reveals a great deal about us...and our internal landscape.  Look around you, there is a smorgasbord of moderately abnormal psychology on display here...I doubt that there are any actual psychopaths, but people put their internal landscapes on display in places like this.  Take rolling thunder for example...do you really think he is someone who is operating day to day on an even keel?  You can say pretty much whatever you want and talk to people any way you like...you are dancing here as if no one is looking....except people are looking...I am looking because I find people's behavior interesting in the extreme....because I have taken quite some time examining what elicits behaviors.

For one reason or another, I make you feel very uncomfortable.  In short, I threaten you somehow.  If I didn't, you would simply show me the hard, observed evidence that energy in fact moves in both directions and move on to the next topic...and perhaps taunt me if I failed to alter my position after you showed me incontrovertible observed proof that you were right.  You and I both know that there is no such evidence and you, as a result, are left frustrated and threatened because you can't convince me your reality (which is only a belief) is real.  That makes you uncomfortable...and me, pointing out that the equation you rely on here is describing a one way energy flow ( which it is) only heightens that discomfort.

The result is that you must attempt to make me smaller in your own eyes...that's what we do to people who threaten us...we try to make them appear smaller and less threatening..  People like thunder do it to everyone who disagrees with them all the time.  It is his automatic response.  People like that are a quivering mass of insecurity who find it intolerable to be at odds with anyone on anything.  Any and every disagreement calls their entire self image into question...they use every tool at their disposal (and a small toolbox it is) in an effort to make the other person look as small and non threatening as possible in a futile attempt to reinforce their own self image.

Obviously, you are no rolling thunder.  You don't go around hurling insult at everyone who disagrees with you and it is clear that you don't see every disagreement as a personal assault on you...but something about me threatens you and you feel a real need, be it consciously our subconsciously to cut me down to size and make me less threatening...Something I am saying calls your unreal reality, that is your belief system into question and you are not at all comfortable with stepping outside that belief...and are just as uncomfortable with people not sharing that belief with you.

So you go right on mocking if it makes you feel better...although I wonder if you will continue to be as comfortable putting your weakness on display having realized that not only are you feeling weak, but are actually publicly voicing that weakness.  Folks like rolling thunder can't stop because they are so insecure that it is simply impossible...the need to constantly reinforce their self worth outweighs the knowledge that their behavior exposes their internal insecurities....they are caught in a vicious cycle and are simply unable to break it and probably never will.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> So how does the hotter object know that the cooler object is cooler?



How does the air inside a balloon know that the air pressure is less on the outside?  How does the radiation from one microwave dish know that the radiation from another dish is of a grater magnitude and in turn allow the interference to diminish its own signal.  Anthropomorphizing radiation, or anything else,  is a particularly childish and weak means of reinforcing your unreal reality...We could go into how we are taught to anthropomorphize from an early age to frame things we really have no control over in human terms so that we can believe we have dealt with them.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Spell it out why don't you?



  Unlike you, I don't need to think I know everything.  I am perfectly comfortable with mystery.  The physicist at the top of the heap..the smartest guy in the world doesn't grasp the mechanism of how or why energy moves...it is beyond our scope at this point.  Ask yourself why you have the need to believe that science knows everything even when they don't...Ask yourself why you would need to convince yourself that science actually grasps the mechanism by which energy moves about when in reality, science really doesn't even begin to understand it.  Sure, they can predict where energy will move because every observation of energy movement ever made is in one direction...such a track record makes it easy to predict...

Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else can spell out the underlying hows and whys of energy movement than we can  spell out the underlying hows and whys of gravity...we can predict what, because we see the what, and how big or small it is, but the hows and whys?...that is beyond us...and I am perfectly comfortable with that and for some reason that will probably remain forever unknown...you are not.  For some reason, something inside you assigns some point value to knowing, even the unknowable, to your self worth...or your unreal reality...which is the same thing.  

So like I said, go ahead and mock if it makes you feel better....it certainly makes me feel better even though I know that I shouldn't feel good about the fact that I threaten you....goes back to the psychology of laying them out on the table and whipping out a ruler I guess. 

 I do derive pleasure in seeing the lengths people will go in an effort to convince themselves that a mathematical construct is real though...you don't seem to believe in the AGW mathematical construct and readily point out that it isn't real, but you hold great faith in another mathematical construct which is no more real and can't bear to see it questioned even when all observation shows that it is wrong.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 5, 2014)

IanC said:


> I was trying to think of a simple way of showing that the radiation continues in both objects even if their temperatures are the same.



The simple way would be to show an observed measurement of it...Unfortunately, none exist but you keep believing anyway and then accuse me of believing in magic. 

 Look at the SB equation...when T is equal to Tc, P = 0.  Zero is an actual value...if you believe energy is exchanging when P=0 then you don't believe the SB law...you are saying that a physical law is meaningless and that your magic is correct.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 5, 2014)

Crick said:


> In regards to the topic of this thread, all I have are facts.



You hav e some facts...and some fabrication...and some observation...and models....Fabrication will get you no where...and the models have shown themselves to be of not much use unless you can admit that they are failing because the hypothesis upon which they were built was wrong.....and facts?...facts are funny things.  Facts can lead you to the truth or they can lead you to a falsehood...it depends entirely on how you use them...if you take facts, add fabrication, manipulation, deception, and failing models, you aren't going to land anywhere near  the truth.


----------



## Crick (Sep 5, 2014)

Why don't you go reread the OP and see what the topic of this thread might be, because you seem more than a little confused.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 5, 2014)

Crick said:


> Why don't you go reread the OP and see what the topic of this thread might be, because you seem more than a little confused.



Your claim of having all facts also has nothing to do with the imaginary 97%.  Seems that, as usual, you are the confused one projecting as hard as you can.


----------



## IanC (Sep 5, 2014)

IanC said:


> I was trying to think of a simple way of showing that the radiation continues in both objects even if their temperatures are the same. when a photon is emitted it imparts a small amount of momentum to the emiiter and the same amount of momentum in the opposite direction in the absorber. (this is one of the forms of entropy increase that precludes perpetual motion machines). therefore the two objects should slightly move away from each other. if SSDD is right, and the objects simply stop radiating, then the objects will not only lose the slight repulsive force but the unopposed momentum shift from the opposite side of the objects will actually drive the objects closer. this would decrease entropy. isnt there some pretty strict rules about S ?



SSDD- I couldnt help but notice that your response to this comment ignored the entropy problem with your unexplained on/off radiation theory.


----------



## Crick (Sep 5, 2014)

As has been demonstrated here repeatedly, numerous fully qualified surveys, polls and studies support that 97% figure.  NO qualified surveys, polls or studies support yours.


----------



## IanC (Sep 5, 2014)

SSDD said-



> How does the air inside a balloon know that the air pressure is less on the outside?



hahahahahahahahaha. I am with Todd. you deserved to be mocked


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 5, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Net energy flow is zero.
> ...


 
*Unlike you, I don't need to think I know everything. I am perfectly comfortable with mystery.*

I'll bet you are. LOL!

*..the smartest guy in the world doesn't grasp the mechanism of how or why energy moves...it is beyond our scope at this point.*

Molecular motion is converted to thermal energy. That's why all objects above 0K emit all the time.

*....it certainly makes me feel better even though I know that I shouldn't feel good about the fact that I threaten you.*

Ignorant people who ignore all the evidence do threaten me. Usually they're liberals.
For some reason, conservative ignorance bothers me more.
And you have to admit, your on/off, emit/stop emitting theory is damn funny!

You must share how the warmer object learns the temperature of the cooler object.
More of that mockery you enjoy awaits your explanation.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 5, 2014)

IanC said:


> SSDD said-
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
No kidding. He's like the old geocentric astronomers, his epicycles get more and more complicated, as he sticks his fingers in his ears and yells la-la-la-la-la, to drown out the simple truth of heliocentrism.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 5, 2014)

IanC said:


> SSDD said-
> 
> 
> 
> hahahahahahahahaha. I am with Todd. you deserved to be mocked


And as I told him...go ahead if it makes you feel better about yourself.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 5, 2014)

Have to give these people some credit though for distorting reality rather effectively.

Thank about it........get a *handful* of scientists together that are already bought off and pop in one or two who are not just for effect and come up with a "97% consensus". Most all the dopes of the world never see the size of the "consensus" group or how the number is arrived at...............but is sure is a great soundbite. Of all the scam strategies the climate k00ks have come up with, this 97% one, by far, is the most brilliant one.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 5, 2014)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said-
> ...


 
It's all about information.
How does the temperature information get from the cooler to the warmer object?
You said the cooler object stops radiating.
So spell it out. End the mockery with your wisdom.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 5, 2014)

IanC said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I was trying to think of a simple way of showing that the radiation continues in both objects even if their temperatures are the same. when a photon is emitted it imparts a small amount of momentum to the emiiter and the same amount of momentum in the opposite direction in the absorber. (this is one of the forms of entropy increase that precludes perpetual motion machines). therefore the two objects should slightly move away from each other. if SSDD is right, and the objects simply stop radiating, then the objects will not only lose the slight repulsive force but the unopposed momentum shift from the opposite side of the objects will actually drive the objects closer. this would decrease entropy. isnt there some pretty strict rules about S ?
> ...



I don't understand why you have to make up a position for me....I have stated it as clearly as possible...I have said over and over that I can't explain why energy only flows from warm to cool...and I have never said on/off...I have said that I don't think objects radiate towards warmer objects....and every observation ever made bears that out....

As to strict rules...there are some pretty strict ones regarding the direction of energy flow but you have no problem disregarding them in favor of an unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable mathematical model.  

And do explain how you think a photon (if they exist) with no mass can impart momentum to anything...more magic?


----------



## SSDD (Sep 5, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I'll bet you are. LOL!




And you are not...which explains why you are willing to substitute reality for an unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable mathematical model and apparently believe that it is real.  Interesting, that.  




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Molecular motion is converted to thermal energy. That's why all objects above 0K emit all the time.



The actual mechanism isn't...we don't really have any idea what is going on at the sub atomic level...we make guesses, we propose hypotheses and theories to explain what we can observe...but as to what is really happening, and what makes it happen, we are in the dark...which makes me wonder what fear resides in people that would make them accept something that is for all its grandiose language...just a guess in favor of what is real.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Ignorant people who ignore all the evidence do threaten me.



Keep telling yourself that...we behave as we do, and react as we do for a reason.  Most people, go about their whole lives behaving and reacting with little, if any thought as to what they are revealing about themselves by their actions.  Telling yourself why you react as you do after you have already demonstrated the opposite is just more substitution of unreal for the real.  




Toddsterpatriot said:


> must share how the warmer object learns the temperature of the cooler object.



And you must share how the dropped rock knows to fall down.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> More of that mockery you enjoy awaits your explanation.



I look forward to it....it sounds like victory....it is hard, empirical evidence that you are not as confident as you believe yourself to be and must make a lot of noise in lieu of simply providing observed, measured examples of energy moving from a cool object to a warm object.....which we both know don't exist....


----------



## SSDD (Sep 5, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> It's all about information.[/quot3e]
> 
> Not for you...you have already told me more about you than you know yourself in this particular arena.
> 
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Sep 5, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > It's all about information.[/quot3e]
> ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 5, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > I'll bet you are. LOL!
> ...


 

*And you must share how the dropped rock knows to fall down.*

Well, if we use a variation of your smart wave theory, the heavier object pulls on the lighter, but the lighter exerts no force on the heavier.

Okay, your turn again.

You must share how the warmer object learns the temperature of the cooler object.
I'm curious how information leaves the cooler object in the absence of emission of energy.
Let me know, I'll be here, still chuckling at your tap dancing.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 5, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > It's all about information.[/quot3e]
> ...


 
Science 24 May 1963: 
Vol. 140 no. 3569 pp. 870-877 
DOI: 10.1126/science.140.3569.870 

In a practical situation and room-temperature setting, humans lose considerable energy due to thermal radiation. However, the energy lost by emitting infrared light is partially regained by absorbing the heat flow due to conduction from surrounding objects, and the remainder resulting from generated heat through metabolism. Human skin has an emissivity of very close to 1.0 . Using the formulas below shows a human, having roughly 2 square meter in surface area, and a temperature of about 307 K, continuously radiates approximately 1000 watts. However, if people are indoors, surrounded by surfaces at 296 K, they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings, so the net loss is only about 100 watts. 



Why are you ignoring this article from 1963?
Did Science Magazine misunderstand the 2nd Law?

Why are you ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann constant?

_The Stefan-Boltzmann constant, symbolized by the lowercase Greek letter sigma ( ), is a physical constant involving black body radiation. A black body, also called an ideal radiator, is an object that radiates or absorbs energy with perfect efficiency at all electromagnetic wavelength s. The constant defines the power per unit area emitted by a black body as a function of its thermodynamic temperature . _

You'll notice it is a function of temperature of a body and not a function of the temperature of the surroundings. Were they wrong?
Do we need an SSDD amendment to the constant?


----------



## elektra (Sep 5, 2014)

Wikipedia has an article estimating how many scientist believe in humans causing global warming  based on abstracts printed in what? Articles and press releases.

Why did the woman who made this wild guess simply not just ask the "scientists" 

Opinion called fact because the dictators say so.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 5, 2014)

elektra said:


> Wikipedia has an article estimating how many scientist believe in humans causing global warming  based on abstracts printed in what? Articles and press releases.
> 
> Why did the woman who made this wild guess simply not just ask the "scientists"
> 
> Opinion called fact because the dictators say so.



Well, now since all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Univesities state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger, how can you not say that there is near universal consensus on that issue in the scientfic community. And then there is the matter of the articles in peer reviewed journals, not just in the US, but in the world. More than 97% of those articles accept that AGW is real. 


What we have is people like you that are scientfically illiterate flappinng yap and demonstrating the abysmal depths of your ignorance. How about posting articles from peer reviewed scientific journals in support of your position?


----------



## IanC (Sep 6, 2014)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...




I would like to thank you. it is an interesting puzzle to try and explain quantum related aspects of reality without being able to use quantum physics. of course it is impossible, but there are certainly paradoxes that can be pointed out which show the need for understanding more than just newtonian physics.

an example to show photons have momentum; a comet tail. the momentum from sunlight pushes dust away from the comet in the opposite direction of the sun. interesting sidebar; when the comet is still quite far away there is often a second tail at a slightly different angle. what causes that one, and why the different angle? (hint- speed)

to get the idea of how a massless particle can have momentum all we have to do is look at particle accelerators (unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable? hahahaha). by classical physics the energy needed to accelerate an electron or proton up to the speed of light is actually quite small. but when the particle starts getting closer to the speed of light, the energy is converted into momentum rather than velocity, giving the impression that the particle has gained mass. but it is not mass as classical newtonian physics describes it and neither is the momentum. 

quantum physics is not unobserved, untested or unmeasured. but it doesnt easily make sense when compared to the non relativistic, macroscopic world that we live in.


----------



## Crick (Sep 6, 2014)

I'd like to repeat the question to SSDD as to why he chooses a hypothesis that requires all the matter in the universe to be alive and sentient and aware of the temperatures of all its surroundings no matter the distance, violating special relativity and causality, when the results he gets are identical to what is had by the rest of the human race simply using basic algebra to arrive at net transfer.

So, why take the route that requires magic when you get NOTHING out of it except being called an idiot by almost everyone?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 6, 2014)

Crick said:


> I'd like to repeat the question to SSDD as to why he chooses a hypothesis that requires all the matter in the universe to be alive and sentient and aware of the temperatures of all its surroundings no matter the distance, violating special relativity and causality, when the results he gets are identical to what is had by the rest of the human race simply using basic algebra to arrive at net transfer.
> 
> So, why take the route that requires magic when you get NOTHING out of it except being called an idiot by almost everyone?


 
He still can't explain how the hotter object knows the temperature of the cooler object,  in order to decide how fast it will radiate, in the absence of any radiation from the cooler object.


----------



## Crick (Sep 6, 2014)

He claims he doesn't have to.  But I just wonder why he picks the nonsensical interpretation when the results are identical to what everyone else gets without the magically intelligent atoms.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 6, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > *Surveys of scientists and scientific literature [Wikipedia]*
> ...



Cook Et. Al. is like a bad case of indigestion from over cooking the lie... There is simply no way to cover up the odor or the bad taste..


----------



## Crick (Sep 6, 2014)

It doesn't bother you that there results line up with everyone else's results?  What's your explanation for that?  Massive conspiracy?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 6, 2014)

Crick said:


> It doesn't bother you that there results line up with everyone else's results?  What's your explanation for that?  Massive conspiracy?




Any paper that cites Cook Et. Al. as factual isnt worth the paper its printed on. You guys seem to think that consensus will somehow give you credibility even when its all garbage...


----------



## Crick (Sep 6, 2014)

You didn't answer my question.  I don't believe you've got shit with which to attack Cook et al. But even if you did, it's hardly the only study there.  Move on down the list.  You've only got about 20 more to try to refute (not that you've provided a single iota of reason to doubt Cook).


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 7, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...





LMAO.......lock the thread.


Gotta remember to add Billy Bob to the Matrix Domination visual......he's definately an official member now!!!


The propaganda of the AGW religion has gotten so old.......nobody cares about it anymore which is proven in poll after poll by Gallup, Pew et. al......

These assholes need to reinvent themselves......but they wont. They stay with the same 4 or 5 talking points and haven't moved the goalposts but a yard in the last 20 years.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 7, 2014)

[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/DOMINATION-3.jpg.html]
	
[/URL]

Billy Bob earns a spot......hes done a lot of damage just in the last 2-3 weeks.


----------



## Crick (Sep 7, 2014)

The Pyramid of Lunacy.

You like Billy Bob?  I supposed I shouldn't be surprised.  Birds of a feather.  Loony Birds.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 8, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



So lets hear why the SB law is not simply the SB constant.  And by the way, where is the back radiation in your post...or is it something that you just have to believe?


----------



## Crick (Sep 8, 2014)

Let's try this again.  Why try to use an interpretation that requires magic when you get the exact same result with the interpretation that doesn't?


----------



## SSDD (Sep 8, 2014)

IanC said:


> I would like to thank you. it is an interesting puzzle to try and explain quantum related aspects of reality without being able to use quantum physics. of course it is impossible, but there are certainly paradoxes that can be pointed out which show the need for understanding more than just newtonian physics.



What you mean is a best guess in an attempt to explain things we don't understand....You speak like a religious zealot claiming to know what is at present unknowable.



IanC said:


> an example to show photons have momentum; a comet tail. the momentum from sunlight pushes dust away from the comet in the opposite direction of the sun. interesting sidebar; when the comet is still quite far away there is often a second tail at a slightly different angle. what causes that one, and why the different angle? (hint- speed)



Instead of providing an imaginary example of how photons have momentum...why don't you first show some actual proof that photons exist...that would be interesting and give an actual dimension of reality to your claims.



IanC said:


> quantum physics is not unobserved, untested or unmeasured. but it doesnt easily make sense when compared to the non relativistic, macroscopic world that we live in.



It makes no sense because we are a very long way from observing, measuring, or actually testing what is going on...we are reaching into a dark box with heavy polar mittens covering our anesthetized hands feeling very small objects and trying to explain what we think we are feeling.  What is amusing is how you talk about it as if we really had a clue rather than a swirling mass of chaos and contradictions that can't even adequately explain the electron cloud of a hydrogen atom without some ad hoc fix.


----------



## Crick (Sep 8, 2014)

I really think the consistency with which you choose to argue such nonsense shouts "TROLL" in bold, hot pink, 72 point comic sans


----------



## SSDD (Sep 8, 2014)

Crick said:


> I'd like to repeat the question to SSDD as to why he chooses a hypothesis that requires all the matter in the universe to be alive and sentient and aware of the temperatures of all its surroundings no matter the distance, violating special relativity and causality, when the results he gets are identical to what is had by the rest of the human race simply using basic algebra to arrive at net transfer.
> 
> So, why take the route that requires magic when you get NOTHING out of it except being called an idiot by almost everyone?



You don't think that Stefan Boltzman knew algebra or the distributive property?  My bet is that he did...and the equation in the end does not include the distributive property.  The thing is, that in physics, equations are descriptions of physical processes....each part of the equation describes something that is happening...if you are going to apply a property to an equation, you must define what that property is describing.  Lets see the paper outlining the definition and justification of what the application of the distributive property is doing and why it is OK to do it.   After all, the SB law does not include the application of the distributive property and therefore describes a one way energy flow.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 8, 2014)

Crick said:


> Let's try this again.  Why try to use an interpretation that requires magic when you get the exact same result with the interpretation that doesn't?



I am afraid that it is you guys who are interpreting.....the SB law, as written does not describe a two way energy flow....and it does not include the distributive property...THe physical law is stated as a one way flow of energy whose magnitude is dependent on the temperature difference between the radiator and its surroundings.  That is how the equations are written and what they describe...you are not describing the SB law as it is written, therefore you are the one adding your own interpretation.  I am fine with the physical laws as they are stated, it is you guys who want them to say something else.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 8, 2014)

Crick said:


> I really think the consistency with which you choose to argue such nonsense shouts "TROLL" in bold, hot pink, 72 point comic sans



You don't think at all crick...you just react like all zealots.


----------



## Crick (Sep 8, 2014)

Are you shitting me?  You ACTUALLY want to tell us that the Distributive Property can't be applied here?  Are you out of your fucking mind?

How have you managed to keep yourself sheltered and fed up to this point?  Based on the quality of what you write here, you should have been locked up in the mental health system long, long ago.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 8, 2014)

Crick said:


> Are you shitting me?  You ACTUALLY want to tell us that the Distributive Property can't be applied here?  Are you out of your fucking mind?



Of course it can be applied, but when speaking the language of mathematics, an alteration of the equation equals an alteration of the process being described...even if the answer remains the same...Lets see the justification for applying the distributive property....not only is it incorrect, but the application of the distributive property to this equation 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  is just plain bad math.  Lets hear a mathematically sound reason to apply the distributive property to this equation other than the simple fact that you want it to describe a mythical two way energy flow rather than the one way flow it describes.

You have painted yourself into a corner now crick...lets hear a rational reason to alter the way a physical law is written.


----------



## Crick (Sep 8, 2014)

You are out of your fucking mind.

For anyone here that never had Algebra 101 in the 6th or 7th grade, the Distributive Property states that

A x (B + C) = AxB + AxC

It says = (EQUALS).  It doesn't say it changes the value.  The value of the expression on either side of an EQUALS sign isTHE SAME.  That's why they call it AN EQUATION.  You don't have to get the author's fucking permission to use the Distributive property.  If you have a statement that fits one side, it can be rearranged to look like the other side WITHOUT CHANGING A GODDAMNED THING.  Period.  End of story.
***************************************************************************************






 = (e sigma A T^4) - (e sigma A Tc^4).

*EQUALS*, YOU  FUCKING MORON


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 8, 2014)

LOL.....you know Old Crick is getting pwned when he starts flying off the handle!!!


pwned s0n.........time for Plan B. The bomb throwing strategy is fAiLiNg......you and the 2 or 3 AGW pals you have in here need to huddle up.

Weve noticed that month after month in here, very few peeps come into this forum in support of AGW. In fact, its rather a joke. Place is littered with skeptics though.........whats up with that? There is Crick, Rolling Thunder, Mamooth. That's it!!! Old Rocks comes in for a cup of coffee every so often. But dozens of skeptics Who knew???!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nobody cares about "equations" when the scientists are rigging the data. Its that simple. Nobody comes into this forum because they know it is an exercise in futility.........a veritable group navel contemplation session daily by the AGW truthers is not at all compelling. Its the same shit......different day. People have figured out the ruse is.........a ruse.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 8, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Are you shitting me?  You ACTUALLY want to tell us that the Distributive Property can't be applied here?  Are you out of your fucking mind?
> ...


 
*  Lets hear a mathematically sound reason to apply the distributive property to this equation other than the simple fact that you want it to describe a mythical two way energy flow rather than the one way flow it describes.*
And by claiming it explains a one way, rather than a net flow of energy, you run into the information problem.
How does the warmer object know the temperature of the cooler object, in order to know how fast to radiate, in the absence of any radiation escaping the cooler object?

It can't. So your "smart object" or "smart wave" interpretation of the Stefan Boltzmann law is a massive fail.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 8, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


 

*However, if people are indoors, surrounded by surfaces at 296 K, they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings, so the net loss is only about 100 watts.*

It's here. Do you feel they were somehow wrong? Look at what they said, the warmer body had a net loss of about 100 watts. Do you feel that net loss violates the 2nd Law?  Violates the SB law?

If the cooler surroundings only absorbed and never emitted, how does that human subject know to radiate at a speed that fits in the SB law, using 307K and 296K?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 8, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> LOL.....you know Old Crick is getting pwned when he starts flying off the handle!!!
> 
> 
> pwned s0n.........time for Plan B. The bomb throwing strategy is fAiLiNg......you and the 2 or 3 AGW pals you have in here need to huddle up.
> ...


 
*Nobody cares about "equations" when the scientists are rigging the data.*

I care about the equations _and_ the rigged data.
SSDD's ignorance is not excused by Michael Mann's fake hockey stick.
The sooner he admits his error, the sooner I can concentrate on the errors of the warmers.


----------



## IanC (Sep 8, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...




I totally agree. SSDD's version also runs afoul of conservation of momentum and entropy laws.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 9, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> And by claiming it explains a one way, rather than a net flow of energy, you run into the information problem.



First thing toddster ...that the SB equation describes a one way energy flow is not a claim...it is a fact.  Second...any problem lies with your interpretation...You want to prove the SB equation, and in turn the SB law incorrect, go ahead....but so long as it remains written as it is, it describes a one way energy flow.  The fact that you don't seem to be able to recognize even this basic fact pretty much invalidates anything else you have to say on the topic...

By the way...chuckle chuckle on your thought experiment...Now, do you have any actual observed, measured examples of energy spontaneously moving from a cool object to a warm object?....of course not.  Can you possibly imagine why you have no such examples?...of course not.  Your faith is strong...your evidence is non existent?

Tell me toddster...is LW a wave or a shower of photons....provide proof of your answer...


----------



## SSDD (Sep 9, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> If the cooler surroundings only absorbed and never emitted, how does that human subject know to radiate at a speed that fits in the SB law, using 307K and 296K?



Like it or not, your example only shows what the SB law predicts...and the SB law remains a description of a one way energy flow.  Sorry you can't get it....Got any real observed, measured example of energy spontaneously moving from a cool object to a warm one?


----------



## SSDD (Sep 9, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I care about the equations _and_ the rigged data.




No you don't.  You clearly don't like the fact that the SB equation describes a one way energy flow since you obviously believe in a two way energy flow...you are perfectly willing to bastardize and corrupt a physical law in an effort to make it conform to your beliefs...that is precisely what those who are rigging data are doing.  They believe in something and are perfectly willing to disregard everything else in an attempt to falsely prove their beliefs.

If you, in fact, gave a rat's ass about the equations, then you would acknowledge that the SB equation describes a one way energy flow and simply acknowledge that every observation bears out that description rather than continue to provide an endless parade of thought experiments in lieu of any actual evidence that the equations and in turn, the law is wrong.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD's ignorance is not excused by Michael Mann's fake hockey stick.



If I am, in fact, as ignorant as you claim, why are you unable to provide any actual observed, measured example of energy moving spontaneously from a cool object to a warm one?  If I am as ignorant as you claim, why does the second law of thermodynamics and the SB law support my position?  If I am as ignorant as you claim, why does the SB equation describe a one way energy flow?



Toddsterpatriot said:


> The sooner he admits his error, the sooner I can concentrate on the errors of the warmers.



Why would I admit error?  The SB equation describes a one way energy flow.  Do I think I am smarter than the guys who wrote the law, and the equation and feel the need to try and prove that something other than what they wrote is happening?  Not me.  You on the other hand apparently think you are smarter than them and do feel a need to claim that something other than the one way energy flow they described is happening.  

We remain where we started....the law says what I claim and every observation ever made confirms the law...you think something else is happening and can't provide any observed, measured evidence to the contrary...you accuse the authors of the SB law, and anyone who accepts the law of believing in magic.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 9, 2014)

IanC said:


> I totally agree. SSDD's version also runs afoul of conservation of momentum and entropy laws.



I don't have a version.  I have this.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 .  I have nothing but the SB law...as it is written....and it describes a one way energy flow from a radiator to its cooler surroundings.  Modifications to the equation are required in order to make it appear to describe a two way energy flow...which side of this discussion is working with a version of the SB equations other than as they were originally written?

I guess I will ask you the same thing as I asked toddster...is LW a wave or a shower of photons...can you show actual proof to support your answer?


----------



## SSDD (Sep 9, 2014)

Crick said:


> You are out of your fucking mind.
> 
> For anyone here that never had Algebra 101 in the 6th or 7th grade, the Distributive Property states that
> 
> ...




Still waiting...........can you, or can't you give a rational, scientifically, and mathematically sound reason for applying the distributive property to this equation....
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ??


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 9, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > And by claiming it explains a one way, rather than a net flow of energy, you run into the information problem.
> ...


 
*First thing toddster ...that the SB equation describes a one way energy flow is not a claim...it is a fact.*

How does a 1000K object know it has to emit faster to a 50K object than to a 100K object, if the cooler object emits no waves or photons to inform the 1000K object of its temperature?

*...Now, do you have any actual observed, measured examples of energy spontaneously moving from a cool object to a warm object?....*

Yes.

Science 24 May 1963: 
Vol. 140 no. 3569 pp. 870-877 
DOI: 10.1126/science.140.3569.870 

In a practical situation and room-temperature setting, humans lose considerable energy due to thermal radiation. However, the energy lost by emitting infrared light is partially regained by absorbing the heat flow due to conduction from surrounding objects, and the remainder resulting from generated heat through metabolism. Human skin has an emissivity of very close to 1.0 . Using the formulas below shows a human, having roughly 2 square meter in surface area, and a temperature of about 307 K, continuously radiates approximately 1000 watts. *However, if people are indoors, surrounded by surfaces at 296 K, they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings, so the net loss is only about 100 watts. *



Did Science magazine err in their measurement of energy radiated from the cooler walls and ceiling to the warmer human body?
Do you feel they lacked fact checkers back in 1963?
You should write them and point out their serious error in this case.

Their response should be amusing.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 9, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > If the cooler surroundings only absorbed and never emitted, how does that human subject know to radiate at a speed that fits in the SB law, using 307K and 296K?
> ...


 
SB shows what the net energy flow will be.

You should submit your theory of radiating/non-radiating to a science journal.
Their laughter should be educational.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 9, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > I care about the equations _and_ the rigged data.
> ...


 

*You clearly don't like the fact that the SB equation describes a one way energy flow since you obviously believe in a two way energy flow...*

Yes, I believe energy flows both ways. I believe more energy flows from hot to cold, than the reverse, because I don't believe in magical waves or photons.
I believe the SB is correct, because ALL OBJECTS ABOVE 0K emit constantly.
I don't believe in smart waves or smart photons. I don't believe in any of the ridiculous requirements needed for your interpretation to work.

*you accuse the authors of the SB law, and anyone who accepts the law of believing in magic*

No, just you. Still waiting for you to explain the error in 
Science 24 May 1963: 
Vol. 140 no. 3569 pp. 870-877 
DOI: 10.1126/science.140.3569.870 
Man up and tell me how they're wrong.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 9, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> How does a 1000K object know it has to emit faster to a 50K object than to a 100K object, if the cooler object emits no waves or photons to inform the 1000K object of its temperature?




You are asking the wrong person...I simply accept the SB law as true..It describes a one way energy transfer.  If you think it is wrong...then prove it and get it changed.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yes.





Toddsterpatriot said:


> Science 24 May 1963:
> Vol. 140 no. 3569 pp. 870-877
> DOI: 10.1126/science.140.3569.870
> 
> In a practical situation and room-temperature setting, humans lose considerable energy due to thermal radiation. However, the energy lost by emitting infrared light is partially regained by absorbing the heat flow due to conduction from surrounding objects, and the remainder resulting from generated heat through metabolism. Human skin has an emissivity of very close to 1.0 . Using the formulas below shows a human, having roughly 2 square meter in surface area, and a temperature of about 307 K, continuously radiates approximately 1000 watts. *However, if people are indoors, surrounded by surfaces at 296 K, they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings, so the net loss is only about 100 watts.*


*
*
Sorry, but that is not an observed, measured example of a two way flow of energy...that is, at best, a simple proof of the SB law....that the output of a radiator is proportional to the temperature difference between itself and its surroundings...there is nothing there demonstrating two way energy flow...there is only confirmation of the SB law which describes one way energy flow.  If you don't even get that, then....sorry.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 9, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > How does a 1000K object know it has to emit faster to a 50K object than to a 100K object, if the cooler object emits no waves or photons to inform the 1000K object of its temperature?
> ...


 
It doesn't say the body emits less, it very clearly says the body receives back.
If you have such a difficult time understanding such a clear statement, you have bigger issues than your
confusion over the SB and the 2nd Law. Sorry.

_Using the formulas below shows a human, having roughly 2 square meter in surface area, and a temperature of about 307 K, *continuously radiates* approximately 1000 watts._

More proof of your confusion. It doesn't say, radiates 1000 watts, unless it's in a room over 307 K,
unless an object warmer than 307 K approaches. Because, if they said that, they'd be as wrong as you.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 9, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> How does a 1000K object know it has to emit faster to a 50K object than to a 100K object, if the cooler object emits no waves or photons to inform the 1000K object of its temperature?




Why do you keep asking the same stupid questions?  Do you think that asking stupid questions makes you look smart?  Did I write the SB law?....no...Did I write the equations that express a one way energy flow from a warm radiator to its cooler surroundings?...no.  Do I recognize that the equation does, in fact, describe a one way energy flow...yes.  

I didn't write the law...I just accept it.  If you don't, then take it up with someone who can get it changed for you....till that happens, however, the law still describes a one way energy flow no matter how many stupid questions  you think up to ask about it.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yes.




No, I am afraid that you don't.



> Science 24 May 1963:
> Vol. 140 no. 3569 pp. 870-877
> DOI: 10.1126/science.140.3569.870
> 
> In a practical situation and room-temperature setting, humans lose considerable energy due to thermal radiation. However, the energy lost by emitting infrared light is partially regained by absorbing the heat flow due to conduction from surrounding objects, and the remainder resulting from generated heat through metabolism. Human skin has an emissivity of very close to 1.0 . Using the formulas below shows a human, having roughly 2 square meter in surface area, and a temperature of about 307 K, continuously radiates approximately 1000 watts. *However, if people are indoors, surrounded by surfaces at 296 K, they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings, so the net loss is only about 100 watts.*


*
*
What you have there is proof of the SB equation...that being that there is a one way energy flow between a radiator and its surroundings and the magnitude of that flow is determined by the temperature difference between the radiator and its surroundings...

And before you ask your predictable stupid question again...I ask...did I write the SB law?....no...Did I write the equation that expresses the SB law as a one way energy transfer  between a radiator and its cooler surroundings?...no, I did not.  



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Did Science magazine err in their measurement of energy radiated from the cooler walls and ceiling to the warmer human body?



Science magazine expressed an eroneous opinion...they did not prove anything... Again, all the article shows is what the SB equation claims...a one way energy transfer from a warm radiator to its cooler surroundings with the magnitude of that transfer being determined by the temperature difference between the radiator and its cooler surroundings.  Nothing more....there is no measurement of the human bodies absorbing anything from anywhere.


*


Toddsterpatriot said:



			First thing toddster ...that the SB equation describes a one way energy flow is not a claim...it is a fact.[/quote
		
Click to expand...

*


Toddsterpatriot said:


> Did I write the SB law?...no.  Did I write the SB equation such that it expresses a one way energy transfer between a radiator and its cooler surroundings?...again, no.  That is, none the less what the SB LAW says.  Ask your stupid question to someone who might, or might not be able to answer.  I am satisfied with the FACT that the law is expressed as a one way energy transfer...and all measurements are as the LAW predicts.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Sep 9, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> It doesn't say the body emits less, it very clearly says the body receives back.



Yeah, that's what it says...That, isn't, however, what the SB law says.  The SB law describes a one way energy flow between a radiator and its cooler surroundings with the magnitude  of that flow being dependent on the temperature difference between the radiator and its cooler surroundings.  And there was no measurement there...there was simply, and predictably, an unobserved, unmeasured, untested claim.  



Toddsterpatriot said:


> If you have such a difficult time understanding such a clear statement, you have bigger issues than your confusion over the SB and the 2nd Law. Sorry.



Clear, unmeasured, unobserved, untested statement....it was an opinion...nothing more.  No energy was measured being absorbed by the human bodies...if any actual measurement was done at all, all that was shown was that the amount of energy the body radiates is dependent on the temperature difference between the body and its surroundings...just as the SB law predicts...and predicts, by the way, with a mathematical expression describing a one way energy flow.

_You lose again.  You can win in one of two ways...either show the impossible, that being an actual observed, measured example of energy spontaneously moving between a cool object and a warm object...or stop asking stupid questions of someone who didn't write the law as an expression of a one way movement of energy from a warm radiator to its cooler surroundings._


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 9, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



All objects radiate energy all of the time. It is the thermal reaction which regulates the speed at which the radiation occurs. A black body at 296 K will emit far less energy than a black body at 307 k.  The cooler objects power can not over power the energy coming from the warmer object. Thermal flow is always from the warmer to the cooler as bodies attempt to return to zero K. 

It is the thermal balance/imbalance which regulates the reaction.

Think of it as two hoses. One of the hoses is 3/4 inch at 60 psi, this is the black body at 296 k. The other is a hose 3" in diameter at 300 psi, this is the black body at 307 K.  Place both hoses facing each other at one foot apart. The  bigger hose at higher pressure will push all thermal energy from the cooler object away from it warming the cooler object. The thermal imbalance creates the energy to transfer.  As these two temps become closer the thermal energy equalizes. Both objects near the same input/output. The greater the imbalance the greater the force and speed of the thermal reaction.

This same process is what drives earths climate.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 10, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > How does a 1000K object know it has to emit faster to a 50K object than to a 100K object, if the cooler object emits no waves or photons to inform the 1000K object of its temperature?
> ...





Toddsterpatriot said:


> Did I write the SB law?...no.  Did I write the SB equation such that it expresses a one way energy transfer between a radiator and its cooler surroundings?...again, no.  That is, none the less what the SB LAW says.  Ask your stupid question to someone who might, or might not be able to answer.  I am satisfied with the FACT that the law is expressed as a one way energy transfer...and all measurements are as the LAW predicts.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


[/QUOTE]

*Why do you keep asking the same stupid questions?*

Your failure to answer the question doesn't make the question stupid, it only proves that you are.

*Did I write the equations that express a one way energy flow from a warm radiator to its cooler surroundings?...no*

Good, because no one else wrote an equation like that either.

*Science magazine expressed an eroneous opinion...they did not prove anything*

LOL! You should contact them now, and explain their error.
Their response should be amusing.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 10, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > It doesn't say the body emits less, it very clearly says the body receives back.
> ...


 
*The SB law describes a one way energy flow between a radiator and its cooler surroundings with the magnitude of that flow being dependent on the temperature difference between the radiator and its cooler surroundings.*

As energy flows from the hotter to the cooler, the difference gets smaller and the speed of the energy flow decreases, until they are exactly the same temperature and then, according to your idiot theory, both stop radiating. And all of this happens without the cooler object telling the universe, or the nearby warmer object, what its temperature is.
See, your smart wave theory is stupid. Illogical. Impossible.


----------



## MDiver (Sep 10, 2014)

The Arctic is disappearing.  The permafrost is defrosting.  Glaciers across the globe have either disappeared or are significantly receding.
Droughts are more severe and rivers are drying up.  I certainly stand with those scientists that agree that the planet is heating up and that man is the cause.  I used to try to get people around me to listen to the scientists and push for change in our behavior, but it fell on deaf ears.  I don't worry about it any more.  Man is self-absorbed and will ignore all until it bites him/her in the rear.  But of course, by then the planet will be dying for sure and nothing will bring it back.  As for those who say, "I'll be dead and I won't care," your great-grandchildren will certainly care.


----------



## konradv (Sep 10, 2014)

Scientists Now 99.999% Sure Humans Are Causing Climate Change


----------



## SSDD (Sep 10, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Why do you keep asking the same stupid questions?*
> 
> Your failure to answer the question doesn't make the question stupid, it only proves that you are.



So your failure to describe how the electrons "know" that they can or can not travel down the wire proves how stupid you are?  UK..Got it.  But we are still left with SB expressing the SB LAW as a one way energy transfer between a radiator and its cooler surroundings with the magnitude of that transfer being determined by the temperature difference between the radiator and its surroundings....How stupid does that make them?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Good, because no one else wrote an equation like that either.



Now that is just stupid...  SB did write this....
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  and it is an expression of the SB law...and it does, in fact, describe a one way energy transfer with the magnitude of that transfer being determined by the temperature difference between the radiator and its surroundings....To claim that it never happened is denial of the first order...and just stupid.

By the way...are you claiming that scientific american is infallible....is incapable of expressing an erroneous opinion...and has never experienced a retraction?


----------



## SSDD (Sep 10, 2014)

konradv said:


> Scientists Now 99.999% Sure Humans Are Causing Climate Change



Based on what?


Lack of warming since 1998 and growing discrepancies with climate model projections
Evidence of decreased climate sensitivity to increases in CO2
Evidence that sea level rise in 1920-1950 is of the same magnitude as in 1993-2012
Increasing Antarctic sea ice extent
Low confidence in attributing extreme weather events to anthropogenic global warming


----------



## Crick (Sep 10, 2014)

I think the increase in their certitudemay well be due to them not relying on conservative, fossil fuel-funded blogs for their data.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 10, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Why do you keep asking the same stupid questions?*
> ...


 
Once we straighten out your confusion about the SB, we can talk about electrons as much as you'd like.
Until then, quit avoiding the topic.

*But we are still left with SB expressing the SB LAW as a one way energy transfer*

Nope. A one way transfer requires smart waves or smart objects that instantly start or stop radiating, in violation of the SB.

*the magnitude of that transfer being determined by the temperature difference between the radiator and its surroundings....To claim that it never happened is denial of the first order...and just stupid.*

If, as you incorrectly claim, the cooler object ceases all radiating, the warmer object never knows how fast to radiate or when to stop radiating. Sorry, that's your stupid claim in a nutshell.

*By the way...are you claiming that scientific american is infallible*

Of course I never claimed Science magazine was infallible, but between them in 1963 and you today, the choice is clear.
You haven't discovered a new facet of the SB or the 2nd Law, you just don't understand them.

That's why you should write to them, today, and reference their huge "error" from 1963.
Be sure to post their response here, so that everyone can stop mocking your ignorance.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 10, 2014)

Climate Change...LOLz


----------



## jc456 (Sep 10, 2014)

konradv said:


> Scientists Now 99.999% Sure Humans Are Causing Climate Change


 zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## SSDD (Sep 10, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Nope. A one way transfer requires smart waves or smart objects that instantly start or stop radiating, in violation of the SB.



So now you are a real denier...how does it feel.

Are you really this slow?  Does one way energy transfer down a wire require smart electrons?  When you connect the 9 volt battery to the 12 volt battery does it require that the electrons disappear from the 9 volt battery?  Interesting that you are stuck in such a small box...must suck.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> If, as you incorrectly claim, the cooler object ceases all radiating, the warmer object never knows how fast to radiate or when to stop radiating. Sorry, that's your stupid claim in a nutshell.



So now it is back to lies and misrepresenting my position to give yourself something to argue against...how original.  As I have stated...over and over...the cooler object simply doesn't radiate towards the warmer object...does the 9 volt battery still store electricity?...of course it does....does that electricity move down the wire if there is a 12 volt battery connected to the other end?  No, it doesn't.  How do you think it knows not to try to go down the wire?  Is intelligence required...or simply a type of radiative contact with the greater field coming from the 12 volt battery.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 10, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Nope. A one way transfer requires smart waves or smart objects that instantly start or stop radiating, in violation of the SB.
> ...


 
*So now you are a real denier*

You're right, I deny objects suddenly start or stop radiating, in violation of Stefan-Boltzmann.

*Does one way energy transfer down a wire require smart electrons?*

One way radiating of energy between objects above 0 K requires smart photons, or smart waves, if you don't believe in photons.

*So now it is back to lies and misrepresenting my position*

Your position violates SB and causality, how is that a misrepresention? 

*the cooler object simply doesn't radiate towards the warmer object*

The cooler object constantly radiates in all directions, as explained here*: * The Stefan-Boltzmann constant, symbolized by the lowercase Greek letter sigma , is a physical constant involving black body radiation. A black body, also called an ideal radiator, is an object that radiates or absorbs energy with perfect efficiency at all electromagnetic wavelength s. The constant defines the power per unit area emitted by a black body *as a function of its thermodynamic temperature* .

A photon, or energy, if you don't believe in photons, doesn't measure the temperature of nearby objects before it decides whether or not to radiate.


----------



## IanC (Sep 10, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Nope. A one way transfer requires smart waves or smart objects that instantly start or stop radiating, in violation of the SB.
> ...




the movement of electrons is a net force scenario like a tug-of-war contest. Just because the losing side is overpowered that doesn't mean they didn't pull.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 11, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You're right, I deny objects suddenly start or stop radiating, in violation of Stefan-Boltzmann.




And I never suggested that they do...you find it necessary to lie about what I have said because your argument is weak...Does the 9 volt battery suddenly stop sending electrons down the wire when the 12 volt battery is connected to the other end?....how does the 9 volt battery know that there is a 12 volt battery on the other end.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> One way radiating of energy between objects above 0 K requires smart photons, or smart waves, if you don't believe in photons.



Your failure to answer is really looking bad...if one way radiating of energy between objects requires smart photons...does one way movement of electricity down a wire that has an energy source at each end require smart electrons?  Either electrons are as smart as photons...or neither are smart and simply behaving as the forces of nature demand that they behave....according to Occam, which do you think is more likely?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Your position violates SB and causality, how is that a misrepresent ion?



My position is the SB law...and nothing else.  The law describes a one way energy transfer between a radiator and its cooler surroundings with the magnitude of that transfer being determined by the temperaure difference between the object and its surroundings...you, on the other hand are denying the SB law while trying to use it to support your claim.  The equation does describe a one way energy transfer....there is no getting around that fact.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> The cooler object constantly radiates in all directions, as explained here*:*




And the electrical source constantly sends its free electrons down the wire....except when it doesn't.  How does it know that there is an electrical source with an output at a higher magnitude on the other end of the wire?



Toddsterpatriot said:


> The Stefan-Boltzmann constant, symbolized by the lowercase Greek letter sigma , is a physical constant involving black body radiation.




Yeah, ....you keep saying that...apparently without realizing that you are talking about the most basic tenet of the SB law...that being a perfect black body radiating into an empty vacuum....the law doesn't stop there...it actually enters the real world with more complex equations that use the SB constant...The real world equations describe what happens when a radiator is not radiating into a vacuum...and those equations describe a one way energy flow between the radiator and its cooler surroundings with the magnitude of that flow being determined by the temperature difference between the radiator and its surroundings....



Toddsterpatriot said:


> A photon, or energy, if you don't believe in photons, doesn't measure the temperature of nearby objects before it decides whether or not to radiate.



And neither does an electron and yet, an electron won't move down a wire when there is a more powerful source sending electrons down the wire in the opposite direction....Do you think electrons are smart?...do you think they have little meters and probe ahead on the wire to see if there are electrons from a more powerful energy source coming down the wire from the opposite direction?  Do you think that the 9 volt battery has to know that there is a 12 volt battery at the other end of the wire and somehow hold back its electrons from going down the wire anyway?  What do you think is happening with those electrons?....Do you really think they are as smart as photons?


----------



## SSDD (Sep 11, 2014)

IanC said:


> the movement of electrons is a net force scenario like a tug-of-war contest. Just because the losing side is overpowered that doesn't mean they didn't pull.



And how do you suppose that is different from the energy radiating from two objects at different temperatures...I know you will claim photons don't interact with each other, as if you know photons to exist but the fact remains that you don't know whether they exist or not....you can't say whether IR is a wave or a shower of photons because we simply do not know...and you can say what science believes photons are like, but can't bring yourself to admit that science isn't sure whether or not they even exist....much less whether they are exactly like they believe the theoretical particles to be.  If IR is, in fact, a wave, then the story is entirely different and one way energy transfer makes far more sense than two way net exchanges..  Observation tells us that energy moves in one direction...not two.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 11, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > You're right, I deny objects suddenly start or stop radiating, in violation of Stefan-Boltzmann.
> ...


 
You're right, I deny objects suddenly start or stop radiating, in violation of Stefan-Boltzmann.

*And I never suggested that they do..*

Changing your story?
An object radiating away at 200K doen't suddenly stop radiating if a 300 K object is placed nearby?

*Does the 9 volt battery suddenly stop sending electrons down the wire when the 12 volt battery is connected to the other end?....*

Electrical potential will be added or subtracted, depending on the circuit, to give you net current.
Just as SB will show you net energy loss or gain.

*Yeah, ....you keep saying that...apparently without realizing that you are talking about the most basic tenet of the SB law...that being a perfect black body radiating into an empty vacuum....the law doesn't stop there*

Of course you have to take emissivity into account, it's right there in the formula. Which in no way minimizes your confusion over the issue.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 11, 2014)

MDiver said:


> The Arctic is disappearing.  The permafrost is defrosting.  Glaciers across the globe have either disappeared or are significantly receding.
> Droughts are more severe and rivers are drying up.  I certainly stand with those scientists that agree that the planet is heating up and that man is the cause.  I used to try to get people around me to listen to the scientists and push for change in our behavior, but it fell on deaf ears.  I don't worry about it any more.  Man is self-absorbed and will ignore all until it bites him/her in the rear.  But of course, by then the planet will be dying for sure and nothing will bring it back.  As for those who say, "I'll be dead and I won't care," your great-grandchildren will certainly care.


 


Oh Gawd!!!


Another human racist has joined the ENVIRONMENT forum!!!



Meanwhile, everyone and their brother knows there has been zero warming for 215 months now!!! ( about 4 billion links in this forum to support it too!!!)


----------



## mamooth (Sep 11, 2014)

President Obama just gave a shout-out to John Cook and his excellent work. That's obviously sent the Cook Derangement Syndrome crowd at WUWT into a new rage. After all, their masters never got  kudos from a president. 

Obama Tweet makes Climate Change campaigner s day

Across the nation, you can hear the CDS cultists weeping in impotent rage. Nobody is paying attention to their liars' cult, their numbers keep dropping, and the laughter directed at them keeps getting louder. It's over for them, they know it, and they know they can't do anything about it. Pass the popcorn.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 11, 2014)

mamooth said:


> President Obama just gave a shout-out to John Cook and his excellent work. That's obviously sent the Cook Derangement Syndrome crowd at WUWT into a new rage. After all, their masters never got  kudos from a president.
> 
> Obama Tweet makes Climate Change campaigner s day
> 
> Across the nation, you can hear the CDS cultists weeping in impotent rage. Nobody is paying attention to their liars' cult, their numbers keep dropping, and the laughter directed at them keeps getting louder. It's over for them, they know it, and they know they can't do anything about it. Pass the popcorn.


 
*Nobody is paying attention to their liars' cult, their numbers keep dropping, and the laughter directed at them keeps getting louder.*

No kidding. Poor Michael Mann and Al Gore.
At least their lies made them some money.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 11, 2014)

mamooth said:


> President Obama just gave a shout-out to John Cook and his excellent work. That's obviously sent the Cook Derangement Syndrome crowd at WUWT into a new rage. After all, their masters never got  kudos from a president.
> 
> Obama Tweet makes Climate Change campaigner s day
> 
> Across the nation, you can hear the CDS cultists weeping in impotent rage. Nobody is paying attention to their liars' cult, their numbers keep dropping, and the laughter directed at them keeps getting louder. It's over for them, they know it, and they know they can't do anything about it. Pass the popcorn.


 Again, you haven't a clue. Why would we care?  We already know Obama's position, he's an alarmist, why wouldn't he follow a cartoonist.  the presidency is a joke anyway!


----------



## IanC (Sep 11, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > You are out of your fucking mind.
> ...




Obviously it is mathematically sound to use the distributive rule. That is enough. Scientifically it is useful to know amount of radiation going in various directions from varios sources so that you can visualize how much power is being shunted into alternate non radiative pathways. Logically it is always better to imagine and calculate as many various methods as possible to see if they all agree.

Radiative energy transfer is an ongoing process involving myriads of individual events but it is still granular at small enough time periods. At any one instant of time the process may be going against the flow but statistically the vast amount of interactions will be with the flow.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 11, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Changing your story?
> An object radiating away at 200K doen't suddenly stop radiating if a 300 K object is placed nearby?




Of course I'm not...you are the only one changing my position.  Maybe I should have tried to draw you a better picture...clearly you are locked so tight in your box that actual thinking isn't possible for you...Maybe I should have specified contact between the objects...after all, in climate science we are talking about an atmosphere that is in contact with the ground....As to the two objects with a 100K temperature difference...perhaps the radiation begins to move in the direction of the warmer object...but like the electrons...it never makes it to the object.  The energy transfer is one way.  

Look...I didn't write the law...I am not trying to interpret the law...I simply accept the law and my argument is based on the law as it is written.  It is you who has a problem with a physical law and it is a problem that you will never overcome.  Energy moves in one direction no matter how hard you try to make it go both ways.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> potential will be added or subtracted, depending on the circuit, to give you net current.
> Just as SB will show you net energy loss or gain.



Electrons are moving in one direction down that wire...not both ways.  Maybe the EM field adds or subtracts and ends with the energy moving, albeit diminished in the direction of the cooler object.  I couldn't say.  What I can say, and the law backs me up is that the energy is moving in only one direction.  If it were in two directions the equations would be written in a way that describes two way movement.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 11, 2014)

IanC said:


> Obviously it is mathematically sound to use the distributive rule. That is enough.[/qipte]
> 
> If all you are concerned with is the answer at the end, of course you can use it...the question is why would you use it.  Look at this equation...
> 
> ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 11, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Changing your story?
> ...


 
*As to the two objects with a 100K temperature difference...perhaps the radiation begins to move in the direction of the warmer object...but like the electrons...it never makes it to the object. The energy transfer is one way.* 

Of course, the smart waves see that they're moving toward a warmer object and reverse direction.
Why didn't I think of that?
That's so much more logical than all objects radiating all the time and the net transfer of energy a matter of simple addition.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 11, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Of course, the smart waves see that they're moving toward a warmer object and reverse direction.



Like the smart electrons go part way down the wire and then come back because there is more electricity coming from the other direction...you really are a sad case toddster...



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Why didn't I think of that?
> That's so much more logical than all objects radiating all the time and the net transfer of energy a matter of simple addition.



Too bad you can't ask SB....they wrote the law that says that energy moves in one direction only...no matter how many stupid questions you think up...or how many smart assed insinuations you make regarding my intelligence...the fact will remain that the law is written so that it expresses a one way energy flow...if you have a problem with that...or are so restricted in your thinking that you can't possibly picture yourself being wrong even though you are arguing against a physical law, then take it up with someone who can get the law changed as soon as you prove that energy moves both ways at the same time.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 11, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Of course, the smart waves see that they're moving toward a warmer object and reverse direction.
> ...


 
*Too bad you can't ask SB....they wrote the law that says that energy moves in one direction only*

Too bad you can't find a textbook example which backs up your one-way, smart wave claim.

So just to clarify, a 200 K object, happily radiating away does _not_ stop radiating when a 300 K object is placed nearby, the waves from the 200 K object simply refuse, somehow, to reach the 300 K object?
Is that your current, magical claim?
You should submit that to Science magazine, when you tell them about that whopper of an error they published in 1963.
Keep me informed as to their response.


----------



## Crick (Sep 11, 2014)

I had asked earlier that SSDD find us a single authority of just about ANY level of expertise who provides a statement supporting the idea of selective radiation.  We have a lot of threads going, but I don't think I've seen an answer.


----------



## Dot Com (Sep 11, 2014)

just saw this proving your ocean temp increase post from a day or two ago: Global Analysis - July 2014 State of the Climate National Climatic Data Center NCDC 


> The average temperature across the world's land and ocean surfaces during July 2014 was 0.64°C (1.15°F) above the 20th century average, the fourth highest for July on record.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 11, 2014)

Crick said:


> I had asked earlier that SSDD find us a single authority of just about ANY level of expertise who provides a statement supporting the idea of selective radiation.  We have a lot of threads going, but I don't think I've seen an answer.


 
He hasn't, because he can't.
But he'll keep trying to change the topic to batteries in a circuit.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 12, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Too bad you can't find a textbook example which backs up your one-way, smart wave claim.




Funny thing about textbooks...they assume that you have some basic grasp of the material...and then expand on it.  Otherwise all textbooks would be tens of thousands of pages long.  Any textbook discussing thermodynamics...and the SB law, will necessarily assume that you have some grasp of physics...and in turn assume that you would know that this equation....
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 describes a one way energy flow....




Toddsterpatriot said:


> So just to clarify, a 200 K object, happily radiating away does _not_ stop radiating when a 300 K object is placed nearby, the waves from the 200 K object simply refuse, somehow, to reach the 300 K object?



Like I have said before...I don't know what is happening other than that the LAW, and every observation ever made tell us that energy moves in one direction...from warm to cool.  Science is still a long way from looking far enough, and clearly enough into that level of the universe to actually know.  Today, the law says that energy moves in one direction...till it is rewritten, that is what I will stick with.  As to objects refusing to do something...do the electrons from the 9 volt battery refuse to move down the wire towards the 12 volt battery or can they simply not do it?  

It is truly unfortunate that you are so locked in your box, that you can't use your critical thinking skills...that you can only imagine that if things aren't happening according to your beliefs, that actual thought...and disobedience must be the reason.  Do you find electrons that won't go down a wire from a 9 volt battery to a 12 volt battery disobedient...and troublesome?  Do you think they must be punished for their rebellion?


----------



## SSDD (Sep 12, 2014)

Crick said:


> I had asked earlier that SSDD find us a single authority of just about ANY level of expertise who provides a statement supporting the idea of selective radiation.  We have a lot of threads going, but I don't think I've seen an answer.



You don't think a physical law expressing a one way energy transfer is sufficient authority?  What is possibly more authoritative than a physical law?...backed up, I might add, by every observation ever made.  How much more authority do you need?  If a textbook simply said that the SB law was incorrect in it's statement that energy moves in one direction...you would buy it even with no observed evidence??...oh.....of course you would.  Look at all that you already accept without any observed evidence.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 12, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > I had asked earlier that SSDD find us a single authority of just about ANY level of expertise who provides a statement supporting the idea of selective radiation.  We have a lot of threads going, but I don't think I've seen an answer.
> ...



As I have pointed out repeatedly to you yahoos...the SB law itself describes a one way energy flow....how much more authority do you need?  If you can't believe what a physical law, proven endlessly by every observation ever made...what can you believe?  I don't know what is happening at the microscopic...and neither do you...and neither does anyone else.  The fact is that the physical law describes a one way energy flow...that's good enough for me.  If and when the law is rewritten, it will be because some actual evidence exists that proves the law incorrect and you can bet that evidence won't be any of the idiot tableaux that you goobers have put forward.

You will, I'm sure, let me know when the law is rewritten to describe a two way energy flow.  I won't hold my breath though.

Bu the way...you still haven't explained about the smart electrons...and your attempt to claim that there is two way current flowing down one wire was just plain bullshit.


----------



## Crick (Sep 12, 2014)

*Find someone besides you saying Stefan-Boltzman describes a one-way energy flow.*

You keep just saying it, but as I know you've heard before, just saying it don't make it so.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 12, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Too bad you can't find a textbook example which backs up your one-way, smart wave claim.
> ...


 
*Like I have said before...I don't know what is happening other than that the LAW, and every observation ever made tell us that energy moves in one direction...from warm to cool.* 

You might have a leg to stand on, if the SB said anything about a one-way flow. And it doesn't.
You should email your claim to Science magazine and reference their 1963 article.
I'm sure they'll be happy to admit their error.........post their response here.

*As to objects refusing to do something...do the electrons from the 9 volt battery refuse to move down the wire towards the 12 volt battery or can they simply not do it?*

In the circuit, the 12 volt battery "feels" the pressure from the 9 volt battery.

In your silly SB claim, the warmer object cannot "feel" the energy from the cooler object, because you said the cooler object ceases radiating. That's where your confused idea crashes on the rocks of reality.
Without that "feedback", the warmer object doesn't know how fast to radiate when the objects are first placed next to each other. As they move toward equilibrium, the warmer object does not know how much it should slow its radiating, because, as you claim, the cooler never radiates toward the warmer.

Maybe you need to come up with a better example that doesn't work against your claim?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 12, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Too bad you can't find a textbook example which backs up your one-way, smart wave claim.
> ...


 
*Like I have said before...I don't know what is happening other than that the LAW, and every observation ever made tell us that energy moves in one direction...from warm to cool.*

You might have a leg to stand on, if the SB said anything about a one-way flow. And it doesn't.
You should email your claim to Science magazine and reference their 1963 article.
I'm sure they'll be happy to admit their error.........post their response here.

*As to objects refusing to do something...do the electrons from the 9 volt battery refuse to move down the wire towards the 12 volt battery or can they simply not do it?*

In the circuit, the 12 volt battery "feels" the pressure from the 9 volt battery.

In your silly SB claim, the warmer object cannot "feel" the energy from the cooler object, because you said the cooler object ceases radiating. That's where your confused idea crashes on the rocks of reality.
Without that "feedback", the warmer object doesn't know how fast to radiate when the objects are first placed next to each other. As they move toward equilibrium, the warmer object does not know how much it should slow its radiating, because, as you claim, the cooler never radiates toward the warmer.

Maybe you need to come up with a better example that doesn't work against your claim?


SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > I had asked earlier that SSDD find us a single authority of just about ANY level of expertise who provides a statement supporting the idea of selective radiation.  We have a lot of threads going, but I don't think I've seen an answer.
> ...


* 
You don't think a physical law expressing a one way energy transfer is sufficient authority?* 

I wonder how the off switch works. An object happily converting energy into infrared radiation suddenly stops, because a warmer object approaches. You must be able to find a reference to this somewhere, for such a fundamental occurence.

*If a textbook simply said that the SB law was incorrect in it's statement that energy moves in one direction...you would buy it even with no observed evidence??...*

Science magazine bought it, why are you afraid to tell them?


----------



## Andylusion (Sep 12, 2014)

Crick said:


> *Surveys of scientists and scientific literature [Wikipedia]*
> Just over 97% of published climate researchers say humans are causing most global warming



Do you realize how unscientific your post is?

The entire thrust of your post is  "Survey determines truth, by opinion of responses".

You really don't grasp the massive irony?   

I'm going to start my own thread entitled "Eco-Nutz replace Empirical evidence with survey results in the scientific method!" and just have a link to this thread as proof.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 12, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


 
A body placed in any environment absorbs energy from the environment. The net energy absorbed by the body _Q is equal to the difference between the energy absorbed by the body from the environment __Q_*A *and the energy radiated by the body to the environment_Q_*R*, that is,_Q _= _Q_*A *− _Q_*R *(18.35)
^
Two way flow. LOL!


https://www.physicscurriculum.com/SampleChapters/Physics for Engineering Students Ch18.pdf

Darn it. Don't you hate it when you can't link to something that agrees with your silly claim, while the other guy posts a link that proves your claim is wrong?


----------



## Crick (Sep 12, 2014)

Brilliant.  SSDD?  Do you have a response?  Have you found ANY source stating that S-B describes a one-way flow?  Have you found ANY source describing an ability of all matter to radiate selectively dependent on the temperature of its surroundings?  Have you found ANY source stating that the SLoT says cold cannot radiate to hot?  Eh?


----------



## SSDD (Sep 13, 2014)

Crick said:


> *Find someone besides you saying Stefan-Boltzman describes a one-way energy flow.*
> 
> You keep just saying it, but as I know you've heard before, just saying it don't make it so.



Who needs to?  The law itself says so....this equation describes a one way energy flow from a radiator to its cooler surroundings...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ...this is what the equation would look like if it described a two way net flow between radiator and surroundings....
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ...unfortunately for your argument, it isn't written like that...it is written like this...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ..one way.  If the law itself says one way...how much more convincing do you need?  Or is it true that you can;t look at the equation and simply see that it describes a one way energy transfer?


----------



## SSDD (Sep 13, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You might have a leg to stand on, if the SB said anything about a one-way flow. And it doesn't.



Of course it does...the problem is that SB assumed that people who would be looking at their equation would have some idea of what they were looking at.  this equation....
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  describes a one way energy flow...if you can't look at it and see the difference between that and this....
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  which is what it would look like if it described a two way energy flow...I am afraid that I can't help you and I doubt that you will find any textbook teaching at that level which will feel the need to explain such a basic concept to you.  The equation speaks for itself...if you can't understand the language it is speaking then I am not to blame for that.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> the circuit, the 12 volt battery "feels" the pressure from the 9 volt battery.



So electrons can feel, but EM fields can not?  Are EM fields more sensitive than electrons?



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Maybe you need to come up with a better example that doesn't work against your claim?



I don't need to come up with any examples... the LAW describes a one way energy flow from a radiator to its cooler surroundings with the magnitude of that flow being determined by the temperature difference between the radiator and its surroundings....you seem not to understand that I am simply going along with what the physical law says...it is you who is trying to claim that it says something else...or that something else is happening.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 13, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



So you should be able to provide some observed measured examples of energy spontaneously moving from cool to warm....Lets see them

By the way...your equation describes a one way energy flow....equations that describe a two way flow require two expressions...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 13, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > *Find someone besides you saying Stefan-Boltzman describes a one-way energy flow.*
> ...


 
*this equation describes a one way energy flow from a radiator to its cooler surroundings.*

That describes a net flow. Nowhere does it say it is a one way flow. Fail!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 13, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > You might have a leg to stand on, if the SB said anything about a one-way flow. And it doesn't.
> ...


 
*the magnitude of that flow being determined by the temperature difference between the radiator and its surroundings...*

That only works if information is exchanged. In your non-emitting fantasy, the cooler surroundings warm up, but the warmer object cannot "adjust" the rate of radiating to take the temperature change into account.
Sorry, still a fail on your part.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 13, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


 
*Lets see them*

As soon as Science admits their mistake.

*equations that describe a two way flow require two expressions..*

_the difference between the *energy absorbed by the body from the environment* Q_*A *and the *energy radiated by the body*

Too opaque for you to understand?


----------



## Crick (Sep 13, 2014)

You have been asked repeatedly now to show any reference stating that P=epsilon sigma A (Ta^4-Tb^4) describes a one-way flow, as you have repeatedly claimed it does.  You have yet to show us ANYTHING.

Why are you having such difficulties?


----------



## SSDD (Sep 15, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> That describes a net flow. Nowhere does it say it is a one way flow. Fail!



It says it as clearly as possible in the language of math.  Sorry you don't understand.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 15, 2014)

Crick said:


> You have been asked repeatedly now to show any reference stating that P=epsilon sigma A (Ta^4-Tb^4) describes a one-way flow, as you have repeatedly claimed it does.  You have yet to show us ANYTHING.
> 
> Why are you having such difficulties?



Sorry crick...seems that you are no better at math than you are at graphs...I am not going to give you an algebra lesson for dummies...if you are really interested, I am sure you can find someone who will.  The equation describes a one way energy flow...I have shown you what the equation would look like if it described a two way energy flow.  I didn't write the law...I can't describe what is happening at the microscopic..and neither can you or anyone else...the equation describes a one way energy flow...the authors of the law used the equation they used for a reason...I accept that the law says what it says and till observational evidence proves otherwise, I will stick with it.  Was to you not being able to observe, and identify an equation that describes a one way energy transfer...and thinking that some textbook on physics is going to give you a primer lesson in algebra...can't help you.

And I have no difficulties...you, on the other hand have many...in your descriptions of my position, you have missed the mark on every single point.  You are, apparently, far more stupid than even I thought you were.


----------



## Crick (Sep 15, 2014)

You can find no reference saying ANYTHING like what you're trying to contend here because it is complete, total and utter nonsense.

And an algebra lesson from you?!?!?  A lesson from someone who believes that the laws of algebra - like the Distributive Property - require the *permission* of an equation's author?

You're a complete and total idiot.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 15, 2014)

I'm laughing.......those on the far left invariably think they are smarter than everybody else.......legends in their own minds. If ANY of your thinking does not conform with their world view, you are an "idiot"....."retard"......"moron".......

But check out the joined date and post count of some of these oddballs. Just......a......bit......obsessed. Whats up with that? One to two thousand posts/month!!!. Ummmm.......would you call that just a bit of insecurity in one's position?


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 15, 2014)

[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/DOMINATION-3.jpg.html]
	
[/URL]


----------



## Crick (Sep 15, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> I'm laughing.......those on the far left invariably think they are smarter than everybody else.......legends in their own minds. If ANY of your thinking does not conform with their world view, you are an "idiot"....."retard"......"moron".......
> 
> But check out the joined date and post count of some of these oddballs. Just......a......bit......obsessed. Whats up with that? One to two thousand posts/month!!!. Ummmm.......would you call that just a bit of insecurity in one's position?



Do you agree with SSDD's interpretations of radiative heat transfer?

Do you believe the valid application of the Distributive Property requires the permission of an equation's author?

Do you believe the appropriate application of the Distributive Property alters the value of an expression?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 15, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > That describes a net flow. Nowhere does it say it is a one way flow. Fail!
> ...


 
No it doesn't. Sorry you're still clinging to your massive fail.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 15, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > You have been asked repeatedly now to show any reference stating that P=epsilon sigma A (Ta^4-Tb^4) describes a one-way flow, as you have repeatedly claimed it does.  You have yet to show us ANYTHING.
> ...


 
A body placed in any environment absorbs energy from the environment. The net energy absorbed by the body _Q is equal to the difference between the energy absorbed by the body from the environment Q_*A *and the energy radiated by the body to the environment_Q_*R*, that is,_Q _= _Q_*A *− _Q_*R *(18.35)

^
SSDD can't read.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 15, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> I'm laughing.......those on the far left invariably think they are smarter than everybody else.......legends in their own minds. If ANY of your thinking does not conform with their world view, you are an "idiot"....."retard"......"moron".......
> 
> But check out the joined date and post count of some of these oddballs. Just......a......bit......obsessed. Whats up with that? One to two thousand posts/month!!!. Ummmm.......would you call that just a bit of insecurity in one's position?


 
When it comes to physics, SSDD is a moron.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 15, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > I'm laughing.......those on the far left invariably think they are smarter than everybody else.......legends in their own minds. If ANY of your thinking does not conform with their world view, you are an "idiot"....."retard"......"moron".......
> ...




And yet, the physical laws, and every observation ever made agrees with me....need proof?....look at all of the examples you haven't provided of energy spontaneously moving from cool objects to warm objects.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 15, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...


 
*Science 24 May 1963:
Vol. 140 no. 3569 pp. 870-877
DOI: 10.1126/science.140.3569.870*

In a practical situation and room-temperature setting, humans lose considerable energy due to thermal radiation. However, the energy lost by emitting infrared light is partially regained by absorbing the heat flow due to conduction from surrounding objects, and the remainder resulting from generated heat through metabolism. Human skin has an emissivity of very close to 1.0 . Using the formulas below shows a human, having roughly 2 square meter in surface area, and a temperature of about 307 K, continuously radiates approximately 1000 watts. However, if people are indoors, surrounded by surfaces at 296 K, they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings, so the net loss is only about 100 watts.
*https://www.physicscurriculum.com/SampleChapters/Physics%20for%20Engineering%20Students%20Ch18.pdf*

A body placed in any environment absorbs energy from the environment. The net energy absorbed by the body _Q is equal to the difference between the energy absorbed by the body from the environment Q_*A *and the energy radiated by the body to the environment_Q_*R*, that is,_Q _= _Q_*A *− _Q_*R *(18.35)
^
Here are two published examples where they discuss a two-way flow.
If every single observation ever made agrees with you , you should have no problem
posting two examples that back up you claim.
They should say one way flow in them, just to be clear.
Post your proof already.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 16, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You keep posting that...so what?  There is no two way energy flow....it is unmeasured, it is untestable, and it remains unobserved....it is an artifact...it is an ad hoc construct...it is not real...it only exists in mathematical models....It's like the dogma that rocks keeps posting claiming that it proves AGW.  All you have there is evidence that the SB law is correct...that the magnitude of the EM field radiating from a radiator is determined by the temperature difference between the radiator and its surroundings.  There is no evidence there of two way energy flow and  your equation represents a one way energy exchange...not a two way flow.  Your equation Q=QA -QR is a simple subtraction of EM fields...not a description of a two way net energy exchange.  Sorry that you don't get this...but repeating your clip from science ad nauseum is not going to change the facts.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 16, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Toddster can read but he can't understand what he reads...Q=QA-QR is nothing more than a simple subtraction of EM fields....no two way flow...no unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable net flow...just a simple subtraction of two EM fields which we see and measure every day....in fact, it describes every energy exchange ever measured.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 16, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


 
*You keep posting that...so what? There is no two way energy flow*

I know, I keep posting sources which claim a two way flow.
You keep failing to post sources which claim a one way flow.
The fact that you misunderstand SB is not proof of one way flow.

*Your equation Q=QA -QR is a simple subtraction of EM fields*

Sorry, you've provided no proof of your smart wave or smart photon theory.
What are you waiting for?
Every single observation ever agrees with you. LOL!

So why aren't you posting sources which mention, prominently, one way flow?
You claim is a total fail.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 16, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


You have yet to provide a single example of an observed measured two way energy transfer.  Afraid the fail is all yours


Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 16, 2014)

SSDD said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


 

*However, if people are indoors, surrounded by surfaces at 296 K, they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings, so the net loss is only about 100 watts.*

Your failure to provide a source that agrees with your one way flow, smart wave/smart photon theory is noted.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 16, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *However, if people are indoors, surrounded by surfaces at 296 K, they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings, so the net loss is only about 100 watts.*
> 
> Your failure to provide a source that agrees with your one way flow, smart wave/smart photon theory is noted.



Yep..that's what they say...  Doesn't it seem strange to you that they could provide no measurements of the supposed two way energy flow?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 16, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *However, if people are indoors, surrounded by surfaces at 296 K, they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings, so the net loss is only about 100 watts.*
> ...


 
*they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings, *

Do you feel their calculation is wrong?
You must be very frustrated, every measurement ever backs up your claim and you still can't find anything that says one way flow.


----------



## IanC (Sep 16, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




Todd -  you have proven your case to any sane minded reader here. there is no proof that will convince SSDD (or wirebender in a previous incarnation) that his pet belief is wrong. you cannot argue with pigheaded crazies and expect to get a logical result. I know, I have tried.


----------



## JoeNormal (Sep 16, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



You really are the most stupid person I've ever met.  Congratulations.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 16, 2014)

JoeNormal said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


 
really, then where is the experiment?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 16, 2014)

JoeNormal said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



But we all noticed that you didn't actually post the experiment.

So here's my challenge: Post it or shut the Fuck up

hhhmmkay...deal?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 16, 2014)

IanC said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


 
The frustration must be killing him.
He's been looking for weeks, probably months, and can't find any reference to a one way flow. Poor guy.


----------



## IanC (Sep 16, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Sep 17, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The frustration must be killing him.
> He's been looking for weeks, probably months, and can't find any reference to a one way flow. Poor guy.



There is no need....the equation itself explicitly states that the energy flow is one way...you, on the other hand must be terribly frustrated that you can't find any actual measurement of energy moving in two directions.....know why?  Because it doesn't happen.  You have thought experiments and mathematical models, but no real world observed, measured example...while every measurement ever made supports my position...why would I need to look anywhere?


----------



## Crick (Sep 17, 2014)

Please explain where you see "one way flow" in that equation.


----------



## JoeNormal (Sep 17, 2014)

jc456 said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...





CrusaderFrank said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Attention retards:  I've personally shown you at least 3 times now how it would be impossible to conduct such an experiment and have any meaningful results.  And I'm sure Crick, and others have done the same.  But rather than wrap your thick skulls around some basic, albeit unfamiliar science, you choose to continue repeating a talking point so inane that only a person who considers Fox News intellectual would consider it pertinent.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 17, 2014)

JoeNormal said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > JoeNormal said:
> ...



Why is it "Impossible" to test for temperature differences from a 120PPM increase in CO2?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 17, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > The frustration must be killing him.
> ...


 
Don't let that frustration eat you up, it's unhealthy.
If you were correct, you'd have posted many examples.
Your inability to post a single one agreeing with your one way flow underlines your massive failure.

*You have thought experiments*

Thought experiments are funny. Like your silly one about hot objects radiating and then suddenly 
ceasing their radiating, when a hotter object approaches.

*but no real world observed, measured example*

Science magazine wasn't a real world observed, measured example?

*while every measurement ever made supports my position...why would I need to look anywhere?*

Because your position is wrong, and you've looked everywhere and found no proof of one way flow.
You'll just have to live with our constant mockery of your ignorance.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 17, 2014)

Crick said:


> Please explain where you see "one way flow" in that equation.



An equation describing two way, or three way, or four way, etc. flow will require the same number of expressions....your equations are nothing more than simple subtraction of EM fields...ie one way energy movement.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 17, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Don't let that frustration eat you up, it's unhealthy.



So now you are projecting too?...figures.  Every example of energy movement ever made supports my position...you are the one who can not provide any actual observation of two way energy movement.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> If you were correct, you'd have posted many examples.



Every example supports my position...none support yours.  




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Science magazine wasn't a real world observed, measured example?



Sorry guy, that wasn't an observed, measured example...it was a mathematical model.  No measurement was taken of human skin absorbing energy from the walls.  Lying and projecting...must be frustrating for you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 17, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Don't let that frustration eat you up, it's unhealthy.
> ...


 
Every example? You mean all the ones you can't post? LOL!

Maybe you could come up with an experimental setup that would measure the energy emitted or absorbed by a human body?
Maybe you could use it to show a body emitting and then ceasing all emissions, when a hotter body approaches.
Post your results. We'll be here, pointing and laughing at you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 17, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Don't let that frustration eat you up, it's unhealthy.
> ...


 
* that wasn't an observed, measured example...it was a mathematical model.*

They used SB, correctly. Still laughing at you.


----------



## IanC (Sep 17, 2014)

Hahahaha. "subtraction of EM fields".  Care to finally admit you're back under a new name wirebender?


----------



## SSDD (Sep 17, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> [
> Every example? You mean all the ones you can't post? LOL!



No, I mean every example...even Ian will admit that there are no measurements of energy moving from cool objects to warm objects...The fact that you are claiming such measurements to actually exist is ludicrous.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 17, 2014)

IanC said:


> Hahahaha. "subtraction of EM fields".  Care to finally admit you're back under a new name wirebender?



I got accused of that when I joined this board...the management did whatever they do to determine if I were already a member and was cleared...you going to start accusing me of that since you can't prove your argument?  And what is strange about the subtraction of EM fields...is it not a relatively common term?


----------



## SSDD (Sep 17, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> * that wasn't an observed, measured example...it was a mathematical model.*
> 
> They used SB, correctly. Still laughing at you.



Of course they did...and the SB equation describes a one way energy transfer....laughing right back at you and laughing at you for thinking you have anything to laugh at me about....and you still have no observed, measured example of energy moving from cool to warm....while every observed measurement ever made is from warm to cool.


----------



## Crick (Sep 17, 2014)

FIND ANY REFERENCE THAT SAYS STEFAN-BOLTZMAN DESCRIBES A ONE-WAY HEAT TRANSFER FIND ANY REFERENCE THAT SAYS STEFAN-BOLTZMAN DESCRIBES A ONE-WAY HEAT TRANSFER FIND ANY REFERENCE THAT SAYS STEFAN-BOLTZMAN DESCRIBES A ONE-WAY HEAT TRANSFER FIND ANY REFERENCE THAT SAYS STEFAN-BOLTZMAN DESCRIBES A ONE-WAY HEAT TRANSFER FIND ANY REFERENCE THAT SAYS STEFAN-BOLTZMAN DESCRIBES A ONE-WAY HEAT TRANSFER FIND ANY REFERENCE THAT SAYS STEFAN-BOLTZMAN DESCRIBES A ONE-WAY HEAT TRANSFER FIND ANY REFERENCE THAT SAYS STEFAN-BOLTZMAN DESCRIBES A ONE-WAY HEAT TRANSFER FIND ANY REFERENCE THAT SAYS STEFAN-BOLTZMAN DESCRIBES A ONE-WAY HEAT TRANSFER FIND ANY REFERENCE THAT SAYS STEFAN-BOLTZMAN DESCRIBES A ONE-WAY HEAT TRANSFER FIND ANY REFERENCE THAT SAYS STEFAN-BOLTZMAN DESCRIBES A ONE-WAY HEAT TRANSFER


----------



## IanC (Sep 17, 2014)

Brownian motion is an interesting demonstration that molecular kinetic velocities are both varied and can pile up in one direction even though that goes against the average.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 17, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > * that wasn't an observed, measured example...it was a mathematical model.*
> ...


 
It must really burn you up that you've been searching and searching and still can't find a source that claims one way flow.

Let me know when Science magazine admits their error.

Unless you're afraid to contact them and confirm your own idiocy?


----------



## SSDD (Sep 18, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> It must really burn you up that you've been searching and searching and still can't find a source that claims one way flow.



Again, I haven't even looked...there is no need.  The fact that you can't find a single observed, measured example of two way energy flow means that every energy transfer ever measured has been in one direction....Now if you were providing measurement after measurement after measurement of observed, two way energy movement...I would be worried about my position...but after all this, you still can't produce one. 

We have been measuring energy movement for a very long time now...and not one of them has been an observation of energy moving in two directions at once...that leaves one other alternative and that alternative just happens to fit my position to  a T.   



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Let me know when Science magazine admits their error.



Science magazine presented a mathematical model...one that is demonstrably wrong by every measured energy exchange ever made....


----------



## SSDD (Sep 18, 2014)

Crick said:


> FIND ANY REFERENCE THAT SAYS STEFAN-BOLTZMAN DESCRIBES A ONE-WAY HEAT TRANSFER FIND ANY REFERENCE THAT SAYS STEFAN-BOLTZMAN DESCRIBES A ONE-WAY HEAT TRANSFER FIND ANY REFERENCE THAT SAYS STEFAN-BOLTZMAN DESCRIBES A ONE-WAY HEAT TRANSFER FIND ANY REFERENCE THAT SAYS STEFAN-BOLTZMAN DESCRIBES A ONE-WAY HEAT TRANSFER FIND ANY REFERENCE THAT SAYS STEFAN-BOLTZMAN DESCRIBES A ONE-WAY HEAT TRANSFER FIND ANY REFERENCE THAT SAYS STEFAN-BOLTZMAN DESCRIBES A ONE-WAY HEAT TRANSFER FIND ANY REFERENCE THAT SAYS STEFAN-BOLTZMAN DESCRIBES A ONE-WAY HEAT TRANSFER FIND ANY REFERENCE THAT SAYS STEFAN-BOLTZMAN DESCRIBES A ONE-WAY HEAT TRANSFER FIND ANY REFERENCE THAT SAYS STEFAN-BOLTZMAN DESCRIBES A ONE-WAY HEAT TRANSFER FIND ANY REFERENCE THAT SAYS STEFAN-BOLTZMAN DESCRIBES A ONE-WAY HEAT TRANSFER



The SB law and equation itself describes a one way energy flow.  Have you become rolling thunder now believing that if you shout in all caps that your argument becomes more forceful...I don't read all caps...so speak like an adult, or be ignored.  As I have pointed out, in the language of math, just like in spoken language when you have things going in two directions, and you want to describe that movement in detail, you must have an expression describing the movement in each direction.  You have failed at the most basic level....you don't even understand that the equation describes a one way flow of energy. 

You could end the discussion immediately...do a little dance, and declare indisputable victory by simply producing an observed, measured example of energy moving in two directions at once....this has gone on for how many pages now?....and no example...and it could go on for 10,000 more pages...you making claims...calling me stupid...and making more claims and still you would have no game winning example of an observed, measured instance of energy moving in two directions at once.  

What you have is a belief...what you have is faith...what you don't have is a single observed, measured example of what you claim....because none exist.  Now prove me wrong by providing the example.  Toddster keeps posting his mathematical model as if that were an example...he has become as addled as war mists thinking that models are reality.


----------



## Crick (Sep 18, 2014)

I became sick of your babbling a long time ago and certainly didn't ask for any more of it.  I want a REFERENCE - an authority, an expert, someone who knows what the fuck they're talking about to tell us, in no uncertain terms, that the SB equation describes ONE-FUCKING-WAY heat transfer.

The internet has hundreds if not thousands of different sites explaining S-B.  Find us ONE, just ONE that says what you say.

Fucking idiot


----------



## SSDD (Sep 18, 2014)

Crick said:


> I became sick of your babbling a long time ago and certainly didn't ask for any more of it.  I want a REFERENCE - an authority, an expert, someone who knows what the fuck they're talking about to tell us, in no uncertain terms, that the SB equation describes ONE-FUCKING-WAY heat transfer.
> 
> Fucking idiot




Can't help but notice that you still don't have that observed measured example of the two way energy flow you believe in...one would think that for you to believe so fervently, you would have at least one measurement.  I have always known exactly what I was talking about...and have consistently requested the one thing that I knew you couldn't produce...that being actual evidence.  Unlike you, I recognize the difference between actual reality and a mathematical model and don't go about confusing one for the other.  The models can claim two way energy flow till the cows come home, but till it is actually observed, and measured it is just a theory....reality is the fact that no such two way energy movement has ever been observed or measured.

You are a religious zealot...plain and simple.  You believe your belief is reality.


----------



## Crick (Sep 18, 2014)

What you need to find is the source of the idea you've got that an object can STOP radiating if surrounded by warmer stuff.  Have you found that yet?  I know you've looked.  Doesn't it bother you that you can't find it?  Doesn't it bother you that EVERYTHING you've found agrees with with what Todd and Ian and FCT and I have been telling you?  That you're a fucking idiot?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 18, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > It must really burn you up that you've been searching and searching and still can't find a source that claims one way flow.
> ...


 
*Again, I haven't even looked...there is no need.*

Idiot says what? LOL!

*Science magazine presented a mathematical model...one that is demonstrably wrong by every measured energy exchange ever made....*

Get them to admit their error and we'll stop mocking your idiocy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 18, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > FIND ANY REFERENCE THAT SAYS STEFAN-BOLTZMAN DESCRIBES A ONE-WAY HEAT TRANSFER FIND ANY REFERENCE THAT SAYS STEFAN-BOLTZMAN DESCRIBES A ONE-WAY HEAT TRANSFER FIND ANY REFERENCE THAT SAYS STEFAN-BOLTZMAN DESCRIBES A ONE-WAY HEAT TRANSFER FIND ANY REFERENCE THAT SAYS STEFAN-BOLTZMAN DESCRIBES A ONE-WAY HEAT TRANSFER FIND ANY REFERENCE THAT SAYS STEFAN-BOLTZMAN DESCRIBES A ONE-WAY HEAT TRANSFER FIND ANY REFERENCE THAT SAYS STEFAN-BOLTZMAN DESCRIBES A ONE-WAY HEAT TRANSFER FIND ANY REFERENCE THAT SAYS STEFAN-BOLTZMAN DESCRIBES A ONE-WAY HEAT TRANSFER FIND ANY REFERENCE THAT SAYS STEFAN-BOLTZMAN DESCRIBES A ONE-WAY HEAT TRANSFER FIND ANY REFERENCE THAT SAYS STEFAN-BOLTZMAN DESCRIBES A ONE-WAY HEAT TRANSFER FIND ANY REFERENCE THAT SAYS STEFAN-BOLTZMAN DESCRIBES A ONE-WAY HEAT TRANSFER
> ...


 
*The SB law and equation itself describes a one way energy flow.* 

Prove it.
Provide a single observed, measured example of what you claim....


----------



## SSDD (Sep 18, 2014)

Crick said:


> What you need to find is the source of the idea you've got that an object can STOP radiating if surrounded by warmer stuff.  Have you found that yet?  I know you've looked.  Doesn't it bother you that you can't find it?  Doesn't it bother you that EVERYTHING you've found agrees with with what Todd and Ian and FCT and I have been telling you?  That you're a fucking idiot?


No need since that isn't my position....that's your inaccurate interpretation of my position


----------



## SSDD (Sep 18, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Idiot says what? LOL!
> 
> You said it...not me...  why not put an end to this by providing an observed measured example of energy moving in two directions at once....or admit that you can't provide it....Although an admission really isn't necessary at this point


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 18, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Idiot says what? LOL!
> ...


 
Why not put an end to this by providing an observed measured example of energy moving in only one direction....or admit that you can't provide it....Although an admission really isn't necessary at this point


----------



## SSDD (Sep 18, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Every measurement ever made is of energy moving in one direction.  Pick any measured temperature transfer.....if no work is being done...one object will be cooling while the other is warming till such time as they are the same...one way energy movement.  Two way energy movement can't be measured because it doesn't happen.  Claiming that you can't find any measured energy movement that only measures energy moving in one direction is just stupid...every one indicates one way movement....heat a pot of water to boiling....take it off the eye....set a pot of room temperature water next to it....put a thermometer in both....see one thermometer indicating that it is getting warmer....see one indicating cooling...one way energy movement from the hot pot to the cool pot.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 18, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


 
*Every measurement ever made is of energy moving in one direction.* 

Great, show one that says one way. Should be easy.

*Claiming that you can't find any measured energy movement that only measures energy moving in one direction is just stupid*

I agree, your one way claim is stupid.
Your failure to post proof proves it's stupid.


----------



## IanC (Sep 18, 2014)

SSDD doesn't understand that net flow doesn't mean one way flow. 

You can yell at him all you want but it isn't going to change his mind. If he relinquishes that point then his worldview of physics collapses. He aint gonna do it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 18, 2014)

IanC said:


> SSDD doesn't understand that net flow doesn't mean one way flow.
> 
> You can yell at him all you want but it isn't going to change his mind. If he relinquishes that point then his worldview of physics collapses. He aint gonna do it.


 
I know, his frustration must be unbearable.
Everyone here disagrees with his claim, but he can't post a single source that agrees with him.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 18, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD doesn't understand that net flow doesn't mean one way flow.
> ...


Not in the least...I don't need encouragement or reassurance from anyone


----------



## SSDD (Sep 18, 2014)

IanC said:


> SSDD doesn't understand that net flow doesn't mean one way flow.
> 
> You can yell at him all you want but it isn't going to change his mind. If he relinquishes that point then his worldview of physics collapses. He aint gonna do it.


If I accept 2 way energy flow I leave the realm of observation and the real and enter the realm of faith. Let me know when two way energy flow is observed


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 18, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


 
It's just you against the world.
And we're all laughing at you.

Be brave.


----------



## IanC (Sep 18, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...




I am surprised that you took my comment as suporr or encouragement. I thought it was belittling.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 18, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



My position is supported by all the physical evidence in the world, and every observation and measurement ever taken,.... courage is hardly needed...you and yours, on the other hand speaking from a position of faith, with absolutely no physical evidence in support of your position....well, I commend your faith.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 18, 2014)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Sorry, I didn't take it as encouragement or support...did I not explicitly state that I didn't need encouragement of reassurance from anyone?...You guys read words and simply make up these whole stories in your heads about what they mean rather than simply taking them at face value.  Maybe that is because straight talk is so alien to you...believing in the unseen, and unmeasurable, and untestable as you do...I guess you spend a lot of time talking around how so little of what you believe is proven in any real way....


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 18, 2014)

IanC said:


> SSDD doesn't understand that net flow doesn't mean one way flow.
> 
> You can yell at him all you want but it isn't going to change his mind. If he relinquishes that point then his worldview of physics collapses. He aint gonna do it.



ALL MATTER EMITS ENERGY.  The amount of energy stored is what determines in which direction it travels.  (more positive to less positive until it reaches zero K).   This is why I used the analogy of two hoses facing each other. There is always flow from both hoses.  It is the stronger flow which overcomes the slower flow (which just happens to be more positive to less positive).  When two bodies of matter reach equilibrium they each equally radiate to the other.

I have tired many times to explain this theroy to some and they never grasp the concept.   I feel your pain.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 18, 2014)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD doesn't understand that net flow doesn't mean one way flow.
> ...



You have two light bulbs side by side.

Do they both emit energy?

When viewed from the side (side by side) you can see one is a 40 watt bulb and the other is a 100 watt bulb.  They are both emitting energy just like every molecule does. Energy from the 40 is making its way to the 100 watt bulb and the 100 watt bulb is sending energy to the 40 watt bulb.  You will feel the stronger heat of the 100 watt bulb because it is the stronger source.

When viewed head on you see the 100 watt bulb only.  WHY?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 18, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


 
*My position is supported by all the physical evidence in the world, and every observation and measurement ever taken,....*

That is awesome! So post a couple that mention one way flow. Be brave.


----------



## Crick (Sep 18, 2014)

SSDD said:


> .believing in the unseen, and unmeasurable, and untestable as you do...I guess you spend a lot of time talking around how so little of what you believe is proven in any real way....



Those "unseen", "unmeasurable" and "untestable" phenomena have allowed the science of physics to progress to things like the LHC's detection of the Higgs boson at CERN, high-temperature superconductors, molecular laser traps, Bose-Einstein condensates, controlled fusion reactions, quantum computing devices and thousands of other wonders of science.  Not ONE single person involved in ANY of that work, for more than the last century, agrees with you on these points.  Not one.

I think it's time you considered the possibility that you're wrong.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 19, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> *My position is supported by all the physical evidence in the world, and every observation and measurement ever taken,....*
> 
> That is awesome! So post a couple that mention one way flow. Be brave.



Why would anyone taking, and logging measurements feel the need to state what is self evident?  What would be noteworthy would be an actual observation and measurement of energy flowing in two directions....Got any of those?  Of course you don't because it doesn't happen.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 19, 2014)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > .believing in the unseen, and unmeasurable, and untestable as you do...I guess you spend a lot of time talking around how so little of what you believe is proven in any real way....
> ...



Actually, they haven't.  What you have are stories about the unseen, untestable, and unmeasurable....none of it is proven because it remains unseen, untestable, and unmeasurable...some parts of the stories correlate with what can be tested, but as we all know correlation is not causation.  QM is rife with contradictions because it is just a story about what can't bee seen, tested, or measured.  It is like the three blind men examining an elephant...Where the microscopic is concerned...all of science is still blind...feeling around and making up stories about what they think they would be feeling if they actually could feel anything at that level.

Ian, for example, claiming that light waves can only cancel, interfere with, or amplify each other if someone is watching...How wacky is that.  You people believing that statistics is an actual mechanism for anything...the fact is that large numbers of particles are modeled statistically under the ASSUMPTION that there is no interaction between the particles and that the system being modeled is at equilibrium.  Ian takes that to mean that photons in reality do not interact rather than that his model assumes that they do not interact.

As to considering the possibility that I am wrong...sure, when you can present some actual evidence that I am wrong....as soon as you can present an actual measurement of  a warm object radiating energy out and absorbing energy in from a cooler object at the same time.  So far, all we have is measurements of cooler objects absorbing energy from warmer objects...every measurement ever taken tells the same story.  

Perhaps it is time for you guys to put on your big girl panties and acknowledge that what you believe in is a mathematical model...what you believe to be happening has never been measured or observed....and it just pisses you off that I don't believe what you believe.  I watch science discard long held beliefs every day...new knowledge comes along and we find that what we thought we knew....we didn't.   As time moves on, post modern science will take more of those hits than classical science because so much of post modern science is, in fact, models....unobserved, untested, unmeasured...simply assumed...


----------



## Crick (Sep 19, 2014)

Fuck you you idiot


----------



## SSDD (Sep 19, 2014)

Crick said:


> Fuck you you idiot



Afraid it is you who is fucked...you believe....except you can't bring yourself to admit to yourself that you believe...you like to imagine yourself as a rational being who is only swayed by the facts, but your whole point of view on this topic is built upon a belief in a mathematical model....no hard evidence....no repeatable experimentation....no direct observation....no scientific method....just a mathematical model and some correlatory evidence.  You are operating from a position of belief...not hard evidence.  I am the one here who is operating from the position of reality...what can be seen, observed, measured...and all observations, and measurements are of energy flowing from a higher state to a lower state...warmer to cooler...none at all of energy moving in the other direction.  You believe in something you can't see...I believe in what we all see.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 19, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > *My position is supported by all the physical evidence in the world, and every observation and measurement ever taken,....*
> ...


 
You self evidence is disproven by your inability to post proof of one way flow.
Science magazine, the Physics textbook I posted and everyone on the thread is wrong.
But you're right. LOL!
Stay strong.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 19, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Fuck you you idiot
> ...


 
* I am the one here who is operating from the position of reality...*

Man, that's funny. What color is the sky in your reality?
You're like Galileo, everyone else is wrong.
Be brave little soldier.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 19, 2014)

Here from Jon Rappaport UN climate change 1000 scientists say no Jon Rappoport s Blog






*UN climate change: 1000 scientists say no*
by Jon Rappoport
[TBODY]
[/TBODY]


----------



## SSDD (Sep 19, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> What's to mention?  Energy flows one way....there is no need to state the obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Sep 19, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> * I am the one here who is operating from the position of reality...*


*
*
Really?  Then lets see the observed, measured example of a warm object radiating out and at the same time absorbing energy from a cooler object.  If you are, in fact, operating from reality, then a real example should be easy....lets see the real example.

Me?  I am operating from reality...put a hot object next to a cool object...the cool object warms up...the hot object cools down...if it were absorbing energy, it would warm up....the cool object is warming because it is actually absorbing energy....more energy in equals warming....the hot object doesn't gain any heat at all because it is not gaining any energy.  One way energy transfer....Anyone can measure it happening...all you need is a couple of thermometers...hell, even you can do it not that you would believe what you are seeing.

I bet you even think you know what heat is....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 19, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > * I am the one here who is operating from the position of reality...*
> ...


 
*Then lets see the observed, measured example of a warm object radiating out and at the same time absorbing energy from a cooler object.*

Right, because objects stop radiating, in your universe, when a warmer object is nearby.
Or the photons suddenly and magically miss the warmer object.

*put a hot object next to a cool object...the cool object warms up...the hot object cools down...if it were absorbing energy, it would warm up*

Unless the hot object emits more than it absorbs, in that case (reality) the hot object still cools down.
The cool object still warms up. Because, as we see in the SB law, all objects above 0K emit energy.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 19, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > *My position is supported by all the physical evidence in the world, and every observation and measurement ever taken,....*
> ...



SSDD, Answer me this.  Do all molecules emit black body radiation?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 19, 2014)

All matter/molecules emit black body radiation at all times.  its a fact.

You have two molecules one radiating at 400 photons per second and another cooler molecule radiating at 25 photons per second. 

BOTH ARE ALWAYS EMITTING. It is a fact of physics. The rate of received / loss is what determines if a molecule will warm or cool.

The warmer molecule is radiating (emitting) at 400 as those photons approach the cooler molecule they over come the photons in their path.

400 --> collides with 25 leaving a thermal imbalance of 375 striking the other molecule. This imbalance is what warms the cooler molecule. 

Energy is always flowing in both directions. It is the reaction of collision/redirection which stops flow. So in a way you are correct but not fully because the cooler molecule is indeed emitting towards the hotter.


----------



## Crick (Sep 20, 2014)

Close, but no photons are "overcoming" each other.  When a piece of matter emits photons, it loses energy, when it absorbs photons it gains energy.  The net effect is the algebraic sum of the energy gained and the energy lost.


----------



## IanC (Sep 20, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Do YOU have any examples of photons interacting and transferring energy except in the presence of matter?

I am willing to explore other possibilities. Wirebender or gslack came up with high energy gamma photons that decompose into matter-antimatter pairs but that doesn't really have any relevance to terrestrial interactions.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 21, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


So long as they are above 0 degrees K


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 21, 2014)

SSDD said:


> So long as they are above 0 degrees K



So you admit that energy is flowing from every object above 0 K .

That is progress..

Will the protons from a cooler object be emitted towards a warmer object? Remember that all matter is emitting above 0 Kelvin.


----------



## Crick (Sep 21, 2014)

Protons or photons?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 21, 2014)

Crick said:


> Protons or photons?


 
Croutons?


----------



## Crick (Sep 21, 2014)

Crotons.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 22, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So long as they are above 0 degrees K
> ...



What's to admit?  It can, to a certain extent be observed.  I am guessing that you have taken these clowns parody of my position as if it were actually my position.  The thing is, they can't argue against my actual position, so they have, among them, fabricated a story they can argue against.. I keep asking for observed, measured examples of warm objects absorbing energy from cool objects...every time I ask, they embellish their story of what my position is rather than simply admit that there are no observed, measured examples of warm objects absorbing energy from cool objects.

 Take a warm object and a cool object and put them sufficiently far apart and you can measure radiation coming from each...radiating towards does not necessarily mean that there is an energy transfer between the objects happening...If you put a satellite between the earth and the sun, I am sure it could measure energy radiating out...that does not mean that the energy radiating out is actually being absorbed by the sun.

If you bring the objects closer together, you will reach a point where radiation can only be measured in one direction...and when the objects are in contact, I don't think there is any radiation happening at all in the direction of the contact...again, radiating towards an object does not mean that there is an energy transfer happening...energy does not move from cool objects to warm objects.


----------



## Crick (Sep 22, 2014)

Asking us for measurements or examples is not a a statement of your position.  If you think we're not correctly understanding your position, please explain it to us one more time.

You say _"Take a warm object and a cool object and put them sufficiently far apart and you can measure radiation coming from each...radiating towards does not necessarily mean that there is an energy transfer between the objects happening...If you put a satellite between the earth and the sun, I am sure it could measure energy radiating out...that does not mean that the energy radiating out is actually being absorbed by the sun."

*o* How far is "sufficiently far?

o Why does that NOT mean there is energy transfer taking place between the two objects?

*o* Why would energy radiated in the direction of the sun by an orbiting satellite NOT be absorbed by the sun?_


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 22, 2014)

I'm sure in 19 pages someone posted this already...
I know the man made global warming religionists will cling to their false temperature reports and their  Green Goddess...but one day they may be deprogrammed from the cult...

Research Commentary The Myth of a Global Warming Consensus Heartland Institute



> Anthropologist Benny Peiser attempted to replicate Oreskes’ findings and found only one-third of the papers endorsed the alarmist view and only 1 percent did so explicitly. In 2008, medical researcher Klaus-Martin Schulte used the same database and search terms as Oreskes to examine papers published from 2004 to February 2007 and found fewer than half endorsed the “consensus” and only 7 percent did so explicitly. Schulte counted 31 papers (6 percent of the sample) that explicitly or implicitly rejected the “consensus.” Finally, Oreskes’ methodology assumes the abstracts of papers accurately reflect their findings, an assumption proven false by In-Uck Park et al. in research published in _Nature_ in 2014.





> In 2009, a paper by Doran and Zimmerman published in _EOS_ claimed “97 percent of climate scientists agree” that mean global temperatures have risen since before the 1800s and that humans are a significant contributing factor. This study, too, has been debunked. The survey asked the wrong questions. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming _also_ support those statements. The survey was silent on whether or not the human impact was large enough to constitute a problem or would cause a problem in the future. Moreover, the “97 percent” figure represents the views of only 79 of the 3,146 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than 50 percent of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. This is not evidence of consensus.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 22, 2014)

Crick said:


> Asking us for measurements or examples is not a a statement of your position.  If you think we're not correctly understanding your position, please explain it to us one more time.
> 
> You say _"Take a warm object and a cool object and put them sufficiently far apart and you can measure radiation coming from each...radiating towards does not necessarily mean that there is an energy transfer between the objects happening...If you put a satellite between the earth and the sun, I am sure it could measure energy radiating out...that does not mean that the energy radiating out is actually being absorbed by the sun."
> 
> ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 22, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


 
*I keep asking for observed, measured examples of warm objects absorbing energy from cool objects.*

You just admitted all objects above 0 K emit energy.
Do your smart photons refuse to be absorbed if the target is warmer than the emitter?

*.. I keep asking for observed, measured examples of warm objects absorbing energy from cool objects...*

I guess you could explain the Science magazine article I keep linking?

* radiating towards an object does not mean that there is an energy transfer happening...*

That is exactly what that means.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 22, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You just admitted all objects above 0 K emit energy.




I never said otherwise...the suggestion that I said something else was you guys attempt to make up a position for me that you could argue against...There is no doubt that everything above 0K radiates.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> your smart photons refuse to be absorbed if the target is warmer than the emitter?



Again, trying to anthromorpize....very weak.  Refer to the microwave dish example....does the weaker signal from one dish know that it can't make it to the dish transmitting the stronger signal or is a simple subtraction of EM fields happening?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> I guess you could explain the Science magazine article I keep linking?



There was no measurement there and they never claimed to have made a measurement...they were describing assumptions based on a mathematical model...just like you.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> is exactly what that means.



Sorry, but it doesn't...again, two microwave dishes pointed at each other transmitting signals at different magnitudes...The dish transmitting the stronger signal does not receive the weaker signal...do you think the EM field was somehow aware that it could't make it to the dish and just gave up?  Or perhaps simple subtraction of EM fields was responsible?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 22, 2014)

Crick said:


> Fuck you you idiot


 such class in a debate.


----------



## IanC (Sep 22, 2014)

Ian's version of radiative transfer of energy-

All objects fully radiate according to their temperature. 
The net transfer of energy is simply the sum of photons between each object and the momentum produced by both the emission and absorption of photons. 
The momentum of radiative photons will always act as a repulsive force between the objects, and therefore increases entropy.

SSDD's version-

Objects radiate according to their temperature
Except if there is a warmer object in the direction of the radiation, (insert miracle here), and only a lesser amount of radiation is produced by the warmer object equal to the net flow.
Because radiation has decreased in both the warmer and cooler objects the momentum is now imbalanced and the objects are in effect attracted to each other. This decreases entropy. 
Besides the necessity of having an intelligence that keeps track of the temperature of every particle in the universe and makes decisions on which radiation is allowed, SSDD's version also violates conservation of momentum, and entropy rules. 

For those who don't understand the idea of light having momentum, simply check out the tail of a comet as it approaches the Sun.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 22, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > You just admitted all objects above 0 K emit energy.
> ...


 
*I never said otherwise..*

Baloney. You said an object ceases radiating if a warmer object is nearby.
You further said that if both objects achieve an identical temperature, they both stop all radiating.

*Refer to the microwave dish example*

Why? We're talking about your confusion about the 2nd Law and the SB Law.

*There was no measurement there and they never claimed to have made a measurement...they were describing assumptions based on a mathematical model...*

So you're saying that all matter above 0K emits energy, the SB Law is correct but the Science magazine use of the SB formula to measure emitted energy was wrong.
Your logic is weak.

*Or perhaps simple subtraction of EM fields was responsible?*

Please explain how photons subtract from each other.


----------



## IanC (Sep 22, 2014)

Yes, I would like to hear more about SSDD's understanding about EM fields etc. 

I think he may be confusing the properties of photons that transfer electro/magnetic force with the simpler case of radiative photons that only carry away unwanted energy.


----------



## Crick (Sep 22, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Fuck you you idiot
> ...



It was in response to this classy comment:


			
				SSDD said:
			
		

> Perhaps it is time for you guys to put on your big girl panties and acknowledge that what you believe in is a mathematical model...what you believe to be happening has never been measured or observed....and it just pisses you off that I don't believe what you believe. I watch science discard long held beliefs every day...new knowledge comes along and we find that what we thought we knew....we didn't. As time moves on, post modern science will take more of those hits than classical science because so much of post modern science is, in fact, models....unobserved, untested, unmeasured...simply assumed...


----------



## SSDD (Sep 23, 2014)

IanC said:


> Ian's version of radiative transfer of energy-
> 
> All objects fully radiate according to their temperature.
> The net transfer of energy is simply the sum of photons between each object and the momentum produced by both the emission and absorption of photons.
> ...



And oddly enough, it is the version that I subscribe to that is supported by every observation ever made and yours which can not be observed, measured, or tested.

And again, you make up a position for me to argue against...it is somewhat amazing that for all your supposed intelligence, you are unable to read what I write and simply respond to that rather than make up your own version to argue against.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 23, 2014)

IanC said:


> Yes, I would like to hear more about SSDD's understanding about EM fields etc.
> 
> I think he may be confusing the properties of photons that transfer electro/magnetic force with the simpler case of radiative photons that only carry away unwanted energy.



I think perhaps you are confused regarding the properties of photons...the primary property of photons is that we don't even know whether or not they exist... again Ian, is LW radiation a wave or a shower of photons...prove your answer.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 23, 2014)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



And rather than simply admit that your position is based on an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model, you lash out with your classy comment....completely expected and unsurprising.


----------



## Crick (Sep 23, 2014)

Crick said:


> Fuck you you idiot





SSDD said:


> And rather than simply admit that your position is based on an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model, you lash out with your classy comment....completely expected and unsurprising.



That all matter, constantly radiates EM energy in the IR band is observable, measurable, testable, is perfectly described by the Stefan-Boltzman equation and you are a fucking idiot.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 23, 2014)

Hey lookee here......real, real bad news for the alarmist k00k contingent from the NOAA via the LA Times >>>

New study says......


*West Coast warming linked to naturally occurring changes*
*
West Coast warming linked to naturally occurring changes - LA Times*



No wonder the president is at the UN throwing bombs...........this consensus shit is crumbling.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 23, 2014)




----------



## SSDD (Sep 24, 2014)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Fuck you you idiot
> ...



Really  write out the SB equation because clearly you can't do this in your head...set T and Tc to the same number...what is P?...and do keep in mind that the equation describes a one way energy flow...


----------



## SSDD (Sep 24, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> Hey lookee here......real, real bad news for the alarmist k00k contingent from the NOAA via the LA Times >>>
> 
> New study says......
> 
> ...



Good thing they have other envirohoaxes in the wings because the climate hoax is failing fast.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 24, 2014)




----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 24, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


 
Do you feel that an object above 0K ceases radiating simply because it is surrounded by something of the same temperature?


----------



## SSDD (Sep 24, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...




Write down the SB equation...set T and Tc to the same value...P=what?  And the equation describes a one way movement of energy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 24, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


 
So you feel that because the net energy loss/gain is zero that objects above 0K can cease radiating, despite all evidence to the contrary?


----------



## SSDD (Sep 24, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I don't "feel" anything...I am simply looking at the equations and accepting them as correct because every observation ever made bears them out...you are the one who is feeling and believing, and still unable to produce a single observed, measured example of what you claim is happening.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 24, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


* 
I don't "feel" anything.*

Of course you do.
You feel energy flow is one way, when you can't produce any literature to back you up.

*I am simply looking at the equations and accepting them as correct*

They are correct. It is your misinterpretation that is wrong.

*still unable to produce a single observed, measured example of what you claim is happening*

Sure, the physics book I linked and the Science Magazine article I linked were wrong, but every observation ever, that show "one-way flow", which you cannot link to, are correct. LOL!
You're silly.

Come on now, with all of history to pull from, you still can't post 2 sources that say one-way flow.
Why do you feel that is the case?


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 24, 2014)

God Damn, SSo DDumb, in our furnaces we heat slabs of steel to 1600 degrees. The heated air from the burning natural gas is at 1700 degrees. Yet you can look into the furnace and see the slabs glowing. But what you are stating is that is impossible since they are surrounded be gases at a higher heat. SSo DDumb is appropriate.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 24, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> They are correct. It is your misinterpretation that is wrong.




Sorry, interpreting is all you...the equation is clearly describing a one way energy flow....one expression...one way flow.  If it were describing a two way flow there would be two expressions...one to account for the energy moving in each direction....




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Sure, the physics book I linked and the Science Magazine article I linked were wrong, but every observation ever, that show "one-way flow", which you cannot link to, are correct. LOL!



Are you lying..or can you really not differentiate between reality...actual observation and a mathematical model?  Guess I shouldn't ask that since you have clearly replaced reality with a mathematical model insofar as your own position goes.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 24, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > They are correct. It is your misinterpretation that is wrong.
> ...


 
Yes, they used the SB correctly.
And still no link that says one-way flow.

Does that make you sad?
All alone in your claim. No link that agrees.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 24, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> God Damn, SSo DDumb, in our furnaces we heat slabs of steel to 1600 degrees. The heated air from the burning natural gas is at 1700 degrees. Yet you can look into the furnace and see the slabs glowing. But what you are stating is that is impossible since they are surrounded be gases at a higher heat. SSo DDumb is appropriate.



You got nothing right and you're calling someone else "Dumb"?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 24, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > God Damn, SSo DDumb, in our furnaces we heat slabs of steel to 1600 degrees. The heated air from the burning natural gas is at 1700 degrees. Yet you can look into the furnace and see the slabs glowing. But what you are stating is that is impossible since they are surrounded be gases at a higher heat. SSo DDumb is appropriate.
> ...


 
In this case, SSDD is wrong.


----------



## IanC (Sep 24, 2014)

The universe essentially is playing a game of hot potato. Every particle is trtying to shed energy as fast as it can but neighbouring particles keep passing theirs along as well. 

A simple illustrative example. Two men, one with $90 the other with $10, want to give their money away. Every minute they can pass 10% of their money to the other. After an hour of this they both have $50 but they are still passing $5 to each other every minute. 

Even the SB power equation is a vast simplification because it is only dealing with one direction, between the two objects. Radiation is happening at all times and in all directions, continuously.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 24, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yes, they used the SB correctly.
> And still no link that says one-way flow.



Not my fault that you can't recognize even the basics.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Does that make you sad?
> All alone in your claim. No link that agrees.



Not at all... only a real loser needs the validation of others....I am fine being right all by myself.

By the way, it is damned interesting that you agree with Ian above when he is stating that the SB equation is a description of a one way energy flow.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 24, 2014)

IanC said:


> The universe essentially is playing a game of hot potato. Every particle is trtying to shed energy as fast as it can but neighbouring particles keep passing theirs along as well.
> 
> A simple illustrative example. Two men, one with $90 the other with $10, want to give their money away. Every minute they can pass 10% of their money to the other. After an hour of this they both have $50 but they are still passing $5 to each other every minute.
> 
> Even the SB power equation is a vast simplification because it is only dealing with one direction, between the two objects. Radiation is happening at all times and in all directions, continuously.




Always illustrations...and thought experiments...and this and that...but no actual measured observations of an object radiating out and absorbing energy from a cooler object at the same time....why don't you tell Toddster why he can't find any actual example....rather than let his claims that they exist pass?

And thanks for finally admitting that the SB equation is describing a one way energy flux..one must wonder why you didn't bother to mention it to Toddster for all these pages while he has continued to claim that the SB equation is describing a two way flux.


----------



## IanC (Sep 24, 2014)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > The universe essentially is playing a game of hot potato. Every particle is trtying to shed energy as fast as it can but neighbouring particles keep passing theirs along as well.
> ...



Hahahaha. Are you really that stupid that you thought I was talking about one way flow rather than a flow in one particular direction? 

Objects radiate in all direction, 3 axis, 6 main directions. Two regularly shaped objects will have a shortest posible line segment between them that carries the highest amount of energy defines the average direction of flow. 

Obviously irregularly shaped objects or unusual topography would affect the flow, but it would also invalidate the simple form of the SB equation.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 25, 2014)

One way vs one direction?  Talk about playing semantics....can you moon walk too?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 25, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, they used the SB correctly.
> ...


 
It's interesting that you still confuse net flow with one way flow.

Still no luck finding two links to back up your claim of one way flow?
What about two links that explain how an object above 0K can stop radiating?

I'm glad you're the type of loser who needs no validation.
You are right about one thing, you are all by yourself.


----------



## IanC (Sep 25, 2014)

SSDD said:


> One way vs one direction?  Talk about playing semantics....can you moon walk too?



That really is just too funny.  The guy who disavows the mathematical distribuative law because it embarrasses SSDD's personal interpretation of the SB power equation is accusing me of playing semantics. 

I suggest you reread flac' sig  line about the liar's punishment.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 25, 2014)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > One way vs one direction?  Talk about playing semantics....can you moon walk too?
> ...



You still haven't given a rational, mathematic or scientifically sound reason to apply the distributive property to this equation...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




   Got one?...and if you do, does it change what the original equation is describing?


----------



## IanC (Sep 25, 2014)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Actually I did respond to this exact same question the last time you posted it. 

Mathematically speaking, the rearrangement of terms needs no explanation because it changes nothing. 

Scientifically speaking it makes sense because there are two components, both of which are governed by the original SB law of 'radiation equals kT^4'. 

Logically it makes sense to compartmentalize different aspects of a process so that you can see the relative influence each component makes.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 25, 2014)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


 
Did you ever figure out how the hotter object "knows" how to reduce its radiation, based on the rising temperature of the cooler object, when the cooler object never signals its temperature by emitting? 

For instance, two objects of identical size, composition and mass, just to try to simplify a bit,
one is 100K, the other 50K.
As the 100K object radiates (and the 50K object doesn't, LOL, I know), the hotter object drops to 90K.....80K etc, the rate of emitting must slow from ( 100^4 - 50^4) = 93,750,000 to (80^4 - 70^4) = 16,950,000, a drop of nearly 82%.
But the hot object doesn't "know" how much to slow down, because you claim the cooler doesn't emit.
Not a wave, not a photon.
Soon the rate drops to (76^4 - 74^4) = 3,375,600, a further drop of about 80%.
Later, the rate drops to (75.01^4 - 74.99^4) = 33,750, another 99% drop.
When they both reach 75K, how does the previosly warmer object know to stop emitting?
Why doesn't it emit one extra photon?


----------



## SSDD (Sep 25, 2014)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


Following your reasoning....why did ST not express the law like that?  You think you have a better handle on algebra than them


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 25, 2014)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


 
*Following your reasoning....why did ST not express the law like that?*

Exactly what difference would it make, scientifically, or mathematically, if they had?

*You think you have a better handle on algebra than them*

Better than you.


----------



## mamooth (Sep 25, 2014)

Average surface area of an adult male human is 1.9 m^2.

Since some parts of your body radiate right back into the other parts, let's call the surface area radiating to the world at 1.5 m^2. The exact number you pick there isn't particularly important.

Surface body temp is 37C, or 310K.

IR radiated out of such a body is Area*sigma*T^4, where sigma is the S-B constant.

Running the numbers, it comes out around 800 watts. Over a day, that's 19 kw*hrs, or 17,000 Calories (big C).

Dang. I didn't think I ate that much. But since SSDD says I can not absorb any heat from the cooler surroundings, all that IR energy I'm emitting has to be entirely generated internally. All those sources saying I'm burning 2200 Calories a day clearly must be wrong. SSDD, groundbreaking theorist he is, has also disproved centuries of nutritional science.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 25, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Average surface area of an adult male human is 1.9 m^2.
> 
> Since some parts of your body radiate right back into the other parts, let's call the surface area radiating to the world at 1.5 m^2. The exact number you pick there isn't particularly important.
> 
> ...


 
Hehe. You'll make his little head pop.


----------



## rdean (Sep 25, 2014)

Only 6% of scientists are Republican with good reason.  The GOP used to champion science.  Now they are very suspicious.  Yet have nothing to counter it.  Guess "I don't believe it" is good enough.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 25, 2014)

rdean said:


> Only 6% of scientists are Republican with good reason.  The GOP used to champion science.  Now they are very suspicious.  Yet have nothing to counter it.  Guess "I don't believe it" is good enough.


 
Listen to liberals when it comes to vaccines and GMOs and talk to me about science. LOL!


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 25, 2014)

That cameo appearance by RDean was dead funny.
Like the crazy guy who walks into a fancy restaurant
and starts to chat up the customers about giant grasshoppers.

Lost, lonely and clueless.. But is he harmless? 
Got an idea --- Let RDEAN decide who's right here..


----------



## SSDD (Sep 29, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> It's interesting that you still confuse net flow with one way flow.



Alas, it is you who is confused...observation trumps theory every time and I can't help but notice that you have no observation of energy from cool objects being absorbed by warm objects.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 29, 2014)

IanC said:


> Actually I did respond to this exact same question the last time you posted it.



You gave a weasel answer that answered nothing...the fact that you can apply a property is not reason to apply a property.  Why apply the distributive property to an equation that is already solved?



IanC said:


> Mathematically speaking, the rearrangement of terms needs no explanation because it changes nothing.



But speaking in terms of physics, it does....the equation is a description of a physical process....



IanC said:


> Scientifically speaking it makes sense because there are two components, both of which are governed by the original SB law of 'radiation equals kT^4'.



So now you are smarter than SB and are correcting their work for them?



IanC said:


> Logically it makes sense to compartmentalize different aspects of a process so that you can see the relative influence each component makes.



Again, do you think you are more logical than SB were, and have a better handle on the math?  They wrote the equation as they did for a reason...if they thought that it required an application of the distributive property, don't you think they would have done it?


----------



## SSDD (Sep 29, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Exactly what difference would it make, scientifically, or mathematically, if they had?




From a strictly mathematical standpoint, applying an algebraic property to a solved equation is just stupid...from a physics standpoint...equations are describing physical process...if you change the equation, you change the process being described...or are you going to deny that in physics equations describe physical processes?




Toddsterpatriot said:


> Better than you.



So why do I accept the law as it is written and you do not?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 29, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > It's interesting that you still confuse net flow with one way flow.
> ...


 
I'm sorry, I can't hear you over your failure to post 2 sources that say one-way flow.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 29, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly what difference would it make, scientifically, or mathematically, if they had?
> ...


 
*From a strictly mathematical standpoint, applying an algebraic property to a solved equation is just stupid...*

Stupid? It makes no difference mathematically. How can it be stupid?

*...from a physics standpoint...equations are describing physical process...*

We're still waiting for your explanation of the physical process that causes an object above 0K to suddenly stop radiating.

*if you change the equation, you change the process being described..*

And here's the source of your confusion, that didn't change the equation.

*or are you going to deny that in physics equations describe physical processes?*

I would never deny that the SB equation describes the process of all objects above 0K constantly radiating.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 29, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...





> Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.



Second law of thermodynamics...how much more of a reference do you need?  Now, got any actual observation of energy spontaneously moving from a cool object to a warm object?....of course you don't....but you go on believing if it floats your boat regardless of what every observation ever made says.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 29, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Stupid? It makes no difference mathematically. How can it be stupid?



The fact that you have to ask says all that needs to be said....but to answer your question...mathematically, the application of properties is to reduce the complexity of an equation...ie to simplify...you don't apply a property to an equation that is already as simple as it can be made...it is just bad math.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> We're still waiting for your explanation of the physical process that causes an object above 0K to suddenly stop  radiating.



No need for me to explain anything...the law is written as it is for a reason...when the law is changed and the equation is written another way...let me know.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> And here's the source of your confusion, that didn't change the equation.



So you are saying that specific mathematical equations in physics don't describe specific physical processes?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 29, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


 
*Second law of thermodynamics...how much more of a reference do you need?* 

2 that say one way flow should be plenty.

*Now, got any actual observation of energy spontaneously moving from a cool object to a warm object?*

All the time. Every day. It's because all things above 0K radiate, even if they're near warmer things.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 29, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Stupid? It makes no difference mathematically. How can it be stupid?
> ...


 
*but to answer your question...mathematically, the application of properties is to reduce the complexity of an equation...ie to simplify...you don't apply a property to an equation that is already as simple as it can be made...it is just bad math.*

Since it doesn't change the math, it makes no difference at all.

*No need for me to explain anything.*

Just your claims of one way flow and objects above 0K not radiating, despite the violation of SB.


----------



## IanC (Sep 29, 2014)

There is no way you are going to get SSDD off his talking point. He will not explain anything because he knows it makes no sense and any details he would put down would just lead to logical fallicies.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 30, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> 2 that say one way flow should be plenty.



I am rapidly beginning to think of you as just stupid.

Second Law of Thermodynamics



> It is* not possible for **heat** to flow from a colder body to a warmer body* without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. *Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low **temperature** object to a higher temperature object*.



Here, one apparently closer to your grade level

Physics4Kids.com Thermodynamics Heat Second Law of Thermodynamics



> Heat flows from hot areas to cold, not the other way. If its energy is to flow from cold to hot, it needs additional energy.



Second Law of Thermodynamics - Physics Video by Brightstorm



> he Second Law of Thermodynamics can be rephrased in several ways. Fundamentally, it says that heat always flows from hot objects to cold objects (unless work is exerted to make it flow the other direction).



Second Law of Thermodynamics



> The application of the second law describes why heat is transferred from the hot object to the cool object. Let us assume that the heat is transferred from the hot object (object 1) at temperature T1 to the cold object (object 2) at temperature T2. The amount of heat transferred is Q and the final equilibrium temperature for both objects we will call Tf. The temperature of the hot object changes as the heat is transferred away from the object. The average temperature of the hot object during the process we will call Th and it would be the average of T1 and Tf.
> 
> Th = (T1 + Tf) / 2
> 
> ...



Note the one way equations...






Toddsterpatriot said:


> All the time. Every day. It's because all things above 0K radiate, even if they're near warmer things.



Which explains why after 22 pages of claiming that it happens all the time, you can't provide even one observed, measured example of energy spontaneously moving from a cool object to a warm one.  I am growing tired of the conversation...we both know that you will never be able to provide an example because we both know that such spontaneous energy movement never has, and never will be observed.  The second law makes the direction of energy movement clear...it says nothing about net movements or two way movements or any such thing...the second law speaks in absolute terms because absolutely every observation ever made is of energy moving in one direction.

So either provide the example...or admit that you can't...or I can see little use in continuing the conversation...when it started, I knew where it would end...page after page of me asking for an observed, measured example of energy moving spontaneously from cold to hot and you never being able to provide one...I would never have began the conversation if I were not 100% positive that you would never be able to provide such an example...So put up or shut up.

By the way, explaining how it is that energy doesn't move from cool to warm is not for me to do...I accept the fact...I don't have to know exactly how or why it happens...the fact that the most fundamental natural law says it is so and every observation ever made bears it out is good enough for me.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 30, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > 2 that say one way flow should be plenty.
> ...


 
Thanks for the links. I'm glad you were able to find links simplistic enough for you to understand.
Why do you only have links that discuss transfer of heat, not transfer of energy?

*Which explains why after 22 pages of claiming that it happens all the time, you can't provide even one observed, measured example of energy spontaneously moving from a cool object to a warm one.*

Which explains why after 22 pages , you can't provide even two sources which mention a one way flow of energy.

I'm curious, do you believe the "temperature of space" is about 2.72K?


----------



## SSDD (Sep 30, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Which explains why after 22 pages , you can't provide even two sources which mention a one way flow of energy.



And now we reach the reason for the thread I started on heat vs energy....is heat energy...or is heat the fingerprint of the movement of energy?  



Toddsterpatriot said:


> I'm curious, do you believe the "temperature of space" is about 2.72K?



The vacuum of space has no temperature..

How Cold is Space 



> How cold is space?
> Unlike your house, car, or swimming pool, the vacuum of space has no temperature.
> So, how cold is space? That’s a nonsense question. It’s only when you put a thing in space, like a rock, or an astronaut, that you can measure temperature.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 30, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Which explains why after 22 pages , you can't provide even two sources which mention a one way flow of energy.
> ...


 
So did you have any links that said one way flow of energy, or will you post more links that say heat?

I didn't say vacuum of space, I said space.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 30, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Space is the vacuum.....

...and since the second law doesn't say anything about two way flow...and it states that energy only flows one way....anyone capable of actually thinking should get it....clearly, your thinking skills aren't all you suppose they are......and before you start talking about heat, we have to determine whether heat is energy, or heat is the fingerprint of energy movement...which is it?

By the way, the first two links I provided clearly addressed heat and energy saying that neither moves spontaneously from cold to hot.

You wanted 2, I gave you 4 and still you are trying to split hairs..dishonest on top of everything else.  Why am I not surprised?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Sep 30, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


 
*Space is the vacuum.....*

Space isn't a vacuum. Are you disagreeing that the "temperature of space" is about 2.72K?

*...and since the second law doesn't say anything about two way flow...and it states that energy only flows one way...*

None of your links said energy only flows one way. Try again?


----------



## IanC (Oct 1, 2014)

Planck curve for two temperatures, giving the range and amounts for each wavelength. the total amount is the sum under each curve as described by 






it should be obvious that the lower temperature curve is totally enclosed by the higher temp curve, giving a one-to-one correspondence for all radiation produced by the lower temp curve. the remaining area in the higher temp curve is the power available to transfer energy from warm to cool. the total amount available to transfer is described by a secondary S-B law, which is only different from the first because it has two objects rather than just one, and the area to be examined.







SSDD states that the area under the curve for the lower temp object and a similar amount of the higher temp object, simply ceases to exist, for some unexplainable reason and by an unknown mechanism. everyone else believes that the radiation in the overlap between the two curves still exists but results in no net transfer of energy because the one-to-one transfer simply balances out.

SSDD also disputes whether photons exist as the carriers of this radiation energy.  but IF they did then they would cancel each other out by some strange mechanism that doesnt involve matter. no such mechanism appears in physics literature, and would seem to be impossible according to what IS in physics literature.


the Stefan-Boltzmann laws, Wiens law, various other thermodynamics laws, entropy laws, etc were constructed as a best guess to describe what was happening in real world interactions. they are not perfect, and in fact they led to the development of quantum theory because Planck had to add a granularity constant to the universe get away from the 'ultraviolet catastrophy'. no real substance has a smooth and regular Planck curve, emissivity varies according to temperature as well as substrate, and there are a host of other problems as you examine anything at finer and finer detail.

if SSDD wants to believe that the general observations made by scientists 150 years ago are perfect and irrefutible that is his business. I am not willing to discard the last hundred years of prolific science expansion, due in most part to the understanding of quantum mechanics and quantum statistics.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 1, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *...and since the second law doesn't say anything about two way flow...and it states that energy only flows one way...*
> 
> None of your links said energy only flows one way. Try again?



Try reading...

From the first link  "It is* not possible for **heat** to flow from a colder body to a warmer body* without any work having been done to accomplish this flow"

NOT POSSIBLE for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body....that is a definite statement of one way movement of energy....

Also from the first link... "*Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low **temperature** object to a higher temperature object*."

WILL NOT FLOW SPONTANEOUSLY FROM A LOW TEMPERATURE OBJECT TO A HIGHER TEMPERATURE OBJECT....which part of tether of those statements leads you to believe that it is suggesting the possibility of two way energy flow?

From the second link:

"Heat flows from hot areas to cold, not the other way. If its energy is to flow from cold to hot, it needs additional energy."

HOT AREAS TO COLD,NOT THE OTHER WAY...which part of that leads you to think that it is not explicitly describing one way energy flow?

From the third link:

"heat always flows from hot objects to cold objects (unless work is exerted to make it flow the other direction)."

UNLESS WORK IS EXERTED TO MAKE IT FLOW IN THE OTHER DIRECTION...which part of that statement leads you to believe that energy spontaneously moves in two directions...

My case is made...now how about a measured observation proving the second law wrong.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 1, 2014)

IanC said:


> Planck curve for two temperatures, giving the range and amounts for each wavelength. the total amount is the sum under each curve as described by
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Again, you are describing a one way energy movement....not two way.  The equations were written as they were for a reason.  By the way, the SB equation is written by Stefan and Boltzman as follows:






   But thanks for demonstrating that you are willing to alter the stated laws of physics in an effort to make a point.


----------



## IanC (Oct 1, 2014)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Planck curve for two temperatures, giving the range and amounts for each wavelength. the total amount is the sum under each curve as described by
> ...




nope. the S-B Law is 






everything else is derived from this basic equation which illustrates the relationship to temperature (in kelvins) raised tot he fourth power.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 1, 2014)

IanC said:


> nope. the S-B Law is
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Radiating  into a vacuum...and still one way.  Net is an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable product of post modern science..... which needs no actual evidence but believes in mathematical models as if they were the gospel.


----------



## IanC (Oct 1, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *...and since the second law doesn't say anything about two way flow...and it states that energy only flows one way...*
> ...




no one is saying that Heat is flowing both ways. no one is saying that net energy is flowing from cool to warm. we are saying that everything radiates according to temperature, via photons. nothing can stop this basic function of matter, and once radiative photons are emitted they continue on their path until they interact with another bit of matter. got that? once created, a photon only interacts with matter. photons do not interact with other photons, there is no cancelling out of photons, there is no limit as to how many photons can exist in the same space. photons have different characteristics than matter, which is something that you dont seem to understand.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 1, 2014)

IanC said:


> no one is saying that Heat is flowing both ways. no one is saying that net energy is flowing from cool to warm. we are saying that everything radiates according to temperature, via photons. nothing can stop this basic function of matter, and once radiative photons are emitted they continue on their path until they interact with another bit of matter. got that? once created, a photon only interacts with matter. photons do not interact with other photons, there is no cancelling out of photons, there is no limit as to how many photons can exist in the same space. photons have different characteristics than matter, which is something that you dont seem to understand.



Is heat energy...or is heat the fingerprint of energy moving from one place to another....energy moves in one direction...every observation ever made bears this out.  You believe in a mathematical model more than you believe in every observation ever made.


----------



## IanC (Oct 1, 2014)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > no one is saying that Heat is flowing both ways. no one is saying that net energy is flowing from cool to warm. we are saying that everything radiates according to temperature, via photons. nothing can stop this basic function of matter, and once radiative photons are emitted they continue on their path until they interact with another bit of matter. got that? once created, a photon only interacts with matter. photons do not interact with other photons, there is no cancelling out of photons, there is no limit as to how many photons can exist in the same space. photons have different characteristics than matter, which is something that you dont seem to understand.
> ...




you refuse to meaningfully discuss the relatively simple case of energy transfer by radiation. now you want to ramp up the complexity by several orders of magnitude by discussing ambiguously defined heat? not one in a hundred people can skillfully describe heat transfer and Im not one of them. if you refuse to believe in photons, which are observable, measurable and testable, then why are you bringing up fantastically complex world of quasiparticle heat movement?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 1, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *...and since the second law doesn't say anything about two way flow...and it states that energy only flows one way...*
> ...


 
*NOT POSSIBLE for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body....that is a definite statement of one way movement of energy....*

Show me your definition of heat and I'll show you your error.

*My case is made...now how about a measured observation proving the second law wrong.*

I've shown you observations that prove your misunderstanding of the second law to be wrong.

Still waiting for your two examples that back up your claim of one way flow of energy.

Are you still confused about the "temperature of space"?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 1, 2014)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > no one is saying that Heat is flowing both ways. no one is saying that net energy is flowing from cool to warm. we are saying that everything radiates according to temperature, via photons. nothing can stop this basic function of matter, and once radiative photons are emitted they continue on their path until they interact with another bit of matter. got that? once created, a photon only interacts with matter. photons do not interact with other photons, there is no cancelling out of photons, there is no limit as to how many photons can exist in the same space. photons have different characteristics than matter, which is something that you dont seem to understand.
> ...


 
*energy moves in one direction...every observation ever made bears this out.*

However, if people are indoors, surrounded by surfaces at 296 K, they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings, so the net loss is only about 100 watts.

Science Magazine awaits your explanation of their flawed math.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 1, 2014)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Photons can not be observed....that is one of the reasons we really can't talk Ian, you don't have a grip on what is real and what is theorized....certain phenomena can be observed and photons are one of the guesses that science has proposed to explain the observed phenomena...you take that guess and speak of it as if it were stone cold reality...it isn't.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 1, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Show me your definition of heat and I'll show you your error.



I don't have a definition of heat...and neither, apparently does science since science itself remains unsure as to what, exactly heat is....which gives rise to the absurdity of you believing in a mathematical model produced by science concerning a thing which can't, and probably never will be observed  when they can't even state with any confidence what a thing we all observe every day is and isn't.

And isn't it interesting that you only choose one of the 4 that I provided to argue...and just part of that one...cherry pick?....

*Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low **temperature** object to a higher temperature object*.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> I've shown you observations that prove your misunderstanding of the second law to be wrong.



No you haven't...not even close.  Every one of your idiot observations has been patently flawed...but do feel free to bring any that you think have merit here to be shot down again.




Toddsterpatriot said:


> waiting for your two examples that back up your claim of one way flow of energy.



I gave you 4...not my fault that you are either to obtuse, or stupid to acknowledge that you have lost this discussion.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 1, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Refer to the SB law...the output of a radiator is determined by the temperature differential between the radiator and its surroundings....  and the energy is moving in one direction just as the second law states.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 1, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Show me your definition of heat and I'll show you your error.
> ...


 
You gave me no examples that say energy only flows one way.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 1, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Sure I did...sorry that you are too fucking stupid to read and comprehend....You are becoming incredibly boring....much like a child who when shown clear proof of his error still persists in claiming he is right.  The second law says nothing about net flows...it speaks of one way energy movement...from hot to cold...if you can't understand that then continued discussion is pointless.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 1, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


 
*Refer to the SB law...*

Refer to your admission that all energy above 0K emits energy.
And your failure to explain why a cooler object, which doesn't emit, can impact the rate at which a warmer object cools.
And your failure to show where the second law states that energy only flows one way.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 1, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


 
* The second law says nothing about net flows...it speaks of one way energy movement...from hot to cold...*

The *second law of thermodynamics* states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems always evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium, a state with maximum entropy.
The second law is an empirically validated postulate of thermodynamics. In classical thermodynamics, the second law is a basic _postulate_ defining the concept of thermodynamic entropy, applicable to any system involving measurable heat transfer. In statistical thermodynamics, the second law is a _consequence_ of unitarity in quantum mechanics. In statistical mechanics information entropy is defined from information theory, known as the Shannon entropy. In the language of statistical mechanics, entropy is a measure of the number of alternative microscopic configurations corresponding to a single macroscopic state.
The second law refers to increases in entropy that can be analyzed into two varieties, due to dissipation of energy and due to dispersion of matter. One may consider a compound thermodynamic system that initially has interior walls that restrict transfers within it. The second law refers to events over time after a thermodynamic operation on the system, that allows internal heat transfers, removes or weakens the constraints imposed by its interior walls, and isolates it from the surroundings. As for dissipation of energy, the temperature becomes spatially homogeneous, regardless of the presence or absence of an externally imposed unchanging external force field. As for dispersion of matter, in the absence of an externally imposed force field, the chemical concentrations also become as spatially homogeneous as is allowed by the permeabilities of the interior walls. Such homogeneity is one of the characteristics of the state of internal thermodynamic equilibrium of a thermodynamic system.

This definition doesn't back up your claim. Sorry.


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 2, 2014)

SSDD said:


>




Havent checked in on this thread in a bit.......but *w0w*, SSDD sure as hell blew this whole thread to shit in just one post did he not?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 2, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Actually, that definition is based in large part on mathematical models and doesn't much resemble the actual second law...the Clausius statement states “it is impossible for a self acting machine working in a cyclic process without any external force, to transfer heat from a body at a lower temperature to a body at a higher temperature.

A photon...a single photon, if they exist moving from a cool object, to a warm object would be moving from a place of higher entropy to a place of lower entropy....sorry but it just doesn't happen.  You have lost this discussion as miserably as a person could lose...It was predictable because the fact is that no observation has ever been made of energy moving spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object...you predictably provides several examples which failed...My argument remains as it was in the beginning asking you to provide an observed, measured example of something that has never been either observed or measured and your argument has degenerated to that of a petulant child unwilling to admit that he has been bested asking why...why...why...why...why...why...why....why...why....why.


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 2, 2014)

Heres the thing with this whole 97% debate thing........

At the end of the day, its a moot point if one is a realist and I'm not even being flip here.

Lets say that many more people accept that AGW is a given. The next logical question is......

And?

According to a UN statement in 2012, it would cost the world 76 trillion dollars for the world to go green and get off fossil fuels. Forgetting about the stoopid amount of $$ that is ( bit a trite point to the AGW crowd ) we would necessarily be asking the entire worlds population to discard their way of life!! Now......connect the dots on the political possibilities of this happening!!! Imagine for a moment, a political leader having a press conference and stating, *"The time has come people to ban fossil fuels for the future of out planet!! My plan will work. Of course, we will have to give up many of our common conveniences like air conditioning!! Power will necessarily need to be rationed in terms of heating, but we can adapt by wearing lots of sweaters indoors on cold days!! Cell phones will have to become a thing of the past but people in prior centuries made due without them. So can we!! Everyone will necessarily have to drive a motor vehicle much like the SMARTFORTWO but lets not forget there was a time where people traveled only by train or horse and buggy!! The candle industry will become enormous once again and bring lots of jobs to our economy........"



*
Need I continue???



Those in the AGW crowd.......their thinking is and will always be, "Anything is possible if we set our mind to it!!". But in the real world, that's not how it works. For Christsakes, our leaders cant even get up the balls to close our borders or make a decision on immigration for the last 40 years. Its a connect the dots thing people.......those that can see the folly in taking this 97% stuff past something resembling a game of trivia!!! The k00ks say, "What about the future of our grandchildren?"......as if people will EVER be OK with getting slammed with enormous levels of taxes and accepting a poverty level of living standards because "the models are predicting doom!!!"


The perfect analogy?

Bush and Obama spiking the football on the death of Islamic terrorism. Feel good moments are gay. What matters is the stark realities when you have to confront the inevitable.......only the suckers don't get it.



Now......you will notice that none of the AGW crowd will directly address my post. The response will be "You're a retard!!" or "You're a greedy, cold conservative" or "Going green will be an economic boom!!". Lets face it.......responding to the stark realities is 100% impossible.



Which is why, 97% or no, the AGW crowd is losing and will continue to lose.......and on that point, I spike the football every day in this forum!!!


Because I can!!!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 2, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


 
*A photon...a single photon, if they exist moving from a cool object, to a warm object would be moving from a place of higher entropy to a place of lower entropy....sorry but it just doesn't happen.*

Unless, at the same time, two photons were moving from the warmer object to the cooler object.

*your argument has degenerated to that of a petulant child unwilling to admit that he has been bested asking why...why...why...why...why...why...why....why...why....why*

But enough about you.

I found a source, simplistic enough for you to understand, which seems to have been written with you in mind.

Every object around you is continually radiating, unless its temperature is at absolute zero (which is a little unlikely because you can’t physically get to a temperature of absolute zero, with no molecular movement). A scoop of ice cream, for example, radiates. Even you radiate all the time, but that radiation isn’t visible as light because it’s in the infrared part of the spectrum. However, that light is visible to infrared scopes, as you’ve probably seen in the movies or on television.
You radiate heat in all directions all the time, and everything in your environment radiates heat back to you. When you have the same temperature as your surroundings, you radiate as fast and as much to your environment as it does to you. When two things are in thermal contact but no thermal energy is exchanged between them, they’re in _thermal equilibrium_. If two things are in thermal equilibrium, they have the same temperature.

Transferring Heat through Radiation - For Dummies

Keep looking for your two sources that talk about one way flow of energy.
Your failure is amusing.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 3, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *A photon...a single photon, if they exist moving from a cool object, to a warm object would be moving from a place of higher entropy to a place of lower entropy....sorry but it just doesn't happen.*
> 
> Unless, at the same time, two photons were moving from the warmer object to the cooler object.




Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds...one object 50C  one object 75C....and you claim that two photons from the 75C object would lower its energy level enough to allow the photon from the 50C object to be absorbed?  



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Keep looking for your two sources that talk about one way flow of energy.



Already did, but I will post the pertinent statements again.  

It is* not possible for **heat** to flow from a colder body to a warmer body* without any work having been done to accomplish this flow.

*Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low **temperature** object to a higher temperature object
*
Heat flows from hot areas to cold, not the other way. *If its energy is to flow from cold to hot, it needs additional energy*.

heat always flows from hot objects to cold objects (unless work is exerted to make it flow the other direction).

Now if you can't bring yourself to even admit that those are all explicit statements of one way energy movement, I see no hope for you.  I could possibly understand you not recognizing an equation that describes one way energy flow...you would have to have some small grasp of math to see that, but those statements are plain english...heat flows from hot areas to cold...NOT THE OTHER WAY is about as explicit a description of one way energy movement as could be made....if you can't grasp that, then you are indeed even more stupid than crick...at least he got a clue and realized that he can never provide an actual observed, measured example of what he claims so rather than continue to suffer the embarrassment of losing forever, he simply left.  Even when given exactly what you asked for, you claim that it doesn't say what it says....How much more stupid can you possibly get?


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 3, 2014)

Heres the thing with this whole 97% debate thing........

At the end of the day, its a moot point if one is a realist and I'm not even being flip here.

Lets say that many more people accept that AGW is a given. The next logical question is......

And?

According to a UN statement in 2012, it would cost the world 76 trillion dollars for the world to go green and get off fossil fuels. Forgetting about the stoopid amount of $$ that is ( bit a trite point to the AGW crowd ) we would necessarily be asking the entire worlds population to discard their way of life!! Now......connect the dots on the political possibilities of this happening!!! Imagine for a moment, a political leader having a press conference and stating, _*"The time has come people to ban fossil fuels for the future of out planet!! My plan will work. Of course, we will have to give up many of our common conveniences like air conditioning!! Power will necessarily need to be rationed in terms of heating, but we can adapt by wearing lots of sweaters indoors on cold days!! Cell phones will have to become a thing of the past but people in prior centuries made due without them. So can we!! Everyone will necessarily have to drive a motor vehicle much like the SMARTFORTWO but lets not forget there was a time where people traveled only by train or horse and buggy!! The candle industry will become enormous once again and bring lots of jobs to our economy........"*_

*


*_Need I continue???_*

*

Those in the AGW crowd.......their thinking is and will always be, "Anything is possible if we set our mind to it!!". But in the real world, that's not how it works. For Christsakes, our leaders cant even get up the balls to close our borders or make a decision on immigration for the last 40 years. Its a connect the dots thing people.......those that can see the folly in taking this 97% stuff past something resembling a game of trivia!!! The k00ks say, "What about the future of our grandchildren?"......as if people will EVER be OK with getting slammed with enormous levels of taxes and accepting a poverty level of living standards because "the models are predicting doom!!!"


The perfect analogy?

Bush and Obama spiking the football on the death of Islamic terrorism. Feel good moments are gay. What matters is the stark realities when you have to confront the inevitable.......only the suckers don't get it.



Now......you will notice that none of the AGW crowd will directly address my post. The response will be "You're a retard!!" or "You're a greedy, cold conservative" or "Going green will be an economic boom!!". Lets face it.......responding to the stark realities is 100% impossible.



Which is why, 97% or no, the AGW crowd is losing and will continue to lose.......and on that point, I spike the football every day in this forum!!!


Because I can!!!


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 3, 2014)

**


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 3, 2014)

God....I really do love this forum!!!!!


----------



## SSDD (Oct 3, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> God....I really do love this forum!!!!!




How frustrating it must be for toddster....he believes so much that energy flow is a two way proposition....and all I want is just an observed, measured example or two of it happening.....and he can't find one but he still believes so hard.  He is denying plain english now...he sees sentences that say energy goes from hot areas to cold...NOT THE OTHER WAY and claims that they don't mean one way flow.  NOT THE OTHER WAY...what else could that possibly be construed to mean?  How far out there do you have to be to look at that sentence and respond that it doesn't say one way energy flow?

I love this place to.  If you want to see abnormal psychology at work...and I mean working hard...all you have to do is open the door, step inside, and look around.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 3, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *A photon...a single photon, if they exist moving from a cool object, to a warm object would be moving from a place of higher entropy to a place of lower entropy....sorry but it just doesn't happen.*
> ...


 
*Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds...one object 50C one object 75C....and you claim that two photons from the 75C object would lower its energy level enough to allow the photon from the 50C object to be absorbed?* 

I agree, you have to be a low IQ cretin to think that photons magically bounce off the 75C object, because they came from a 50C object.

Keep looking for your two sources that talk about one way flow of energy

*Already did, but I will post the pertinent statements again.*

It's funny that none of them mention one way flow of energy.
Is English your second language?

Perhaps you can find a version of the Second Law that says something about a one way flow of ENERGY?
I'll continue to mock your failure to do so.

*heat flows from hot areas to cold...NOT THE OTHER WAY*

Absolutely. Now show me your definition of heat and I'll point out your error.
Here's a hint, that's still not helping your claim of one way flow of energy.

Do you think our satellites in space can measure the temperature of the Earth on the sun lit side?
Or does your magical theory only allow measurement of the dark side?

No comment on the source written just for you? LOL!

Every object around you is continually radiating, unless its temperature is at absolute zero (which is a little unlikely because you can’t physically get to a temperature of absolute zero, with no molecular movement). A scoop of ice cream, for example, radiates. Even you radiate all the time, but that radiation isn’t visible as light because it’s in the infrared part of the spectrum. However, that light is visible to infrared scopes, as you’ve probably seen in the movies or on television.
You radiate heat in all directions all the time, and everything in your environment radiates heat back to you. When you have the same temperature as your surroundings, you radiate as fast and as much to your environment as it does to you. When two things are in thermal contact but no thermal energy is exchanged between them, they’re in _thermal equilibrium_. If two things are in thermal equilibrium, they have the same temperature.

Transferring Heat through Radiation - For Dummies

You should contact the author and point out his error. I'm sure he'll correct it for the next printing.
Let us know his response.


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 3, 2014)

Watch this vid.......hysterical.......far left propaganda fraud >>>

Explainer What the U.N. Climate Summit Was Really About Discovery News


----------



## SSDD (Oct 3, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *heat flows from hot areas to cold...NOT THE OTHER WAY*
> 
> Absolutely. Now show me your definition of heat and I'll point out your error.
> Here's a hint, that's still not helping your claim of one way flow of energy.



We are finished...I declare absolute victory.  Anyone who can say absolutely, heat flows from hot to cold but not the other way and still claim that it is a two way street is just too stupid to talk to.  See you later toddster...it was a pleasure proving you wrong.  

I asked you for your definition of heat and you were afraid to provide one since I already proved that science, here nearly 14 years into the 21st century remains unclear as to what heat is...if science isn't clear exactly what heat is, then it is just stupid to ask for my definition of heat as if there were a correct definition of heat.  All you are doing, and have been doing now for 23 pages is weaseling...trying to find a way around the second law.  It can't be done and I have grown quite tired of watching your weak struggles.  Pity on my part brings this to an end.


----------



## mamooth (Oct 3, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> Feel good moments are gay.



Would any other deniers care to admit to being as adept at spotting gayness as Skook? Probably not. He seems unique in that aspect.

Skook, exactly how did you develop such an infallible gaydar? And do you really think this is the proper forum to advertise it in?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 3, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *heat flows from hot areas to cold...NOT THE OTHER WAY*
> ...


 
*I asked you for your definition of heat and you were afraid to provide one*

You claimed that because heat flows from hot to cold, that means energy only flows one way.
Why would I need to provide the definition for your claim?

* I already proved that science, here nearly 14 years into the 21st century remains unclear as to what heat is*

Why would you use an unclear concept to prove your silly claim?

*if science isn't clear exactly what heat is, then it is just stupid to ask for my definition of heat as if there were a correct definition of heat.*

If science isn't clear exactly what heat is, then you are stupid to use heat when we're discussing energy.

*All you are doing, and have been doing now for 23 pages is weaseling...trying to find a way around the second law.*

Still waiting for anything in the 2nd Law that says one way flow of energy.


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 3, 2014)

If anybody is interested.....go back over the last few posts in this thread made by the omnipotent Mamooth. They are unique in such a forum in that there is nothing unique about them......in fact, all of them are almost exactly alike. Two or three sentences about skeptic people being part of a denier cult. Never a direct response ( because he gets his clock cleaned like my post # 453 above ). Never a link. Just bomb throwing and weak attempts to denigrate. Limpwrister stuff........guy more concered about whether I am gay or not. Now theres a new one.......a gay skeptic!!


----------



## SSDD (Oct 3, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Still waiting for anything in the 2nd Law that says one way flow of energy.



Second Law of Thermodynamics



> It is* not possible for **heat** to flow from a colder body to a warmer body* without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. *Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object*.



Here, one apparently closer to your grade level

Physics4Kids.com Thermodynamics Heat Second Law of Thermodynamics



> Heat flows from hot areas to cold, not the other way.* If its energy is to flow from cold to hot, it needs additional energy.*



Second Law of Thermodynamics - Physics Video by Brightstorm



> he Second Law of Thermodynamics can be rephrased in several ways. Fundamentally, it says that heat always flows from hot objects to cold objects (unless work is exerted to make it flow the other direction).



Second Law of Thermodynamics



> The application of the second law describes why heat is transferred from the hot object to the cool object. Let us assume that the heat is transferred from the hot object (object 1) at temperature T1 to the cold object (object 2) at temperature T2. The amount of heat transferred is Q and the final equilibrium temperature for both objects we will call Tf. The temperature of the hot object changes as the heat is transferred away from the object. The average temperature of the hot object during the process we will call Th and it would be the average of T1 and Tf.
> 
> Th = (T1 + Tf) / 2
> 
> ...



Note the one way equations...


----------



## mamooth (Oct 3, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> Limpwrister stuff........guy more concered about whether I am gay or not. Now theres a new one.......a gay skeptic!!



There's not anything wrong with how you feel, skook, and don't ever let anyone tell you there is.

However, I will point out this forum is an inappropriate spot for cruising, and you'd probably have better luck elsewhere.


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 3, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Still waiting for anything in the 2nd Law that says one way flow of energy.
> ...



NONE of that violated by radiative physics which accounts for the 2 way propagation of ElectroMagnetic Energy (not heat) that can be absorbed by BOTH objects.. ElectroMagnetic Energy that is CAUSED by heat in matter and which can INDUCE heat in matter. *But EM Energy is NOT heat*. That's the part you're missing here.. 

Excuse me now -- I'm tapped out of thermo brilliance for the day..


----------



## Crick (Oct 3, 2014)

But heat is EM energy, so some of it is.


----------



## IanC (Oct 4, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *heat flows from hot areas to cold...NOT THE OTHER WAY*
> ...




hahahahahahahahahahahaha....

you declare _absolute victory????????


_
you are a total joke.  a solitary figure declaring physics wrong. even Don Quixote had Sancho. your proof? a bizarre SSDD version of the semantics involved in describing thermodynamics, and when pushed to describe what and why things are happening you simply state, "just because". hahahahahaha....

you have failed to address any of the multitude of weaknesses and logical inconsistencies in your wacko theory, but somehow you think you are winning the debate?


----------



## IanC (Oct 4, 2014)

Crick said:


> But heat is EM energy, so some of it is.




be careful where you are going with this. photons carrying away excess energy are the simplest version. photons transferring force in electric or magnetic fields are more complicated. movement of 'heat' is more complicated still.


----------



## Crick (Oct 4, 2014)

I'm not going anywhere with it.  I just wanted to make certain that FCT wasn't able to imply that IR was not EM radiation.


----------



## IanC (Oct 4, 2014)

Crick said:


> I'm not going anywhere with it.  I just wanted to make certain that FCT wasn't able to imply that IR was not EM radiation.



OK. I dont want to speak for flac, and I dont want to put words in your mouth either.

EMR is more of a symptom of heat than a cause. sure, radiation is one of the ways that heat is dissapated, and it can be used to 'heat' something, but the original source of the available energy known as 'heat' is always something else.


----------



## Crick (Oct 4, 2014)

I suspect that every man-jack of the 97% of climate scientists that accept AGW as valid understand that point.


----------



## IanC (Oct 4, 2014)

Crick said:


> I suspect that every man-jack of the 97% of climate scientists that accept AGW as valid understand that point.




OK, let's go back to the original thread.

is there 97% agreement on the amount of warming that happened over the last 1000, 100, 50, 25, _17, _10 or 5 years? is there 97% agreement on the figure for climate sensitivity? is there 97% agreement on the validity of GCM models, or even the inputs that they should be initialized with?


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 4, 2014)

Heres the thing with this whole 97% debate thing........

At the end of the day, its a moot point if one is a realist and I'm not even being flip here.

Lets say that many more people accept that AGW is a given. The next logical question is......

And?

According to a UN statement in 2012, it would cost the world 76 trillion dollars for the world to go green and get off fossil fuels. Forgetting about the stoopid amount of $$ that is ( bit a trite point to the AGW crowd ) we would necessarily be asking the entire worlds population to discard their way of life!! Now......connect the dots on the political possibilities of this happening!!! Imagine for a moment, a political leader having a press conference and stating, _*"The time has come people to ban fossil fuels for the future of out planet!! My plan will work. Of course, we will have to give up many of our common conveniences like air conditioning!! Power will necessarily need to be rationed in terms of heating, but we can adapt by wearing lots of sweaters indoors on cold days!! Cell phones will have to become a thing of the past but people in prior centuries made due without them. So can we!! Everyone will necessarily have to drive a motor vehicle much like the SMARTFORTWO but lets not forget there was a time where people traveled only by train or horse and buggy!! The candle industry will become enormous once again and bring lots of jobs to our economy........"*_
*


*


Need I continue???_*
*_
*

*
_

_Those in the AGW crowd.......their thinking is and will always be, "Anything is possible if we set our mind to it!!". But in the real world, that's not how it works. For Christsakes, our leaders cant even get up the balls to close our borders or make a decision on immigration for the last 40 years. Its a connect the dots thing people.......those that can see the folly in taking this 97% stuff past something resembling a game of trivia!!! The k00ks say, "What about the future of our grandchildren?"......as if people will EVER be OK with getting slammed with enormous levels of taxes and accepting a poverty level of living standards because "the models are predicting doom!!!"


The perfect analogy?

Bush and Obama spiking the football on the death of Islamic terrorism. Feel good moments are gay. What matters is the stark realities when you have to confront the inevitable.......only the suckers don't get it.



Now......you will notice that none of the AGW crowd will directly address my post. The response will be "You're a retard!!" or "You're a greedy, cold conservative" or "Going green will be an economic boom!!". Lets face it.......responding to the stark realities is 100% impossible.



Which is why, 97% or no, the AGW crowd is losing and will continue to lose.......and on that point, I spike the football every day in this forum!!!


Because I can!!!


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 4, 2014)

Still waiting for one of the k00ks to respond to my post above  ^^^ with something substantive besides name calling.

Or do I have to post the cricket vid again?


----------



## Crick (Oct 4, 2014)

IanC said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > I suspect that every man-jack of the 97% of climate scientists that accept AGW as valid understand that point.
> ...




97% of active climate scientists believe human activities are the primary cause of the global warming we've experienced over the previous 150 years.  How many times have you heard that?  

I thought you said you wouldn't try to put words in my mouth.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 4, 2014)

Crick said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


 
If only we could convince some of those 75 "active climate scientists" that they're wrong, we wouldn't have this phony stat polluting so many threads.......


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 4, 2014)

Crick said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...




And????


----------



## SSDD (Oct 6, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> NONE of that violated by radiative physics which accounts for the 2 way propagation of ElectroMagnetic Energy (not heat) that can be absorbed by BOTH objects.. ElectroMagnetic Energy that is CAUSED by heat in matter and which can INDUCE heat in matter. *But EM Energy is NOT heat*. That's the part you're missing here..
> 
> Excuse me now -- I'm tapped out of thermo brilliance for the day..




As I have shown...science isn't clear about what heat is...you seem to be.  Maybe you could settle the issue for them.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 6, 2014)

IanC said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > But heat is EM energy, so some of it is.
> ...




Science isn't sure what heat is but you are sure that photons exist and that you know what they are up to.


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 6, 2014)

None of the AGW nuts can make a response to post #473.......far easier to ignore on a public forum than to look stoopid.


----------



## orogenicman (Oct 6, 2014)

SSDD said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > NONE of that violated by radiative physics which accounts for the 2 way propagation of ElectroMagnetic Energy (not heat) that can be absorbed by BOTH objects.. ElectroMagnetic Energy that is CAUSED by heat in matter and which can INDUCE heat in matter. *But EM Energy is NOT heat*. That's the part you're missing here..
> ...



Bullshit:

Heat - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

In physics, *heating* is transfer of energy, from a hotter body to a colder one, other than by work or transfer of matter. It occurs spontaneously whenever a suitable physical pathway exists between the bodies.[1][2][3][4][5][6] The pathway can be direct, as in conduction and radiation, or indirect, as in convective circulation.[7][8][9] Heating is a dissipative process. Heat is not a state function of a system.


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 6, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...







[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/Sleeping-Man-1.jpg.html]
	
[/URL]


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 6, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > Bullshit:
> ...


http://[URL=http://s42.photobucket....305/baldaltima/Sleeping-Man-1.jpg[/IMG][/URL]
[URL='http://[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/Sleeping-Man-1.jpg.html][IMG]http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e305/baldaltima/Sleeping-Man-1.jpg[/IMG][/URL]']
	
SSDD's ignorance is exhausting.[/URL]


----------



## SSDD (Oct 6, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



I suppose in your mind wiki is the final authority on everything, but I have already proven that science remains quite unclear as to what heat is...there is a school that maintains that heat is the fingerprint of energy moving from one place to another...and another school that claims that heat is a form of energy in itself.  The fact that you think you know when the truth is that science doesn't know speaks volumes.


----------



## orogenicman (Oct 6, 2014)

SSDD said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



At it's worst, Wikipedia provides a simplistic understanding of science issues; it certainly provides much more than you appear to understand.  The point is that contrary to your bullshit statement, we do, in fact, understand what heat is.  And even if it were true that we don't understand what heat is, like gravity, we certainly know its effects when we see them.  One effect of heat is rising global temperatures, in our case, due mostly to human activities.  Next.


----------



## IanC (Oct 6, 2014)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...




the 100+ years of detailed obsevation and experimentation has led to exquisite understanding of the properties of light. your 150 year old definition of the second law of thermodynamics is correct in a general way but does not incorporate the knowledge of the microscopic interactions that we know to exist today. Newton's F=ma is a reasonable description of everyday physics but we know it to be wrong today.


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 6, 2014)

Crick said:


> But heat is EM energy, so some of it is.



Absolutely not. Heat is NOT EM energy.. Doesn't walk like it. Doesn't quack like it either.. EM energy propagates by it's own rules. Has characteristic wavelengths and can fly thru the voids of space with no matter to cling to.. Ahhhh. The beauty of physics is so calming after a session on USMB..


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 6, 2014)

Crick said:


> I'm not going anywhere with it.  I just wanted to make certain that FCT wasn't able to imply that IR was not EM radiation.



IR radiation IS EM energy.. But it is not heat unless it is absorbed by some matter in it's path..


----------



## orogenicman (Oct 6, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > But heat is EM energy, so some of it is.
> ...



Electromagnetic radiation - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

*Thermal radiation and electromagnetic radiation as a form of heat[edit]*
Main articles: Thermal radiation and Planck's law
The basic structure of matter involves charged particles bound together in many different ways. When electromagnetic radiation is incident on matter, it causes the charged particles to oscillate and gain energy. The ultimate fate of this energy depends on the situation. It could be immediately re-radiated and appear as scattered, reflected, or transmitted radiation. It may also get dissipated into other microscopic motions within the matter, coming to thermal equilibrium and manifesting itself as thermal energy in the material. With a few exceptions related to high-energy photons (such as fluorescence, harmonic generation, photochemical reactions, the photovoltaic effect for ionizing radiations at far ultraviolet, X-ray, and gamma radiation), absorbed electromagnetic radiation simply deposits its energy by heating the material. This happens both for infrared, microwave, and radio wave radiation. Intense radio waves can thermally burn living tissue and can cook food. In addition to infrared lasers, sufficiently intense visible and ultraviolet lasers can also easily set paper afire.[_citation needed_]
Ionizing electromagnetic radiation creates high-speed electrons in a material and breaks chemical bonds, but after these electrons collide many times with other atoms in the material eventually most of the energy is downgraded to thermal energy; this whole process happens in a tiny fraction of a second. This process makes ionizing radiation far more dangerous per unit of energy than non-ionizing radiation. This caveat also applies to the ultraviolet (UV) spectrum, even though almost all of it is not ionizing, because UV can damage molecules due to electronic excitation which is far greater per unit energy than heating effects produce.[_citation needed_]
Infrared radiation in the spectral distribution of a black body is usually considered a form of heat, since it has an equivalent temperature, and is associated with an entropy change per unit of thermal energy. However, the word "heat" is a highly technical term in physics and thermodynamics, and is often confused with thermal energy. Any type of electromagnetic energy can be transformed into thermal energy in interaction with matter. Thus, _any_ electromagnetic radiation can "heat" (in the sense of increase the thermal energy termperature of) a material, when it is absorbed.[_citation needed_]
The inverse or time-reversed process of absorption is responsible for thermal radiation. Much of the thermal energy in matter consists of random motion of charged particles, and this energy can be radiated away from the matter. The resulting radiation may subsequently be absorbed by another piece of matter, with the deposited energy heating the material. Thermal radiation is an important mechanism of heat transfer.[_citation needed_]
The electromagnetic radiation in an opaque cavity at thermal equilibrium is effectively a form of thermal energy, having maximum radiation entropy.[_citation needed_]


----------



## SSDD (Oct 6, 2014)

IanC said:


> the 100+ years of detailed obsevation and experimentation has led to exquisite understanding of the properties of light.



Really...show me the proof of photons?  No proof of photons...no evidence that science has anything like an exquisite understanding of light.  Lets see it.



IanC said:


> your 150 year old definition of the second law of thermodynamics is correct in a general way but does not incorporate the knowledge of the microscopic interactions that we know to exist today. Newton's F=ma is a reasonable description of everyday physics but we know it to be wrong today.



You believe in an unmeasurable, untestable, unobservable mathematical model...I don't.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 6, 2014)

So I rest my case...do a few searches...you guys can provide any number of credible sources stating that heat is what you believe it to be and the other side can also provide any number of credible sources stating that heat is what they believe it to be....bottom line, here, almost 15 years into the 21st century...science remains quite unsure and divided over exactly what heat is...but they have it narrowed down to it either being the fingerprint of energy moving from one place to another or that it is actually a form of energy...two very different things...in short, they just don't know.....


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 6, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...








Still believing in the COOKED books....


----------



## bornright (Oct 6, 2014)

At one time 98% of all scientist believed the earth was flat.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 6, 2014)

bornright said:


> At one time 98% of all scientist believed the earth was flat.




Funny you should mention that...the models that climate science is using depict the earth as a flat disk which doesn't rotate and is 4 times further away from the earth than it actually is.


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 6, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



I got no beef with any of that. Except that the distinction of IR being *Heat but not Thermal Energy* is unnecessarily confusing and would never be discussed except in bars by bored scientists instead of scoping out the women.. I'll concede that IR may possess a "POTENTIAL" amount of heat -- but that has no meaning of real units unless some molecules of matter are involved..

*If that was true --- then EVERY EM source would have a heat equivalent. I've never heard of a heat content for Xrays, UV, microwaves or Radio Waves.
YES --- they are measured in Watts, but the heat they impart are dependent on the SPECIFIC matter that absorbs them.. *Remember that next time you go to cook a complex dish in a microwave oven.. 

Second point is that it's the Black Body that has a temperature. The WAVELENGTHS and intensities of the EM are distributed according to that. But IR photon flux that INHERENTs a colored wavelength from Black Body temperature doesn't have a photon energy derived from that temperature.


----------



## orogenicman (Oct 7, 2014)

bornright said:


> At one time 98% of all scientist believed the earth was flat.




And you got this statistic from where, exactly???  Right.  You made it up.


----------



## orogenicman (Oct 7, 2014)

SSDD said:


> bornright said:
> 
> 
> > At one time 98% of all scientist believed the earth was flat.
> ...



Erm, exactly which model is it that depicts the Earth as being 4 times further away from THE EARTH than it actually is?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 7, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > bornright said:
> ...



Any model based on trenberth's energy budget...in other words...all of them.


----------



## Crick (Oct 7, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Funny you should mention that...the models that climate science is using depict the earth as a flat disk which doesn't rotate and is 4 times further away from the earth than it actually is.





orogenicman said:


> Erm, exactly which model is it that depicts the Earth as being 4 times further away from THE EARTH than it actually is?





SSDD said:


> Any model based on trenberth's energy budget...in other words...all of them.



I suspect you are referring to the factor of 4 used in the calculation of solar energy received by the Earth's sphere?  You failed geometry, didn't you

ps: the calculation is not Trenberth's.  It predates him by a few thousand years.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 7, 2014)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Funny you should mention that...the models that climate science is using depict the earth as a flat disk which doesn't rotate and is 4 times further away from the earth than it actually is.
> ...



Not at all...my statement stands.  You on the other hand can't even read the simplest of graphs.


----------



## orogenicman (Oct 7, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



My question still stands:  "Erm, exactly which model is it that depicts the Earth as being 4 times further away from *THE EARTH* than it actually is?"  Exactly how can the Earth be ANY distance away from itself?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 7, 2014)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > the 100+ years of detailed obsevation and experimentation has led to exquisite understanding of the properties of light.
> ...


 
Have you figured out yet if a satellite in orbit can take a picture of the Earth's sunlit side?
And if so, why doesn't that violate your version of the 2nd Law?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 8, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...




Second Law of Thermodynamics



> It is* not possible for **heat** to flow from a colder body to a warmer body* without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. *Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object*.



Here, one apparently closer to your grade level

Physics4Kids.com Thermodynamics Heat Second Law of Thermodynamics



> Heat flows from hot areas to cold, not the other way.* If its energy is to flow from cold to hot, it needs additional energy.*



Second Law of Thermodynamics - Physics Video by Brightstorm



> he Second Law of Thermodynamics can be rephrased in several ways. Fundamentally, it says that heat always flows from hot objects to cold objects (unless work is exerted to make it flow the other direction).



Second Law of Thermodynamics



> The application of the second law describes why heat is transferred from the hot object to the cool object. Let us assume that the heat is transferred from the hot object (object 1) at temperature T1 to the cold object (object 2) at temperature T2. The amount of heat transferred is Q and the final equilibrium temperature for both objects we will call Tf. The temperature of the hot object changes as the heat is transferred away from the object. The average temperature of the hot object during the process we will call Th and it would be the average of T1 and Tf.
> 
> Th = (T1 + Tf) / 2
> 
> ...



Note the one way equations...[/QUOTE]


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 8, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


 
Have you figured out yet if a satellite in orbit can take a picture of the Earth's sunlit side?
And if so, why doesn't that violate your version of the 2nd Law?


*Second Law of Thermodynamics*

Is that a yes or a no?

*Note the one way equations...*

I've noticed your simplistic confusion about physics.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 8, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Have you figured out yet if a satellite in orbit can take a picture of the Earth's sunlit side?



What is the temperature of the light source?



Toddsterpatriot said:


> And if so, why doesn't that violate your version of the 2nd Law?



Is the light source warmer than the camera?  You just get more slow all the time...frustration and desperation to avoid defeat can do that to you...or so I have heard.  Personally, I tend not to engage in battles I am not sure I have won before I even begin....like this one...as evidenced by your continued failure to provide the observed measured example of energy moving from cool to warm....

You know, you might consider the question of wavelength and frequency....picture a radiator radiating out at 70 µm into an atmosphere of 100% CO2....Is any of that energy absorbed by the CO2?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 8, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Have you figured out yet if a satellite in orbit can take a picture of the Earth's sunlit side?
> ...


 
*What is the temperature of the light source?*

About 5500C

*Is the light source warmer than the camera?* 

Yes, the sun is warmer than the camera.

*You just get more slow all the time*

I'm trying to take it slow, hoping you finally catch up.

*as evidenced by your continued failure to provide the observed measured example of energy moving from cool to warm....*

Or your failure to say whether a satellite in orbit can take a picture of the Earth's sunlit side.


----------



## orogenicman (Oct 9, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Bump.  You have still not responded to my query.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 9, 2014)

orogenicman said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


 
It probably involves his smart waves.
I'm sure he'll pull an answer out of his ass soon.


----------



## mamooth (Oct 9, 2014)

He never would address the way that LEDs destroy his wacky theory. He just pretends the takedown never happened.

That is, if an LED is cool, its light should not be able to illuminate a warmer object. But it does illuminate such objects.

And saying "But the itty-bitty light emitting parts inside of the LED are hot!" is clearly false. If the LED was hot, it would be emitting a continuous radiation spectrum of light in the visible spectrum, in accordance with Planck's law. It does not. Therefore, the LED is absolutely positively not hot.

And therefore, SSDD's theory craters hard. He knows it, but will never admit it, because he'd also have to admit his entire religion was bogus.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 10, 2014)

mamooth said:


> He never would address the way that LEDs destroy his wacky theory. He just pretends the takedown never happened.
> 
> That is, if an LED is cool, its light should not be able to illuminate a warmer object. But it does illuminate such objects.
> 
> ...



Guess you just can't grasp why an LED would need such an enormous heat sink....sorry you are so stupid...testament to the failing educational system.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 10, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Or your failure to say whether a satellite in orbit can take a picture of the Earth's sunlit side.



If the sunlit side of the earth is reflecting light from a heat source far warmer than the camera, why do you think it is a mystery?...Energy obviously moving from warm to cool. Now perhaps you could explain why if you get on the other side of the satellite and move towards the sun, you would reach a point where you could no longer see the satellite and eventually reach a point where the earth itself would no longer be visible.


----------



## Crick (Oct 10, 2014)

Are you saying that if I move close enough to the sun, I will no longer be able to see the Earth?  Would you care to explain that?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 10, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Or your failure to say whether a satellite in orbit can take a picture of the Earth's sunlit side.
> ...


 
It can take a picture, or it can't?
Can it take an infrared picture of the sunlit side?
Do you feel infrared is reflected light from the sun?


----------



## orogenicman (Oct 10, 2014)

SSDD said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > He never would address the way that LEDs destroy his wacky theory. He just pretends the takedown never happened.
> ...



I have LED lighting all through my apartment, and none of them emit much heat.  Neither does my LED monitor on my laptop (which is very bright).  You really do have a lot of space between your ears.


----------



## IanC (Oct 11, 2014)

SSDD said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > He never would address the way that LEDs destroy his wacky theory. He just pretends the takedown never happened.
> ...




you really should do some basic research. incandescent bulbs are the only ones that follow the whole Planck Curve/ temperature defines radiation thing. they produce some visible light but waste most of the energy used in IR. flourescent tubes excite molecular electrons and only a few bands of radiation are predominantly produced when the electrons fall to ground state, there is no smooth Planck curve. LEDs use the quantum/transistor technology where an electron dropping into the 'hole' produces a blue photon. the blue photons are used to excite phosphorus and give off white light.


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 11, 2014)

God I love when Ian comes in here for a cup of coffee every so often and in one fell swoop, nukes the AGW nutters shit!!!

Just goes to show how beyond gone these AGW freaks are.......they claim to be staunch environmentalists.........but on the subject of mercury? Their attitude is "meh".

fucking phonies........


Mercury vaccines autism more fraud at the CDC Jon Rappoport s Blog


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 14, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Or your failure to say whether a satellite in orbit can take a picture of the Earth's sunlit side.
> ...


 
It can take a picture, or it can't?
Can it take an infrared picture of the sunlit side?
Do you feel infrared is reflected light from the sun?


----------



## mamooth (Oct 14, 2014)

IanC said:


> you really should do some basic research. incandescent bulbs are the only ones that follow the whole Planck Curve/ temperature defines radiation thing



You missed the point badly there ... oh wait, I missed the point, as you were addressing SSDD. Sorry about that, it's hard to follow the edits sometimes. Let me just resummarize for SSDD.

SSDD claims the bits inside the LED which are emitting the light are actually white-hot, which is why the LED can illuminate a hot object.

There's nothing magical about LED matter that gives it an exemption to Planck's law. If that LED matter actually is white-hot, then it will have the same kind of Planck curve as a white-hot tungsten filament.

The LED, however, does not have such an emission curve. Therefore, it is absolutely, positively not hot.

SSDD always tries to weasel away from that irrefutable point by whining about heat sinks, but that's a red herring. The LED bits don't have the Planck curve of a hot object, therefore they are not hot. Period. End of story.

And since the light from that cool LED can illuminate a hot object, SSDD's "energy can't flow from cool to hot" theory is decisively refuted.


----------



## mamooth (Oct 14, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> Just goes to show how beyond gone these AGW freaks are.......they claim to be staunch environmentalists.........but on the subject of mercury? Their attitude is "meh".
> 
> fucking phonies........



Skook, is there a even single moron conspiracy theory anywhere that you haven't fallen for? 

You're just a profoundly stupid human being. And there's nothing wrong with that, as long as you know your limits. There is, however, something wrong with your belligerent ignorance, which is inexcusable.

So, any other other deniers want to hop on skook's "Vaccines cause autism!" idiot bandwagon?


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 14, 2014)

mamooth said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Just goes to show how beyond gone these AGW freaks are.......they claim to be staunch environmentalists.........but on the subject of mercury? Their attitude is "meh".
> ...


 


Hey......the "official report" is always correct, isnt it s0n??!! Like on 9/11??!!!

Oh.........and after all, mercury is a very benign substance!!


----------



## jc456 (Oct 17, 2014)

mamooth said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Just goes to show how beyond gone these AGW freaks are.......they claim to be staunch environmentalists.........but on the subject of mercury? Their attitude is "meh".
> ...


 All vaccines make pharmaceutical companies money.  Whether or not they actually do any good is up for debate. I don't think the whole autism thing has been wound down yet.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 17, 2014)

jc456 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...




Consider, 
The Average Flu variant will change three to five times in one year.  The Pharmaceutical companies will then determine which variants are seen the most.  It takes 150-170 days to mass produce the vaccine. After which those flue variants will have changed 2 or three more times.

Some times they win and catch the right two strains but most times they get one. then there is that 40% area in which they get NONE.

But HEY!  they got BIG GOVERNMENT right behind them screaming get your flue shot...all the time knowing that it will help less than 30%.  Thats quite a large money haul for playing craps..


----------



## jc456 (Oct 17, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


Right?

Wait until this ebola things settles down.  All these intentional lapses of judgement by our government factions, is just plain out stupidity.  It looks so flippin intentional.  The lack of any direction or control when this issue was apparent six months ago.  Now we have a nurse at sea on a cruise ship, hmmm how many might she infect?  Oh wait, is she?  They don't know, yet they didn't quarantine her or her peers who worked on the dude in Dallas.  Now how fnn stupid is that?  I know there are most likely twelve year olds who would know better.  But our government?  Nope spread the disease.  They need us dependent.  it is their forte!!!!!!!!!! I'm really laughing, especially at the comment that grounding all flights from Africa will make the desease spread faster.  And then no follow up question, of how would that happen? That is our media.


----------



## Crick (Oct 18, 2014)

The influenza virus mutates annually because it exists in a cycle that moves between chickens and/or pigs in Asia to humans and back again.  More than one variety exist at any given time.  That is not the case with all viral diseases.  Smallpox, polio and measles have been taken from worldwide scourges to essentially non-existent by vaccine programs.  The evidence supporting a link between vaccines and autism simply does not exist.


----------



## Crick (Oct 18, 2014)




----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 18, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Have you figured out yet if a satellite in orbit can take a picture of the Earth's sunlit side?
> ...


 
You okay? You haven't injured yourself, have you?

Can a satellite in orbit take an infrared picture of the sunlit side of Earth?
Do you feel infrared is reflected light from the sun?


----------



## Crick (Oct 18, 2014)

Xenon flash tubes - the light source in all flashes, doesn't get hot.  It doesn't have time to do so.  I've never seen something it can't illuminate.


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 20, 2014)

still waiting for a single link displaying *how* the 97% *matters*..........we heard about this at least 10 years ago s0ns......10 years and its still nothing but a talking point. The policy makers are not caring........



Link please..........


Still talking light bulbs and vaccines here jerky's.....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 20, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Have you figured out yet if a satellite in orbit can take a picture of the Earth's sunlit side?
> ...


 
So that's it?
Infrared satellite images are the straw that broke the idiot's back?


----------



## Crick (Oct 23, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> still waiting for a single link displaying *how* the 97% *matters*..........we heard about this at least 10 years ago s0ns......10 years and its still nothing but a talking point. The policy makers are not caring...



It means that the overwhelming majority of the experts in this field accept AGW as a valid description of the workings of our climate.

It means you and yours are wrong.



skookerasbil said:


> Link please...



IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 23, 2014)

Crick said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > still waiting for a single link displaying *how* the 97% *matters*..........we heard about this at least 10 years ago s0ns......10 years and its still nothing but a talking point. The policy makers are not caring...
> ...


 
The overwhelming majority?
Then why is it only 75/77?


----------



## Crick (Oct 26, 2014)

Todd, you know better than that.

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
and
Surveys of scientists views on climate change - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 26, 2014)

Crick said:


> Todd, you know better than that.
> 
> Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> and
> Surveys of scientists views on climate change - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


 
I do know better.
That's why I mock the 97% claim whenever I see it.


----------



## Dot Com (Oct 26, 2014)

I can see deniers arguing over 70% or even 75% but 96% of all scientists calling them cranks has merit.


----------



## Crick (Oct 27, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Todd, you know better than that.
> ...



Yet the only specific poll you ever mention is Doran's.  There are numerous other polls, surveys and studies noted in those two articles, that all show results in the high 90s, and involve thousands of subjects.  Why do you reject them?

For instance, on what grounds do you reject the following?

*Powell, 2013*
James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[26] This was a follow-up to an analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed articles published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[27]

24/13,950 = 0.00172 or 0.172% rejection or 99.228% acceptance
1/9,136 = 0.000109 or 0.0109% or 99.9891% acceptance

Eh?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 27, 2014)

Crick said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


 
* and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming*

Do you think that means that 13,926 accepted AGW?
Or that 13,926 agree we should waste trillions on expensive, unreliable energy?


----------



## Crick (Oct 28, 2014)

No, it doesn't.  But the odds are extremely high that a very large percentage of that number DO accept AGW - as has been demonstrated explicitly elswhere.  And it does DIRECTLY demonstrate that the denier opinion is an EXTREME minority - LESS THAN ONE PERCENT of peer reviewed papers published over the last 22 years.  

If you think "Pal Review" could have attained that sort of purity, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 28, 2014)

Crick said:


> No, it doesn't.  But the odds are extremely high that a very large percentage of that number DO accept AGW - as has been demonstrated explicitly elswhere.  And it does DIRECTLY demonstrate that the denier opinion is an EXTREME minority - LESS THAN ONE PERCENT of peer reviewed papers published over the last 22 years.
> 
> If you think "Pal Review" could have attained that sort of purity, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.


 
*But the odds are extremely high that a very large percentage of that number DO accept AGW -*

AGWs are winning. That's why they have to continue cheating and lying.
That's okay, no one is interested in killing our economy to reduce temps in 2080 by 0.1 degrees.


----------



## Crick (Oct 29, 2014)

That's unresponsive.  The topic is the validity of the claim that 97% of active climate scientists accept AGW.  Numerous polls, surveys and studies all arrive at values in that neighborhood.  The ONLY poll, survey or study that arrives at anything different is the idiotic Legates claim that support is actually only 0.3%.  

Do you accept Legates conclusions?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 29, 2014)

Crick said:


> That's unresponsive.  The topic is the validity of the claim that 97% of active climate scientists accept AGW.  Numerous polls, surveys and studies all arrive at values in that neighborhood.  The ONLY poll, survey or study that arrives at anything different is the idiotic Legates claim that support is actually only 0.3%.
> 
> Do you accept Legates conclusions?


 
*The topic is the validity of the claim that 97% of active climate scientists accept AGW.*

If it's not 75/77, give me the correct fraction.


----------



## Crick (Oct 29, 2014)

The two Wikipedia articles have been presented to you on numerous occasions.  Have you never even reviewed them?  Please do so.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 29, 2014)

Crick said:


> The two Wikipedia articles have been presented to you on numerous occasions.  Have you never even reviewed them?  Please do so.


 
Thanks. They were funny.

A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at _Earth and Environmental Sciences_, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from *3,146* of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and *75* out of 77 believe that human activity is a *significant factor* in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. A summary from the survey states that:

I love that they managed to ignore 3069 replies, in order to get the garbage result that I mock.
And that "significant factor" is undefined.
Like I said, funny.


----------



## Crick (Oct 30, 2014)

I guess we can now conclude that you are fully aware there were numerous other polls, surveys and studies, with larger sample sizes, that arrived at essentially the exact same conclusion.  However, despite that awareness, you choose to continue commenting solely about Doran.

So, aside from the fact that you obviously lack the familiarity with statistics that would tell you Doran's results have significance (your comment that he "ignored 3069 replies" tells us you've never had a statistics class in your life), you want to pretend that those other studies don't exist.  That is, you choose to be dishonest.


----------



## IanC (Oct 30, 2014)

Crick said:


> I guess we can now conclude that you are fully aware there were numerous other polls, surveys and studies, with larger sample sizes, that arrived at essentially the exact same conclusion.  However, despite that awareness, you choose to continue commenting solely about Doran.
> 
> So, aside from the fact that you obviously lack the familiarity with statistics that would tell you Doran's results have significance (your comment that he "ignored 3069 replies" tells us you've never had a statistics class in your life), you want to pretend that those other studies don't exist.  That is, you choose to be dishonest.




it is an endless circle. every time one poll is shown to be lacking you go on to another one. after they have all been shown to be less than advertised you go away for a while. and then come back with the same talking points, as if it had never been discussed before.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 30, 2014)

Crick said:


> I guess we can now conclude that you are fully aware there were numerous other polls, surveys and studies, with larger sample sizes, that arrived at essentially the exact same conclusion.  However, despite that awareness, you choose to continue commenting solely about Doran.
> 
> So, aside from the fact that you obviously lack the familiarity with statistics that would tell you Doran's results have significance (your comment that he "ignored 3069 replies" tells us you've never had a statistics class in your life), you want to pretend that those other studies don't exist.  That is, you choose to be dishonest.


 
Yes, lots of silly surveys that aren't worth much.
We're not going to crush our economy to reduce CO2 a tiny amount.
Even if that makes you sad.

*your comment that he "ignored 3069 replies"*

You feel he didn't? Pleae elaborate.


----------



## Crick (Oct 31, 2014)

So YOU choose to ignore surveys of thousands of scientists.  Got it.

Doran didn't ignore any of this replies.  He categorized them according to each respondent's demographic information.  The 75 out of 79 were clearly identified as being "actively publishing climate scientists".  Those not included in that number did not meet that criteria.

Do you really find that so difficult to follow?  Or is it that you don't want to?

ADDENDUM:

Can you agree that of all the people that responded to Doran's survey, those 79 were the most qualified to speak to questions regarding the climate?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 31, 2014)

Crick said:


> So YOU choose to ignore surveys of thousands of scientists.  Got it.
> 
> Doran didn't ignore any of this replies.  He categorized them according to each respondent's demographic information.  The 75 out of 79 were clearly identified as being "actively publishing climate scientists".  Those not included in that number did not meet that criteria.
> 
> ...


 
*So YOU choose to ignore surveys of thousands of scientists. Got it.*

Crick, you got me all wrong. I'm not ignoring these silly, stupid surveys, I'm openly mocking them.
The only thing dumber, that I've seen lately, is old SSDD's insistence on smart emissions of photons and waves.

*Doran didn't ignore any of this replies.*

In that case, he should publish how many, out of 3,146 replies, agreed with his premise.

*Can you agree that of all the people that responded to Doran's survey, those 79 were the most qualified*

Based on the funny business exposed in the Climategate emails, I won't agree they were the most qualified.


----------



## Crick (Oct 31, 2014)

On what grounds do you mock the other surveys noted in the Wikipedia article?  

What do you think Doran's survey has to do with the emails stolen from the CRU server?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 31, 2014)

Crick said:


> On what grounds do you mock the other surveys noted in the Wikipedia article?
> 
> What do you think Doran's survey has to do with the emails stolen from the CRU server?


 
What is the definition of "Significant Factor"?

Based on emails talking about suppression of opposing viewpoints, I won't agree that only active publishers are qualified.


----------



## Crick (Oct 31, 2014)

Crick said:


> On what grounds do you mock the other surveys noted in the Wikipedia article?
> 
> What do you think Doran's survey has to do with the emails stolen from the CRU server?





Toddsterpatriot said:


> What is the definition of "Significant Factor"?



Taken out of context, I haven't the faintest idea.



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Based on emails talking about suppression of opposing viewpoints, I won't agree that only active publishers are qualified.



A single statement is made in a single email that suggests one climate scientist would like to see opposing views not get published.  Do you have any OTHER reason - any OTHER evidence - for assuming that NO opposing viewpoints get published in any science journal on the planet?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 31, 2014)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > On what grounds do you mock the other surveys noted in the Wikipedia article?
> ...


 
*75* out of 77 believe that human activity is a *significant factor* in changing mean global temperatures.


----------



## Crick (Oct 31, 2014)

You have no intention of treating this issue honestly, do you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 31, 2014)

Crick said:


> You have no intention of treating this issue honestly, do you.


 
I'm going to continue to mock silly warmer claims. Honestly.


----------



## Crick (Oct 31, 2014)

*Mock away*

*SCIENTIFIC OPINION ON CLIMATE CHANGE*

*Surveys of scientists and scientific literature[edit]*



Summary of opinions from climate and earth scientists regarding climate change.



Just over 97% of published climate researchers say humans are causing most global warming.[107][108][109]

In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. None of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."

In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service(STATS) at George Mason University. 97% of the scientists surveyed agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years; 84% said they personally believed human-induced warming was occurring, and 74% agreed that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiated its occurrence. 5% said they thought human activity did not contribute to greenhouse warming.[111][112][113][114]

To the question "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" the responses were 34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent, 15.1% to a small extent, and 1.35% not agreeing at all.

A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. Seventy-five of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

A 2010 paper in the _Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States_ (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:

(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.[118]

A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers matching "global warming" or "global climate change". They found 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming, and of these 97.1% endorsed the consensus position.[119]

James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[120] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[121]

SURVEYS OF SCIENTISTS VIEWS ON CLIMATE CHANGE

*Bray and von Storch, 2008*
Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 different countries.[11] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 373 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18.2%.

In the section on climate change impacts, questions 20, 21 were relevant to scientific opinion on climate change. Question 21 "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" received 34.6% very much convinced, 48.9% being convinced to a large extent (5–6), 15.1% to a small extent (2–4), and 1.35% not convinced at all.

*Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider, 2010*

A 2010 paper in the _Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States_(PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:

(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.[14]

*Farnsworth and Lichter, 2011*
In an October 2011 paper published in the _International Journal of Public Opinion Research_, researchers from George Mason University analyzed the results of a survey of 489 scientists working in academia, government, and industry. The scientists polled were members of the American Geophysical Union or the American Meteorological Society and listed in the 23rd edition of American Men and Women of Science, a biographical reference work on leading American scientists. Of those surveyed, 97% agreed that global temperatures have risen over the past century. Moreover, 84% agreed that "human-induced greenhouse warming" is now occurring. Only 5% disagreed with the idea that human activity is a significant cause of global warming.[17][18]

*John Cook et al., 2013*
Cook _et al._ examined 11,944 abstracts from the peer-reviewed scientific literature from 1991–2011 that matched the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. They found that, while 66.4% of them expressed no position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), of those that did, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are contributing to global warming. They also invited authors to rate their own papers and found that, while only 35.5% rated their paper as expressing no position on AGW, 97.2% of the rest endorsed the consensus. In both cases the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position was marginally increasing over time. They concluded that the number of papers actually rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.[21] Also, a reply to the criticism of the study was published, saying: "[critic] believes that every paper discussing the impacts of climate change should be placed in the 'no opinion' category".[22]

In their discussion of the results in 2007, the authors said that the large proportion of abstracts that state no position on AGW is as expected in a consensus situation,[23] adding that "the fundamental science of AGW is no longer controversial among the publishing science community and the remaining debate in the field has moved on to other topics."[21]

In _Science & Education_ in August 2013 David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the corpus used by Mr. Cook. In their assessment, "inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic."

However, as the paper took issue in the definition of consensus, the definition of consensus was split into several levels: In the end, of all the abstracts that took a position on the subject, 22.97 % and 72.50 % were found to take an explicit but unquantified endorsement position or an implicit endorsement position, respectively. The 0.3 % figure represents abstracts taking a position of "Actually endorsing the standard definition" of all the abstracts (1.02 % of all position-taking abstracts), where the "standard definition" was juxtaposed with an "unquantified definition" drawn from the 2013 Cook et al. paper as follows:


The unquantified definition: ‘‘The consensus position that humans are causing global warming’’
The standard definition: As stated in their introduction, that ‘‘human activity is very likely causing most of the current warming (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW)’’
Criticism was also subjected to the "arbitrary" disclusion of non-position-taking abstracts as well as other issues of definitions. [24]

Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils-Axel Mörner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, also are cited as Climate scientists who assert that Cook misrepresented their work.[25]

*Powell, 2013*
James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[26] This was a follow-up to an analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed articles published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[27]​


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 31, 2014)

I will.


----------



## Crick (Nov 1, 2014)

Tell us something Todd: if you were to achieve the greatest likely success "mocking" these studies, what would you hope to demonstrate?  That is, what do YOU think is the actual acceptance of AGW among climate experts?  Do you believe it is accepted by less than half of all climate experts?  Do you think you can demonstrate that?  Do you think anyone can honestly demonstrate that?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 1, 2014)

Maybe we'll get some real science, instead of liberals stomping their feet and whining, "The science is settled".


----------



## Crick (Nov 1, 2014)

The science behind AR5 is not liberals stomping their feet.

What science do you think the world currently lacks?  What do you believe is not now being adequately studied?


----------

